![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 57 to 81 of 89. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 16, 2003, at 18:57:22
In reply to Re: where to draw the line » Dr. Bob, posted by Noa on January 16, 2003, at 17:00:55
> I believe the writer was trying to say he thought some person's life had become centered around desire for money, and that the flawed desire grew from the person's historic cultural enviornment. Whether the writer was accurate or not, we benefit from understanding and exploring the expressed opinion. We need the opinion expressed in terms we can use. In practical dialogue, "asshole" is about useless as a descriptive term.
>
> To ban criticism of others because others might hurt from the criticism impairs our ability to criticize ourselves. Requirements that criticism, whether flawed or accurate, be expressed in reasonably accurate laguage improves our ability to correct our own flaws.
>
> Mitchell[13.75 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level]
So that's an argument for more rephrasing and less blocking...
> I think that to expect to find the exact line is not realistic and ends up trivializing the whole matter.
> I think it is like what the Supreme Court Justice said about smut--and I paraphrase--"I can't define it but I know it when I see it".
>
> NoaI already have that quote in the FAQ -- and it's already been the topic of some discussion itself. Somehow I got off course with this, but I think you all have righted me. It's been interesting to have said to me what I myself have said to others! Sorry again about all the disruption.
Bob
Posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 19:59:56
In reply to Re: where to draw the line, posted by Dr. Bob on January 16, 2003, at 18:57:22
>
Bob I don't understand what you are saying could you please rephrase? Or could someone else try and explain it to me? I'm not trying to be difficult I honestly don't understand what you are saying.What do you mean you got off course? How have we righted you?Do you mean by that quote that your rulings about racism will be guided by your subjective feelings rather than reason and that your perception is the only one that matters? In that case why have all these discussions? (Not that I don't enjoy them). But what if someone percieves "smut" and you don't or you percieve "smut" but no one else does ? Are you trying to say that you are Supreme Court and there will be no appeals?
>
> So that's an argument for more rephrasing and less blocking...
>
> > I think that to expect to find the exact line is not realistic and ends up trivializing the whole matter.
> > I think it is like what the Supreme Court Justice said about smut--and I paraphrase--"I can't define it but I know it when I see it".
> >
> > Noa
>
> I already have that quote in the FAQ -- and it's already been the topic of some discussion itself. Somehow I got off course with this, but I think you all have righted me. It's been interesting to have said to me what I myself have said to others! Sorry again about all the disruption.
Posted by Noa on January 16, 2003, at 20:27:11
In reply to Re: where to draw the line » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 19:59:56
>>So that's an argument for more rephrasing and less blocking...<<
No and yes, I guess would be my opinion.
I think that the first line of action would be one of education--point out that a remark is seen as offensive, ask the poster to leave those kinds of comments out.
Rephrasing? It depends what you are referring to here. Perhaps to rephrase, but not in the way you proposed earlier in this thread, to which I had objected--which seemed more like a political correctness paint job.
But I never saw blocking as the first line of action by any means. Only in the case of someone who, once having it pointed out, refuses to respect the issue and continues to use offensive language.
This really is an opportunity for education, but the education has to have limits to go with it.
I'm glad you are now understanding what I was trying to say (and what others were trying to say). Thanks.
Posted by Mitchell on January 18, 2003, at 8:40:59
In reply to Re: where to draw the line, posted by Dr. Bob on January 16, 2003, at 18:57:22
> > To ban criticism of others because others might hurt from the criticism impairs our ability to criticize ourselves. Requirements that criticism, whether flawed or accurate, be expressed in reasonably accurate laguage improves our ability to correct our own flaws.
> >
> > Mitchell>
> So that's an argument for more rephrasing and less blocking...
>
> Bob
It is at least a suggestion that we need better language skills in groups such as this.My impression is that people come here seeking support and education, and some are able to offer support and education in the process. But in a society whose language skills are badly damaged, the best supportive and educational practices might not spontaneously emerge among group members. The process might benefit from some more specific training.
Professional therapists learn conversational techniques that help clients rephrase descriptions of problems and to see situations in different ways. In group work, skilled leaders or strong group members can use focusing techniques to divert confrontration and promote better understanding. What this group needs is more self-less facilitators and maybe not as much moderation.
