![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 11 to 35 of 35. Go back in thread:
Posted by Kali Munro on August 4, 2004, at 21:11:23
In reply to Re: A question for members... » Kali Munro, posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2004, at 21:02:35
Um, no I didn't, but thanks for letting me know! I'll go and check right now.
Kali
Posted by Kali Munro on August 4, 2004, at 21:49:06
In reply to Re: A question for members... » Kali Munro, posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2004, at 21:02:35
I love that phrase: "emotional sunscreen"
Thanks for sharing it,
Kali
Posted by partlycloudy on August 5, 2004, at 6:55:47
In reply to A question for members..., posted by Kali Munro on August 4, 2004, at 20:57:38
I know that my buttons get pushed when I post an experience I had during therapy, and a reply debates the validity of the therapy modality, rather than making a comment on my experience. I feel side swiped by having my treatment questioned, and angered that someone would chose a post where I am sharing to make their point.
pc
Posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 5, 2004, at 7:59:11
In reply to emotional sunscreen, posted by Kali Munro on August 4, 2004, at 21:49:06
Posted by gardenergirl on August 5, 2004, at 8:36:45
In reply to emotional sunscreen, posted by Kali Munro on August 4, 2004, at 21:49:06
Thanks. I can't take full credit for it, though, because it was my therapist who came up with the "sunburned" metaphor for my sensitivity in the first place.
gg
Posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 5, 2004, at 8:59:47
In reply to Re: emotional sunscreen, posted by gardenergirl on August 5, 2004, at 8:36:45
Posted by Toph on August 5, 2004, at 15:11:21
In reply to A question for members..., posted by Kali Munro on August 4, 2004, at 20:57:38
In my brief foray here, I have struggled with how a member can responnd in a civil way to a post that is intentionally hurtful, false, bigoted, sarcastic, contentious and/or insulting. Most group therapeutic milieux allow members some ability to police themselves.
Posted by Kali Munro on August 5, 2004, at 22:24:53
In reply to Re: A question for members... » Kali Munro, posted by partlycloudy on August 5, 2004, at 6:55:47
I hear you! You don't get a response that is specific to what you posted about -- your experience in therapy -- but instead you are "instructed" about your choice of treatment. That's not what you were looking for. A poster who is critical of your treatment could, in another thread, ask you whether or not you'd like to hear his/her concerns -- much like asking someone if they are open to hearing some feedback. Then it's up to you whether or not you want to hear the concerns/critique and you're prepared rather than "side swiped".
Kali
Posted by Kali Munro on August 6, 2004, at 11:38:52
In reply to Re: A question for members..., posted by Toph on August 5, 2004, at 15:11:21
>>>>In my brief foray here, I have struggled with how a member can responnd in a civil way to a post that is intentionally hurtful, false, bigoted, sarcastic, contentious and/or insulting. Most group therapeutic milieux allow members some ability to police themselves.<<<<<
For sure, and I think it's useful for all of us to learn how to "police" within the communities we participate, and not simply wait for the moderator to do it.
I think it can be really hard to know whether or not someone is *intending" to be hurtful, etc. and at other times it's not hard at all, after all if someone says "you're stupid", we know pretty clearly they're trying to hurt us (even if they don't know they are!)
But unless the person is really obvious we may assume that the person is doing it intentionally when he/she may not be meaning to do it. They may not be highly empathic, or tuned into their own feelings and that of others, they may be so wrapped up in their own pain that they don't connect to other people's feelings etc. I'm not saying that it's okay to be rude and insensitive, just that people may not be acting as intentionally as we may think they are. The reason I say that is usually we are more hurt or angry when we think someone is trying to hurt us than when we think that they're out of touch, or insensitive but weren't actively trying to hurt us.
In terms of a response, well...you could say:
*"Wow, that really hurt me!" (Sometimes being short and simple is best because they get the most important part of your message and there's nothing to argue with!)
*"I think those kinds of remarks are prejudicial against women, black people, etc. because they cast women/black people etc. in a negative and false light. It's against the rules to make prejudicial comments." (assuming it is!)
*"I think so and so's post is provocative, argumentative, or uncivil (you might want to say why, or not) and I suggest that as a group we not engage with his/her post and continue on as we were. What do other people think?"
*I find your remark:...to be sarcastic, could you say it in a different way please?" (that might sound like a moderator but, hey, everyone could take on aspects of the moderating role, no?)
Do you think any of those would work for you?
