![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 15 of 15. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2004, at 1:04:38
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Spotcheck on April 13, 2004, at 21:40:41
Posted by Spotcheck on April 13, 2004, at 21:40:41
In reply to Re: please be civil » Spotcheck, posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2004, at 20:41:15
> "Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. It's possible to explain things without doing that."
>
> You are correct, Dr. Bob, but it's not nearly as effective. Is there an open forum available where an individual and I who might disagree can hash things out openly?
>
> Yes, I agree that I could have explained what I wanted to say in very neutral way, and I honestly considered that route first. I suppose I should have gone with the bland then. I will from now on -- unless as I say -- there is an open forum on your website that allows honest to goodness freedom of speech.
>
> "If you have any questions or comments about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:"
>
> All right, Dr. Bob. This is your forum not mine. I will do as you wish. I knew this one was going to get me in trouble. I should have keep my remarks informative, but neutral, and I will endeavor to do so on you forum from now on. I am sorry that you had to rebuke me, but I do understand why you did it.
>
> Spotcheck David
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2004, at 1:20:22
In reply to Re: please be civil « Spotcheck, posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2004, at 1:04:38
> > Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. It's possible to explain things without doing that.
>
> You are correct, Dr. Bob, but it's not nearly as effective. Is there an open forum available where an individual and I who might disagree can hash things out openly?Thanks. Aren't there are scads of open forums online?
Bob
Posted by EmmyS on April 14, 2004, at 8:03:33
In reply to Re: please be civil « Spotcheck, posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2004, at 1:04:38
David - I don't know anything about your situation, but - you can always invite someone to Psycho-babble Open which is a Yahoo chat room. You can try to resolve issues there.
It's listed at the bottom of most Babble pages. You need to enroll in Yahoo, but that's free.
Offer to meet at high noon! :-)
Emmy
Posted by EmmyS on April 14, 2004, at 13:35:15
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by EmmyS on April 14, 2004, at 8:03:33
Sorry Dr B - I didn't mean to direct those arrows at you! Of course, it was meant for David!
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 14, 2004, at 18:01:41
In reply to Re: please be civil ...Oopps, posted by EmmyS on April 14, 2004, at 13:35:15
Lol Emmy this made me lol.....Dr B may think it is a case of cyber-transferance.,.giggles.....hahahah this was cute.
> Sorry Dr B - I didn't mean to direct those arrows at you! Of course, it was meant for David!
Posted by shar on April 14, 2004, at 19:22:24
In reply to Re: please be civil ...Oopps » EmmyS, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 14, 2004, at 18:01:41
Yes, made me almost smile, too. A whole smile is out of reach right now.
Folks who are wont to hash things out have any number of alternatives. For example, Yahoo and MSN both have "messengers" (sort of like instant chatting, or real time chatting) that can be used if both parties want. At least one must give an email addy, or they can't connect.
Bland and neutral, yeah, that seems to be the pablum for PB these days when disagreeing. If only speaking for how one feels internally, there seems to be a little bit more room (like, for example, expressing one's personal sadness).
Shar
Posted by EmmyS on April 14, 2004, at 20:38:07
In reply to Re: please be civil ..Emmy+, posted by shar on April 14, 2004, at 19:22:24
Funny you metioned that. I was thinking the other day that we can say just awful things here about ourselves. We see people all the time call themselves horrible things; ugly, vile, evil nasty things. Wouldn't it be nice if we all had a tiny little Dr. B installed in our brains so we would automatically issue our *own* PBC's to ourselves? :-)
Emmy - being civil to herself!
Posted by spoc on April 15, 2004, at 2:00:50
In reply to Re: please be civil ..Emmy+ » shar, posted by EmmyS on April 14, 2004, at 20:38:07
> Funny you metioned that. I was thinking the other day that we can say just awful things here about ourselves. We see people all the time call themselves horrible things; ugly, vile, evil nasty things. Wouldn't it be nice if we all had a tiny little Dr. B installed in our brains so we would automatically issue our *own* PBC's to ourselves? :-)> > Emmy - being civil to herself!
----And isn't this the essence of PB as research; that similar to civil thoughts about ourselves in our minds, positive things will occur and stay in place for a message board if it enforces civility? That a better quality of give, take, accuracy, self-policing and auto-correction of information will be facilitated; but will not have to be actively moderated; if conservative politeness conventions prevent anything from ever spinning out of control?