Skilled voluntary facilitation might replace the need for so much moderation. Facilitators don't need to be identified as such, they just need to know what needs to be done and when to do it. For that purpose, some sort of lay-therapists training might be useful - a page where therapuetic conversational techniques can be studied by those wanting to improve their group facilitation skills. I think we would soon find these skills useful in developing stronger families, workplaces, and other group relationships in our local communities.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2003, at 16:16:45
In reply to Re: where to draw the line » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 19:59:56
> What do you mean you got off course? How have we righted you?
I meant I should've posted my PBC sooner. And I'm righted in the sense that I see that now.
> Do you mean by that quote that your rulings about racism will be guided by your subjective feelings rather than reason and that your perception is the only one that matters? In that case why have all these discussions? ... Are you trying to say that you are Supreme Court and there will be no appeals?
I think ultimately it is in fact my perception that will matter the most. But these discussions allow me to receive feedback -- and to try to explain myself. Regarding the quote, see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2003, at 16:39:45
In reply to Re: where to draw the line, posted by Mitchell on January 18, 2003, at 8:40:59
> In group work, skilled leaders or strong group members can use focusing techniques to divert confrontration and promote better understanding. What this group needs is more self-less facilitators and maybe not as much moderation.
>
> Skilled voluntary facilitation might replace the need for so much moderation. Facilitators don't need to be identified as such, they just need to know what needs to be done and when to do it. For that purpose, some sort of lay-therapists training might be useful - a page where therapuetic conversational techniques can be studied by those wanting to improve their group facilitation skills. I think we would soon find these skills useful in developing stronger families, workplaces, and other group relationships in our local communities.IMO, there's already a lot of skilled voluntary facilitation here. OTOH, there's always room for improvement. Can you suggest any descriptions of therapeutic conversational techniques?
I also wonder if another factor is that this is a message board rather than a mailing list or a chat room. On a message board, threads may stay more "alive" -- sub-threads that have been dropped can more easily be picked up again. That's good if it's to provide more support or information, but not good if it's to escalate conflict.
Bob
Posted by IsoM on January 18, 2003, at 17:21:43
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques, posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2003, at 16:39:45
Bob, I sent an email to you a few days ago. It's further about guidelines & rules regarding this forum, & how they may be interpreted. I do hope you've got it. If you don't, I have kept a back-up copy & can resend it.
If you have received it, could you please respond to it? I really am seeking answers & trying to understand your views. I'd rather do that than throw my hands in the air & give up. I'm trying my best to be reasonable & understanding.Because I thought it was perhaps more personal & not quite suitable to discuss here, I emailed it rather than posting it on this board for public scrutiny.
Thank you for your patience.
Posted by Mitchell on January 19, 2003, at 9:23:58
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques, posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2003, at 16:39:45
> IMO, there's already a lot of skilled voluntary facilitation here. OTOH, there's always room for improvement. Can you suggest any descriptions of therapeutic conversational techniques?
>
> I also wonder if another factor is that this is a message board rather than a mailing list or a chat room. On a message board, threads may stay more "alive" -- sub-threads that have been dropped can more easily be picked up again. That's good if it's to provide more support or information, but not good if it's to escalate conflict.
>
> BobAsynchrony complicates group conversation, for sure. Deeper knowledge of therapeutic facilitation might help assure the skills are on hand when needed - the more people who know conflict resolution techniques, or better techniques for empathetic guided self-discovery, the more likely a best technique will be employed at the right time, or that fruitful statements will rise above less productive conversation. The current cadre of voluntary facilitators might improve their skills. Better recognition of therapeutic skills *might* increase the likelihood that group members will defer to a more skilled conversationalist rather than break an attempted consensus not to respond to a troublesome post.
That's all theoretical, of course. As for what skills should be posted, I figure if our medical schools don't have an arsenal of techniques ready to teach the public, we need to shut them down now and start training caring doctors who don't intend to monopolize the franchise to healing skills. I could make it a project (publishing therapeutic techniques, getting permission from authors OR shutting down self-serving schools), but for now I am busy with other social manipulations.
