![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 29. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by notfred on October 6, 2006, at 0:51:35
> Some people might not feel hurt by a block because:
>
> - They were ready for a Babble break
> - They wanted to be blocked (to do more IRL). I guess this is related to the first point.
> - They think they deserved the block.
> - They knew they were going to be blocked for what they said, but they posted it anyway.
>
Some people are mostly providers of information and support. They may have developed support systems and friendships IRL. They do not stand to loose much if blocked, one could say Babble is the one that looses if they are blocked. (Cam, Lar)
Support comes in many forms & does not mean always agreeing, de facto, with what others say. The wise man does not surround himself only with people who agree with him all them time.Some may feel strongly that some truths must be said and accept the consequences of their actions.
We do not call whisle blowers sociopaths. Nor is it fair to call anyone a sociopath because they do not have the same emotional reactions as others.
It is ironic that this happens on a MI board. Where else is there a great variety of different
feelings and emotional responses ?Sociopath is a very hurtful word and it seems ironic to see it used to describe others in the context of describing how you feel others actions have hurt you and the hurt you feel.
Posted by notfred on October 6, 2006, at 1:11:11
In reply to Blocks, hurt, and sociopaths, posted by notfred on October 6, 2006, at 0:51:35
Manipulative and Conning
Grandiose Sense of Self
Pathological Lying
Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
Incapable of real human attachment to another
They scapegoat; they are incapable of either having the insight or willingness to accept responsibility for anything they do. Whatever the problem, it is always someone else's faultDSM-IV Definition
Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or sociopaths.
Diagnostic Criteria (DSM-IV)
1. Since the age of fifteen there has been a disregard for and violation of the right's of others, those right's considered normal by the local culture, as indicated by at least three of the following:
A. Repeated acts that could lead to arrest.
B. Conning for pleasure or profit, repeated lying, or the use of aliases.
C. Failure to plan ahead or being impulsive.
D. Repeated assaults on others.
E. Reckless when it comes to their or others safety.
F. Poor work behavior or failure to honor financial obligations.
G. Rationalizing the pain they inflict on others.2. At least eighteen years in age.
3. Evidence of a Conduct Disorder, with its onset before the age of fifteen.
4. Symptoms not due to another mental disorder.These people are mentally ill and extremely dangerous! The following precautions will help to protect you from the destructive acts of which they are capable.
First, to recognize them, keep the following guidelines in mind.
(1) They are habitual liars. They seem incapable of either knowing or telling the truth about anything.
(2) They are egotistical to the point of narcissism. They really believe they are set apart from the rest of humanity by some special grace.
(3) They scapegoat; they are incapable of either having the insight or willingness to accept responsibility for anything they do. Whatever the problem, it is always someone else's fault.
(4) They are remorselessly vindictive when thwarted or exposed.
(5) Genuine religious, moral, or other values play no part in their lives. They have no empathy for others and are capable of violence. Under older psychological terminology, they fall into the category of psychopath or sociopath, but unlike the typical psychopath, their behavior is masked by a superficial social facade.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 6, 2006, at 1:38:01
In reply to Definitions for sociopath, posted by notfred on October 6, 2006, at 1:11:11
these boards are for people with mental illness.
antisocial personality is a mental illness.
there are people with a dx of antisocial personality on these boards.
in recovery...
who may feel hurt.
>Manipulative and Conning
Grandiose Sense of Self
Pathological Lying
Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
Incapable of real human attachment to another
They scapegoat; they are incapable of either having the insight or willingness to accept responsibility for anything they do. Whatever the problem, it is always someone else's fault
Posted by Racer on October 6, 2006, at 2:23:05
In reply to Re: please be sensitive » notfred, posted by alexandra_k on October 6, 2006, at 1:38:01
> these boards are for people with mental illness.
>
> antisocial personality is a mental illness.
>
> there are people with a dx of antisocial personality on these boards.
>
> in recovery...
>
> who may feel hurt.
>
Those are good points, Alex, as usual.I'd like to point out, though, that NotFred -- whose name always intrigues me, because my mother used to call me Fred sometimes ;-) -- was not saying that anyone here was a sociopath, had ASPD, or even that the definitions were correct. He posted the definitions.
In his earlier post on the subject, I believe he was expressing his own hurt at his own perception of possibly receiving an intimation that the definition applied to him. I don't think he was intimating that it applied to anyone else.