Some people say it's "not healthy," and what I'm writing isn't from the perspective of however I feel about this whatsoever. It's just philosophizing. So from that angle, maybe the hypothesis is that the "healthy" part is a continued accuracy of information; reliable gentleness of support; and "safety" of opening up about problems. Yet all self-perpetuating without much supervision. Some might call that healthy, others might want to call it a Stepford Message Board? ;- )
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 16, 2004, at 16:53:03
In reply to Re: please be civil « Spotcheck, posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2004, at 1:04:38
> In reply to Re: please be civil » Spotcheck, posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2004, at 20:41:15
Sorry about the way this was linked, anyone interested in the original thread can find the above post at:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040412/msgs/336138.html
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 16, 2004, at 17:03:29
In reply to Re: please be civil, objective of ..., posted by spoc on April 15, 2004, at 2:00:50
> And isn't this the essence of PB as research; that ... positive things will occur and stay in place for a message board if it enforces civility? That a better quality of give, take, accuracy, self-policing and auto-correction of information will be facilitated; but will not have to be actively moderated; if conservative politeness conventions prevent anything from ever spinning out of control?
This may be kind of tangential, but I found it interesting:
No Time for Bullies
By Natalie Angier
April 13, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/science/13BABO.htmlBob
Posted by gabbix2 on April 17, 2004, at 16:04:18
In reply to Re: No Time for Bullies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 16, 2004, at 17:03:29
I'm confused. The article was very interesting, but was it connected to how you are running things at Babble? It seems to me the most frequent and passionate administration debates have been when you protect the "bullies" and block posters who are known for NOT being provocative or abusive; Posters, who when trying to defend themselves or someone else, may have been polite overall but mistakenly used the incorrect form of an "I" statement, or slipped on some other technicality.
Posted by shar on April 17, 2004, at 21:28:17
In reply to Re: please be civil, objective of ..., posted by spoc on April 15, 2004, at 2:00:50
> > Funny you metioned that. I was thinking the other day that we can say just awful things here about ourselves. We see people all the time call themselves horrible things; ugly, vile, evil nasty things. Wouldn't it be nice if we all had a tiny little Dr. B installed in our brains so we would automatically issue our *own* PBC's to ourselves? :-)> > Emmy - being civil to herself!
.........E--I am thrilled to hear you are being civil to yourself!! Is that like self-acceptance? You should tell me! I could use the info!
> And isn't this the essence of PB as research;
..........PB as research. That would seem to indicate a bias on D. Bob's part that dissing oneself is OK, but disagreeing with others is not. Maybe it is true, I don't know; but it doesn't feel that way to me for *research purposes*. [If it IS the case, I'd like to know!] However, old as I am, I could well be wrong...
>that similar to civil thoughts about ourselves in our minds, positive things will occur and stay in place for a message board if it enforces civility?
...........well, now, I don't know so much about that because I don't have many civil thoughts about myself. And, I am well beyond the idea that positive things will occur if I think positive/civil/loving/kind thoughts toward myself or others. Or, have I misunderstood?
>That a better quality of give, take, accuracy, self-policing and auto-correction of information will be facilitated; but will not have to be actively moderated; if conservative politeness conventions prevent anything from ever spinning out of control?
.........well, I suppose if D. Bob got lazy, and didn't want to be much involved here, then, yeah, a better quality of give-and-take etc. would be a relief. However [as you will soon be sick of hearing] that hasn't seemed the case to me.
> Some people say it's "not healthy," and what I'm writing isn't from the perspective of however I feel about this whatsoever. It's just philosophizing. So from that angle, maybe the hypothesis is that the "healthy" part is a continued accuracy of information; reliable gentleness of support; and "safety" of opening up about problems. Yet all self-perpetuating without much supervision. Some might call that healthy, others might want to call it a Stepford Message Board? ;- )
>
...........well, I don't know. I'm a big fan of manners and mannerly behavior; and also a big fan of disagreement insofar as it is being truly 'real' (not name-calling, and all that, but just disagreeing; tho' I will admit that when someone does something I REALLY disagree with I *do* want to disagree with it). And you could well be right, that I am a Stepford-Message-Board-member, but I don't write too much that I don't really believe.
.........I guess we (like water) all find our own level here.Shar
Posted by shar on April 17, 2004, at 21:38:45
In reply to Re: No Time for Bullies » Dr. Bob, posted by gabbix2 on April 17, 2004, at 16:04:18
I agree with this! It is a very fine line, upon which I would not like to walk!