I can offer a few techniques, but they could tend to identify my personal preferences. In general, things like Rogerian empathetic listening and neurolinguistic techniques come to mind. I have a section of books that describe techniques, so I can only assume phsych professionals should have an idea what conversational skills can be best learned and applied for peer or co-counseling settings.
Posted by Mitchell on January 19, 2003, at 10:04:04
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques, posted by Mitchell on January 19, 2003, at 9:23:58
I quickly searched the web to validate my long held impression that most psychology tutorials are academically oriented. The tutorials are designed to help people pass classes, so they can get a credential then improvise techniques from what they have learned.
http://psych.hanover.edu/Krantz/tutor.html
Of these on-line academically oriented tutorials, Eliza is the classic, IMO.
http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza/eliza.htmlThe Eliza computer system is about as stupid and uncaring as is the worst therapist, but the very nature of the language returned by the therapeutic software can evoke therapeutic thought. Practice with Eliza might help self-appointed peer counselors learn to use evocative questions rather than provocative comments.
My take is that most published psyche techniques are either directed at an academic professional audience, are dumbed down and sugar coated to improve book sales of popular authors or reflect the culture of the current federal health regime (as in the DHHS clinical protocols).
Others advance unique techniques (for example http://www.rc.org/ ; http://www.mindbodyconsult.com/protocols/ ) but the interests of their individual authors cloud the techniques. Some web resources are on-line summaries of classroom lessons ( http://learn.sdstate.edu/share/Module2Section4.html ). In most cases, to learn conversational skills to help our neighbors and calm our communities we still must buy into some sort of religious or pop-psyche sect or pay good money to authors who probably earn far more than many of us.
I don't find on the web a well-informed tutorial of therapeutic techniques based on meta-analysis of research investigating a variety of therapeutic conversational techniques. In a culture flooded with both information and with psychological distress, I find that beyond sad. It is no wonder that we divest our power to the greedy and self-serving. In a nation equipped with weapons of mass destruction and which has used chemical weapons against its own people, the lack of credible conversational training for non-enrolled students is tragic.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2003, at 7:14:24
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques (folo), posted by Mitchell on January 19, 2003, at 10:04:04
> I quickly searched the web to validate my long held impression that most psychology tutorials are academically oriented.
> http://psych.hanover.edu/Krantz/tutor.html
> http://www.rc.org/
> http://www.mindbodyconsult.com/protocols/
> http://learn.sdstate.edu/share/Module2Section4.html> I don't find on the web a well-informed tutorial of therapeutic techniques based on meta-analysis of research investigating a variety of therapeutic conversational techniques.
Thanks for looking. Meta-analyses are going to tend to be academically oriented... :-) I did a quick search, too:
How to teach and facilitate discussion online: Respond to difficult situations
http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/ltg/nursweb/DISCUSS/DISCUS10.htmFacilitating a successful support group
http://www.christiancaregivers.com/dgfacilitating.htmlHow to be an effective team leader
http://www.effectivemeetings.com/teams/leader/effective2.aspWhat do you think of those?
Bob
Posted by jay on January 21, 2003, at 10:53:18
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques, posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2003, at 7:14:24
Dr. Bob:
I have plenty of information on brief-treatment (client-centered, or also called person-centered) skills (to tie into your Rogerian ideas) and their required listening skills (I have picked up in social work...and these are the current, front-line tools used in all of social work) , as well as group facilitator skills, ethics, confidentiality (however it pertains to here), and intervention skills that I would be happy to either email to you, or possibly develop as a guide for the resource library, from my social work experience.
I am not quite so sure about getting into deeper Psychoanalytic skills, because I think folks need specific training on how to use them well and properly. (As you know..it takes a *lot* of training to use many of the more complex theories and models.) If you would like me to email you further, please let me know. Thanks!
Jay
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2003, at 21:33:48
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques » Dr. Bob, posted by jay on January 21, 2003, at 10:53:18
> I have plenty of information ... that I would be happy to either email to you, or possibly develop as a guide for the resource library, from my social work experience.
Developing as a guide sounds good! Maybe others here could work with you on it?
Bob
Posted by jay on January 21, 2003, at 21:40:04
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2003, at 21:33:48
> > I have plenty of information ... that I would be happy to either email to you, or possibly develop as a guide for the resource library, from my social work experience.
>
> Developing as a guide sounds good! Maybe others here could work with you on it?