This is all just me, you know, trying to pour some oil on these troubled waters. It's extra virgin olive oil, so you're getting the good stuff. ;-)
Posted by notfred on October 6, 2006, at 8:09:06
In reply to Re: please be sensitive » alexandra_k, posted by Racer on October 6, 2006, at 2:23:05
> I'd like to point out, though, that NotFred -- whose name always intrigues me, because my mother used to call me Fred sometimes ;-) -- was not saying that anyone here was a sociopath, had ASPD, or even that the definitions were correct. He posted the definitions.
DSM defs, at that ! I hope is does not mean the DSM is now uncivil to post.
>
> In his earlier post on the subject, I believe he was expressing his own hurt at his own perception of possibly receiving an intimation that the definition applied to him. I don't think he was intimating that it applied to anyone else.
>
Thanks Racer; you are 100% right about my intentions. I do not think anyone here is a
sociopath and am sorry anyone felt I was calling anyone on this board a sociopath.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 6, 2006, at 9:31:50
In reply to Thanks, Racer, posted by notfred on October 6, 2006, at 8:09:06
Yeah, point taken Racer and NotFred.
I know NotFred wasn't meaning to call anyone here a sociopath.
But the DSM defines sociopath as antisocial personality disorder and I've met at least one person on these boards who has said that they have been dx'd with antisocial personality disorder. I guess I was concerned about the stereotype of sociopathy (aka antisocial personality) in the same way I'd be concerned about the stereotype of borderline personality if someone were to say that someones behaviour was borderline then cite some reference that characterised borderline personality as a disorder characterised by manipulating others.I'm sorry NotFred if you thought Deneb was implying all people who didn't feel hurt had antisocial personality. I hope her clarification cleared things up.
> sorry anyone felt I was calling anyone on this board a sociopath.
People on these boards have been diagnosed with sociopathy (aka antisocial personality disorder). I was concerned about your characterisation of people who meet dx criteria for the disorder.
The bit I quoted...
Was that you or the DSM?
Yes. The DSM is judgemental in places. Hell, if the bible can be uncivil then why not the DSM?
Posted by SLS on October 6, 2006, at 10:14:10
In reply to Re: Thanks, Racer, posted by alexandra_k on October 6, 2006, at 9:31:50
> But the DSM defines sociopath as antisocial personality disorderIs that the same thing as what was once called a psychopath?
- Scott
Posted by notfred on October 6, 2006, at 12:25:02
In reply to Re: Thanks, Racer, posted by alexandra_k on October 6, 2006, at 9:31:50
>
> I'm sorry NotFred if you thought Deneb was implying all people who didn't feel hurt had antisocial personality. I hope her clarification cleared things up.
Unless I am missing something, I only saw a clarification for pepple with antisocial personality, with no exclusion for me. Could you point this out to me, I am really hoping I massed it.>
> Was that you or the DSM?
DSM and other auth. sources, per the link at the bottom of the page.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 6, 2006, at 17:09:41
In reply to Re: Thanks, Racer, posted by notfred on October 6, 2006, at 12:25:02
> Unless I am missing something, I only saw a clarification for pepple with antisocial personality, with no exclusion for me. Could you point this out to me, I am really hoping I massed it.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/692299.html
>>I was not saying that people who are not hurt by blocks are sociopaths.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 6, 2006, at 17:10:40
In reply to Re: Thanks, Racer, posted by SLS on October 6, 2006, at 10:14:10
> Is that the same thing as what was once called a psychopath?Yes. Though beware of hollywood stereotypes.
Posted by Racer on October 6, 2006, at 17:34:16
In reply to Re: Thanks, Racer, posted by alexandra_k on October 6, 2006, at 17:10:40
Posted by notfred on October 6, 2006, at 18:06:14
In reply to Re: Thanks, Racer » notfred, posted by alexandra_k on October 6, 2006, at 17:09:41
Yea !!!!!!!!!! I totally missed that. Sorry about that.
Posted by Phillipa on October 6, 2006, at 22:02:25
In reply to Re: Thanks, Racer, posted by SLS on October 6, 2006, at 10:14:10
Yup think so but getting out of here it feels so unsafe. Love Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on October 6, 2006, at 22:05:20
In reply to Re: Thanks, Racer » SLS, posted by Phillipa on October 6, 2006, at 22:02:25
Didn't see the change in subject. Sorry Racer.Love Phillipa ps see I need to get off this board fast!!!!!
Posted by capricorn on October 16, 2006, at 23:13:00
In reply to Blocks, hurt, and sociopaths, posted by notfred on October 6, 2006, at 0:51:35
> > Some people might not feel hurt by a block because:
> >
> > - They were ready for a Babble break
> > - They wanted to be blocked (to do more IRL). I guess this is related to the first point.