Kali
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2004, at 11:44:12
In reply to Toph » Toph, posted by Kali Munro on August 6, 2004, at 11:38:52
The last two would probably get Toph a PBC. We're not allowed to negatively characterize a post or poster. Only to make "I" statements. :)
Posted by Kali Munro on August 6, 2004, at 12:42:19
In reply to Re: Chuckle » Kali Munro, posted by Dinah on August 6, 2004, at 11:44:12
>>>>The last two would probably get Toph a PBC. We're not allowed to negatively characterize a post or poster. Only to make "I" statements. :)<<<<
PBC? I take it that is some kind of reprimand, oops. :) If that's the case, Bob, please forgive me! ;)*I* think that the following are "I" statements unless "I" statements are meant only to be "I feel" statements.
>>>>>*"I think so and so's post is provocative, argumentative, or uncivil (you might want to say why, or not)..."
*I find your remark:...to be sarcastic, could you say it in a different way please?" <<<<<<
I think if the above was stated as "YOU are..." or even "I THINK you are provocative, argumentative, uncivil, or sarcastic" then they would not be "I" statements because they are about the person rather than the content of the post.
The person on the receiving end has the option of disagreeing and saying, "I don't think it was a sarcastic remark and I don't want to change it."
So, does that mean in the context of something warranting an intervention from Bob (which was how I read the original question), members are not allowed to say that they think the content of the post (I agree it's about the content of the post, not the person) is uncivil?
Kali
Posted by AuntieMel on August 6, 2004, at 12:45:35
In reply to Re: Chuckle » Kali Munro, posted by Dinah on August 6, 2004, at 11:44:12
Posted by partlycloudy on August 6, 2004, at 13:04:13
In reply to Re: actually the last three would get a pbc (nm) » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on August 6, 2004, at 12:45:35
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2004, at 13:23:46
In reply to Re: Chuckle » Dinah, posted by Kali Munro on August 6, 2004, at 12:42:19
> So, does that mean in the context of something warranting an intervention from Bob (which was how I read the original question), members are not allowed to say that they think the content of the post (I agree it's about the content of the post, not the person) is uncivil?
>
> KaliQuite right. :) I've seen far too many people get Please Be Civils or blocks for responding that way to a post.
We're allowed to say "I feel hurt when I read your post." We are not allowed to say "I feel your post was hurtful" or "I feel the contents of that post were hurtful". I'm not sure about "I feel hurt *by* your post." It's verbal gymnastics that requires that we take total responsibility for our feelings in our remarks, and does not allow for the reference to the post or poster to be in any way negative.
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2004, at 13:24:25
In reply to Re: Chuckle » Dinah, posted by Kali Munro on August 6, 2004, at 12:42:19
Posted by Kali Munro on August 6, 2004, at 14:48:39
In reply to Re: Chuckle, posted by Dinah on August 6, 2004, at 13:23:46
>>>>We're allowed to say "I feel hurt when I read your post." We are not allowed to say "I feel your post was hurtful" or "I feel the contents of that post were hurtful". I'm not sure about "I feel hurt *by* your post." It's verbal gymnastics that requires that we take total responsibility for our feelings in our remarks, and does not allow for the reference to the post or poster to be in any way negative.>>>>>
I see. Thanks for that clarification. :)
I imagine the concern with commenting on someone's post is that it how one experiences a post is open to interpretation. What one member might find hurtful, another might not. The thinking is that you may have *felt* hurt reading the post but the post isn't necessarily hurtful. I agree with that to a point -- given we all perceive things from our own perspectives bringing our histories and experiences to everything we read -- although at some point the content crosses a line and is viewed as hurtful or uncivil but, from what I'm hearing, members are asked not to comment on that and leave it to Bob to make that call. So, then to answer the question, in this context, the answer would be to notify Bob?
Kali
Posted by Shar on August 6, 2004, at 16:02:34
In reply to Re: Chuckle, posted by Kali Munro on August 6, 2004, at 14:48:39
>So, then to answer the question, in this context, the answer would be to notify Bob?
Yes, you are probably right. However, posters can be hurt badly by another's cruel post, and the one who does the hurting may or may not get a 'please be civil' or be blocked -- it would depend on how the cruel post was worded. It might be considered just fine, if properly worded. Yet, the damage (the hurt) has already been inflicted.
And the hurtee has no recourse except to say 'I feel hurt' or notify Bob (who may not find the cruel post to be cruel) when I think it would be wonderful for people to be able to stand up for themselves, be able to express anger in a reasonable, assertive manner--just as one might do in real life.
Folks here, who are already not at their peak performance levels, and some who have been severely traumatized--in my humble opinion--need to be empowered to protect themselves; not to be expected to 'stuff it' when that may be exactly what they are trying to learn not to do.
But that's just my 2 cents. Dinah has a good bead on the verbal gymnastics required to post here.