>
> Bob
Absolutely! I think it can be a good learning experience for us all. If others are interested..could we get a way to let folks know...and maybe some of us can even exchange an email addy for this 'project'?Jay
Posted by Mitchell on January 21, 2003, at 22:30:58
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques » Dr. Bob, posted by jay on January 21, 2003, at 10:53:18
> Dr. Bob:
>
> I have plenty of information on brief-treatment (client-centered, or also called person-centered) skills (to tie into your Rogerian ideas) and their required listening skills (I have picked up in social work...and these are the current, front-line tools used in all of social work) , as well as group facilitator skills, ethics, confidentiality (however it pertains to here), and intervention skills that I would be happy to either email to you, or possibly develop as a guide for the resource library, from my social work experience.
>
> I am not quite so sure about getting into deeper Psychoanalytic skills, because I think folks need specific training on how to use them well and properly. (As you know..it takes a *lot* of training to use many of the more complex theories and models.) If you would like me to email you further, please let me know. Thanks!
>
> Jay
>Thanks, Jay. Your experience might already reflect some integration of meta-review in front-line clinical practices. Psychoanalytic stuff does not score well as an intervention tool, but the word "brief" appears very high on the list of favored approaches, suggesting brief interactions can offer some of the best verbal medicine. I'll set up and share an e-mail addy with you in case there is anything else I can contribute to your effort. Looks to me like you might know where to go with this.
Posted by Dinah on January 22, 2003, at 8:49:45
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques, posted by Mitchell on January 21, 2003, at 22:30:58
I must confess that I don't have a really good grasp about what you guys are talking about, but the whole conversation is making me nervous.
Would you mind telling me what concrete effects this project would have on PB posters, or what requirements it might bring them?
Just exactly what, in plain English, are you proposing for Babble participants.
Posted by Mitchell on January 22, 2003, at 16:39:46
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques, posted by Dinah on January 22, 2003, at 8:49:45
Dinah wrote:
> Would you mind telling me what concrete effects this project would have on PB posters, or what requirements it might bring them?Researchers cannot say what concrete effects this board has on participants. It would be even more difficult to say what effects a specific training aid will have. It is easier to say what effects it might have. It might help people learn to better help each other.
When doctors talk to us about our problems, we benefit from their training in how to talk to people. But in self-help groups, people often want to help don't know how. Unless the doctors' training is worthless, the same training might be useful for lay people who try to help each other. Some of the techniques are as simple as knowing when to give information and when to ask for information.
The only requirement I imagine is that if people want to read the page about ways doctors have learned to talk to clients about problems, they would be required to click a link leading to the page. My concern is that access to that kind of training now involves too many requirements, like paying for a book or a class. I am suggesting the information may be freely distributed without cost.
One concrete effect would be people who read such a guide would receive free training, on demand at their leisure, in brief therapeutic techniques without having to tell anyone that they had studied the subject. I am not the one to write such a guide. My suggestion is that writers with access to the best science could write a useful guide.
Flesch reading ease: 69.5
Flesch-Kincaid grade level: 7.9
Posted by jay on January 23, 2003, at 3:33:17
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques, posted by Mitchell on January 21, 2003, at 22:30:58
Hey..thanks Mitchell. This sounds like it could be interesting..and maybe you could bring to the table info..I will do the same...and we will see if others want to get involved. My email addy is:
jay_ghostrider@yahoo.caLets talk!
Jay :-)
Posted by jay on January 23, 2003, at 3:57:18
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques, posted by Dinah on January 22, 2003, at 8:49:45
Hi Dinah:
Well..for once I feel useful around here..heh. I am a college grad social worker, with plenty of experience (not bragging..just for reference).
See, when people talk to each other, there are many, many was to answer as a 'helper'. A lot involves listening skills..being able to empathize with a person..and allowing them to make their decision, rather then just giving advice. I know of a whole slewful of therapies and techniques that work, from my personal practice. It may be fun to get the whole board involved, and I think we can learn a lot about each other.
A good focus is the Rogerian based person-centered counselling, which emphasizes working on problems in the 'here and now'. There are other different, and even fun therapies, like the "Im ok..Your ok Therapy" which is used in a type of therapy called Transactional Analysis.