> > - They think they deserved the block.
> > - They knew they were going to be blocked for what they said, but they posted it anyway.
> >
>
>
> Some people are mostly providers of information and support. They may have developed support systems and friendships IRL. They do not stand to loose much if blocked, one could say Babble is the one that looses if they are blocked. (Cam, Lar)
> Support comes in many forms & does not mean always agreeing, de facto, with what others say. The wise man does not surround himself only with people who agree with him all them time.
>
> Some may feel strongly that some truths must be said and accept the consequences of their actions.
> We do not call whisle blowers sociopaths. Nor is it fair to call anyone a sociopath because they do not have the same emotional reactions as others.
> It is ironic that this happens on a MI board. Where else is there a great variety of different
> feelings and emotional responses ?
>
> Sociopath is a very hurtful word and it seems ironic to see it used to describe others in the context of describing how you feel others actions have hurt you and the hurt you feel.
>
>I have an emotional dyregulation problem.I also tend to post a lot of useful information to a number of forums.Unfortunately from time to time i lose the plot big time. It's part of my symptom profile. It's funny how some symptoms are more acceptable than others even though none of us get to choose the symptoms we have.
You never get to see someone blocked or banned from a forum(not specifically Babble)for being depressed and yet depression is no more or less a valid symptom than emotional volatility.Much is rightly made about dicrimination and mental illness but it is beyond an reasonable intellectual debate that a form of apartheid occurs when it comes to the tolerance shown to some symptoms/behaviours of mental illness over others.
It is one reason i have an ambivalent view of all mental health forums. It's in my altruistic nature to try and help but i am very wary of mh forums because of the invariably negative response i receive when ironically i need the most support because i am struggling the most with the kind of things that make me mentally ill.
Posted by gardenergirl on October 16, 2006, at 23:27:14
In reply to Re: Blocks, hurt, and sociopaths, posted by capricorn on October 16, 2006, at 23:13:00
I think you bring up an important issue, though I'd probably separate emotion from behavior. But I think I understand what you are saying.
Is there any way you could somehow let us know when things are getting rough for you, and maybe let us know how we could help or otherwise support you?
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2006, at 23:34:44
In reply to Re: Blocks, hurt, and sociopaths, posted by capricorn on October 16, 2006, at 23:13:00
> You never get to see someone blocked or banned from a forum ... for being depressed and yet depression is no more or less a valid symptom than emotional volatility.
>
> i am very wary of mh forums because of the invariably negative response i receive when ironically i need the most support because i am struggling the most with the kind of things that make me mentally ill.That's an interesting perspective. I do think different kinds of support may be more or less helpful for different kinds of symptoms.
Bob
Posted by capricorn on October 17, 2006, at 10:06:08
In reply to Re: Blocks, hurt, and sociopaths » capricorn, posted by gardenergirl on October 16, 2006, at 23:27:14
> I think you bring up an important issue, though I'd probably separate emotion from behavior. But I think I understand what you are saying.
>
> Is there any way you could somehow let us know when things are getting rough for you, and maybe let us know how we could help or otherwise support you?
>
> gg
Have you ever comsidered the option of a 'resting room' forum where you can voluntarily put yourself if you are losing it or just don't feel up to the main forums or can be put in by site owner/mods. You can sound off there but don't have access to other areas.Other people can choose to 'visit' you in there but for the purpose of being supportive rather than tearing you off a strip or two.I think there needs to be a distinction between various faux pas ie there is a qualitative difference between expressing an honestly held view that falls foul of the 'I statement' ethos of these boards,going off on one because you are emotionally volatile/manic etc but you are not generally a bad person,and cold and calculated trolling.
Even when ok i tend to find the 'I statement' policy rather daunting and in my opinion feel that
there is a danger of alienating or 'demonising'(for want of a better word) otherwise
decent people by blocking them for the failure to
get to grips with it.
In effect people are admonished/punished for what is an 'error of presentation' rather than necessarily intended malice.Sometimes it is important to remember that the quality of the wine inside the decanter is more important than the quality of the decanter itself.
Indeed if too much time is spent worrying over the
decanter less wine will be enjoyed.