Now, in order to try not to get a PBC myself, let me qualify this by saying I'm speaking only hypothetically, and that everything I've said can be rightly ignored and discounted fully. No harm was meant to anyone, and I love everybody deeply and wish everybody well, even the people I don't know yet.
Shar
> >>>>We're allowed to say "I feel hurt when I read your post." We are not allowed to say "I feel your post was hurtful" or "I feel the contents of that post were hurtful". I'm not sure about "I feel hurt *by* your post." It's verbal gymnastics that requires that we take total responsibility for our feelings in our remarks, and does not allow for the reference to the post or poster to be in any way negative.>>>>>
>
> I see. Thanks for that clarification. :)
>
> I imagine the concern with commenting on someone's post is that it how one experiences a post is open to interpretation. What one member might find hurtful, another might not. The thinking is that you may have *felt* hurt reading the post but the post isn't necessarily hurtful. I agree with that to a point -- given we all perceive things from our own perspectives bringing our histories and experiences to everything we read -- although at some point the content crosses a line and is viewed as hurtful or uncivil but, from what I'm hearing, members are asked not to comment on that and leave it to Bob to make that call. So, then to answer the question, in this context, the answer would be to notify Bob?
>
> Kali
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2004, at 17:02:31
In reply to Re: Chuckle, posted by Dinah on August 6, 2004, at 13:23:46
> We're allowed to say "I feel hurt when I read your post." We are not allowed to say "I feel your post was hurtful" or "I feel the contents of that post were hurtful". I'm not sure about "I feel hurt *by* your post." It's verbal gymnastics...
Think of it also as cognitive gymnastics? Gymnastics can be a good workout...
Bob
Posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 6, 2004, at 17:55:30
In reply to Re: gymnastics, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2004, at 17:02:31
Posted by gardenergirl on August 6, 2004, at 21:23:27
In reply to Re: gymnastics, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2004, at 17:02:31
>
> Think of it also as cognitive gymnastics? Gymnastics can be a good workout...
>
> BobDr. Bob,
I feel unsatisfied reading this response. I can't decide if it was meant to be funny or if it is meant that we all need to "work out" our communication skills. Either way, I feel like I have no better understanding of the reasons for such a fine semantic line with civility.gg
Posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 6, 2004, at 22:28:53
In reply to Re: gymnastics, posted by gardenergirl on August 6, 2004, at 21:23:27
Oh, tell me it isn't so. I had a nightmare that I was in a fishbowl like place. Me and the others were chatting and someone was just observing us for cognitive purposes. We had to follow the rules, but they were outside the bowl in the observers mind. We were all confused. Where is the rule book others kept saying? Some thought they knew? Others thought that it was some sort of mice experiment? No.... Nooo.... not the Mice again........Wake up ShadowPlayers. Everything is okay now. Whew!!!
Okay, so where's I....Oh, cognitive gymnastics
GG, I agree. That's sounds like a philosophical thing and is unclear. Okay - cognitive (mental) gymnastics (workout) mental workout on-line. hmmmm but that question mark there. tap, tap. What's up with the question mark? Oh, no. I feel my brain sweating again... Gees!!
Oh, no- my pet just looked like a mouse in a fish bowl thing. ^^^^ShadowPlayers are taking off-line.....
Posted by tabitha on August 7, 2004, at 4:09:15
In reply to Re: Chuckle, posted by Dinah on August 6, 2004, at 13:23:46
So do you suppose Dr Bob is thinking to himself, 'Hmmm... if even a professional therapist with expertise in online conflict gets tripped up by my civility rules, then perhaps they're a bit too strict?'
?
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2004, at 10:40:26
In reply to Re: gymnastics, posted by gardenergirl on August 6, 2004, at 21:23:27
> I feel unsatisfied reading this response...
I don't want to interrupt this thread, so let's redirect any further discussion of gymnastics to a separate one:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040717/msgs/375041.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2004, at 9:43:28
In reply to Re: Thanks for clarifying, posted by Kali Munro on August 4, 2004, at 20:15:09
> Feel free to ask me questions or share your thoughts and ideas on the subject of conflict resolution.
Thanks for doing this, I thought it was really interesting. And conflicts will be easier to resolve now, right? :-)
Bob
Posted by Kali Munro on August 10, 2004, at 19:28:04
In reply to Re: Thanks for visiting » Kali Munro, posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2004, at 9:43:28
>>>>> Thanks for doing this, I thought it was really interesting. And conflicts will be easier to resolve now, right? :-)
Bob <<<<<<
But, of course! :)You're welcome, I enjoyed being here.
Kali
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.