It's not so much a matter of teaching therapies..because that would take far too long, and requires extensive expertise to do them right. I've only been working for 8 or so years, and am now honing my skills in particular therapies.
Basically...what we can do is to help us help ourselves...and in turn the PB community. We can make it simple and easy. Even things like...listening skills...when *not* to offer advice...true empathy. Listening skills are far more complex than people think. So, we can hopefully expand on that, and even find it useful outside of the board.
If interested..or suggestions..please feel free to email me at: jay_ghostrider@yahoo.ca
I hope that clears things up a bit...and am always open to all comments and suggestions. It would be nice to get a group of us to work on this.
Sincerely,
Jay
Posted by Dinah on January 23, 2003, at 9:06:17
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques » Dinah, posted by jay on January 23, 2003, at 3:57:18
The nervousness I referred to earlier was about a possible sense of elitism that it might convey. That posters who already feel unsure about adding their comments and support might feel more so if they felt that there were people on the board who had special techniques. I guess it could work the opposite way. People would have access to the techniques and thus feel more competent to post, but perhaps they wouldn't feel that they had mastered the techniques as well as others. Perhaps this nervousness comes from my recent concern on the board with making newcomers feel welcome.
Plus, I keep having the old stereotype of a college student who is taking a few psychology classes. That we may get so stuck on technique that we lose the genuineness that currently is one of the best things about this board. Not to mention that my dear departed grandma could offer a few tips to many mental health professionals I have come in contact with on how to listen and be supportive. She never learned a technique in her life, but she cared about how others felt. And she cared about making others feel comfortable and accepted.
Finally, I remember being extremely turned off by the twelve step programs and Recovery, Inc. by their groupspeak. I tend to run screaming into the night when confronted by groupspeak. And I would hate to have phrases used in techniques amount to that.
I guess how I would feel about any such project would depend a lot on implementation. If it was just something like the tips section, that people could read about new skills if they wished to, that wouldn't bother me. (I'm not sure you can "learn" these skills through reading. Don't people who are trained in these skills receive a lot of supervision in them?) If it became an expected or preferred way of relating on the board, I don't think I'd like it at all.
Just my 2 cents, for what it's worth.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 23, 2003, at 19:22:31
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques » jay, posted by Dinah on January 23, 2003, at 9:06:17
> The nervousness I referred to earlier was about a possible sense of elitism that it might convey. That posters who already feel unsure about adding their comments and support might feel more so if they felt that there were people on the board who had special techniques.
Hmm, good point. It's like my reservation about adding a spell checker...
Bob
Posted by ShelliR on January 28, 2003, at 22:00:17
In reply to Re: unsure about adding their comments, posted by Dr. Bob on January 23, 2003, at 19:22:31
> Hmm, good point. It's like my reservation about adding a spell checker...
>
> BobHuh?
Posted by OddipusRex on January 31, 2003, at 17:29:57
In reply to Re: where to draw the line, posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2003, at 16:16:45
Posted by OddipusRex on January 31, 2003, at 18:19:21
In reply to Offensive post » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on January 31, 2003, at 17:29:57
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030125/msgs/138029.html
"I have this problem, I seem to think that porn stars are are the rednecks (whitetrash, delinquents) of the media world. Does anyone else agree???"
Just to clarify, I think whitetrash is an unacceptable term. I'm not offended by porn stars being put down. Of course that doesn't mean some of your other readers might not be. :)
Posted by shar on January 31, 2003, at 23:54:06
In reply to Re: Offensive post clarification, posted by OddipusRex on January 31, 2003, at 18:19:21
> Just to clarify, I think whitetrash is an unacceptable term. I'm not offended by porn stars being put down. Of course that doesn't mean some of your other readers might not be. :)
......O.R.--this is curious to me, that you are not offended by porn stars being put down (if it was you that wrote that, sometimes I get confused when a post contains comments from two or more people).
.....It would seem that someone who believes groups shouldn't be targeted for put-downs would include all groups, even porn stars.
Shar
>
>
>
Posted by OddipusMustDie on February 1, 2003, at 7:06:08
In reply to Re: Offensive post clarification » OddipusRex, posted by shar on January 31, 2003, at 23:54:06
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.