Posted by Phillipa on October 17, 2006, at 17:02:09
In reply to Re: Blocks, hurt, and sociopaths, posted by capricorn on October 17, 2006, at 10:06:08
Sort of like a time out room? Love Phillipa
Posted by capricorn on October 17, 2006, at 18:50:33
In reply to Re: Blocks, hurt, and sociopaths » capricorn, posted by Phillipa on October 17, 2006, at 17:02:09
> Sort of like a time out room? Love Phillipa
Yes. Not really appropriate for people just not good at adhering to the 'I statement' dogma
of this group or for trolls but a place where people
can be put or put themselves when they are not functioning well within the main boards.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 19, 2006, at 7:34:40
In reply to Re: Blocks, hurt, and sociopaths, posted by capricorn on October 17, 2006, at 10:06:08
> Have you ever comsidered the option of a 'resting room' forum where you can voluntarily put yourself if you are losing it or just don't feel up to the main forums or can be put in by site owner/mods. You can sound off there but don't have access to other areas.Other people can choose to 'visit' you in there but for the purpose of being supportive rather than tearing you off a strip or two.
That's an interesting idea. People could sound off, but would need to be supportive?
Bob
Posted by muffled on October 19, 2006, at 11:19:52
In reply to Re: resting room, posted by Dr. Bob on October 19, 2006, at 7:34:40
> > Have you ever comsidered the option of a 'resting room' forum where you can voluntarily put yourself if you are losing it or just don't feel up to the main forums or can be put in by site owner/mods. You can sound off there but don't have access to other areas.Other people can choose to 'visit' you in there but for the purpose of being supportive rather than tearing you off a strip or two.
>
> That's an interesting idea. People could sound off, but would need to be supportive?
>
> Bob***So a resting room is to sound off, OR is it to rest?
I don't understand.
If we need to express kinda bad thots, we can goto the wrtiting board.
If we want to torture ourselves we can goto Admin ;0
If you want to have a 'discussion' you can goto politics.
You wanto just play, goto social....
And so on.
It would seem to me we have ENOUGH boards.
What we need is to maybe have a little more leniency about blocking on certain boards. (eg. politics, writing) There should be FAR more leniency given the nature of those boards. It could even be written clearly on top that these boards could possibly be more intense and therefore possibly triggering to some.
Mebbe more use of pbc's on those boards rather than blocks.
In that way those boards could be a place of genuine discussion and expression, and also of learning how to better communicate by way of notification by pbc's.
Then if those are not heeded, then perhaps short, but escalating blocks as necessary.
Mebbe a diff. blocking formula for those boards.
My thots.
Posted by Phillipa on October 19, 2006, at 19:43:10
In reply to Re: resting room » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on October 19, 2006, at 11:19:52
I really believe that the writing board should be a safe place to say what's on your mind without fear of a block. Almost like journaling your thoughts. Not a therapist wouldn't discourage a person from writing what if not gotten out could be something awful. Yes a trigger at the top of the page would definitely be a good idea. And no one forces you to read that or any board. It's you're choice and if you can't feel stable or able to handle someone who is pain and their only their thoughts then don't go there. Love Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2006, at 15:51:18
In reply to Re: resting room » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on October 19, 2006, at 11:19:52
> So a resting room is to sound off, OR is it to rest?
> I don't understand.It's not clear to me, either, it was capricorn's idea...
> What we need is to maybe have a little more leniency about blocking on certain boards.
> In that way those boards could be a place of genuine discussion and expressionThe thing is, genuine expression may be uncivil and may not foster genuine discussion at all.
IMO, if people on are more sensitive about certain issues, then being civil would seem to be more important and less leniency would seem to be called for.
Bob
Posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 0:28:46
In reply to Re: resting room, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2006, at 15:51:18
> > What we need is to maybe have a little more leniency about blocking on certain boards.
> > In that way those boards could be a place of genuine discussion and expression
>
> The thing is, genuine expression may be uncivil and may not foster genuine discussion at all.**Ahhhh, but too much repression and worry about civility ALSO may not foster genuine discussion either...
>
> IMO, if people on are more sensitive about certain issues, then being civil would seem to be more important and less leniency would seem to be called for.***Hmmmmmm?????????
Can you rephrease that? I don't understand what your saying here?
Guessing......
My reply would be that we DO for the most part try and be civil here. People here tend to be quite understanding for the most part. I think some beneficial threads to me have been ones where there is dissention, and then its worked out. Kindly, sweetly, WONDERFULLY.
We are human. And humans by their very nature will hurt each other. Purposefully or not. Its just the way we are.
Hurt happens.
Hurt done INTENTIONALLY is not so nice.
Hmmmmmm.
Muffled
Go forward in 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.