Love you, G,
Shar> I'm confused. The article was very interesting, but was it connected to how you are running things at Babble? It seems to me the most frequent and passionate administration debates have been when you protect the "bullies" and block posters who are known for NOT being provocative or abusive; Posters, who when trying to defend themselves or someone else, may have been polite overall but mistakenly used the incorrect form of an "I" statement, or slipped on some other technicality.
Posted by EmmyS on April 17, 2004, at 23:32:36
In reply to Re: please be civil, objective of....hmmmm Emmy » spoc, posted by shar on April 17, 2004, at 21:28:17
> > > Funny you metioned that. I was thinking the other day that we can say just awful things here about ourselves. We see people all the time call themselves horrible things; ugly, vile, evil nasty things. Wouldn't it be nice if we all had a tiny little Dr. B installed in our brains so we would automatically issue our *own* PBC's to ourselves? :-)> > Emmy - being civil to herself!
>
> .........E--I am thrilled to hear you are being civil to yourself!! Is that like self-acceptance? You should tell me! I could use the info!
>
> SharI'm afraid self-acceptance is a few levels above my reach. The idea of noting my own negative self talk is part of monitoring my level of depression. For me, increased negative self talk is the first sign of trouble. When I notice that, I start activites which have helped me in the past to delay or prevent bouts of depression. It's just a trick that helps me - a bit like some folks with bi-polar d/o might note changes in their handwriting as a sign of imminent changes.
Sometimes staying outta the pit is a full-time job. :-)
Emmy
Posted by spoc on April 18, 2004, at 20:45:49
In reply to Re: please be civil, objective of....hmmmm Emmy » spoc, posted by shar on April 17, 2004, at 21:28:17
It may have sounded like I was being an idealist, but in looking for other angles on the recurrent “freedom of speech” issue and how it gets handled, I was actually trying to put on my detached scientist or philosophy student hat. You know, where you don’t assume that the point is how you feel about the concepts, but rather is just to be able to identify and grasp them. Just in case that would be different or refreshing. All the question marks in my post -- together with the statement below -- were meant to clarify that I wasn’t expressing an opinion or conclusion:
"... what I'm writing isn't from the perspective of however I feel about this whatsoever. It's just philosophizing. So from that angle....."
I started by asking if I had accurately grasped what the ideal principle coming out of all this is supposed to be. Then, I acknowledged the other extreme – the camp that says that is not at all what’s happening -- by tossing in “Stepford Message Board” (Shar, I couldn’t tell if my meaning there came across right, because if it had I’d think you would have liked that part!).
> well, I suppose if D. Bob got lazy, and didn't want to be much involved here, then, yeah, a better quality of give-and-take etc. would be a relief…
I could be mistaken, because I haven’t been here long, and hadn’t previously focused much on what the main purpose here might be. But I had the impression that the part about sustained accuracy and benefit despite minimal moderation is a key part of the mission statement. I think I read something to that effect, but it also seems clear that Dr. Bob *tries* not to be “much involved here.” I’m certain it has nothing to do with laziness, and it may not have anything to do with however busy he is elsewhere either. It's just part of the design. The purpose in the big picture might be akin to “automating” of this kind of thing, as is the trend in just about everything these days. Well, maybe “efficiency” is a better word.Ok, scientist hat still on. I was also thinking that the purpose here might be more about research at this stage of development than it is about someone having spontaneously decided to provide – *as an end in itself and an “as is” finished product* – a platform on which people could get help in "real time." Of course that effect is welcome no matter what, but it could even be incidental or gravy to the long range goal of identifying a formula or pattern.
Hey, even what happened with the Forest Troop didn't come about from totally natural means or constraints! So some here might say that this would make Dr. Bob's policies the poison meat! ;- ) .... ostensibly for the greater good; or the ideal of the greater good.
By now I have stumbled upon some of the classic PB debates on this conflict, and other “historic events,” in the archives. My twist is that it seems like people tend to discuss this matter from the perspective of feelings rather than from one of offering potentially crucial, unbiased feedback on the stability the experiment’s foundation. Maybe I was only spitting hairs (hey, this was an insomniac’s idea of fun at 2:00 a.m.), but somehow it seemed to me that there might be a difference in impact or effectiveness there. To conduct a controlled study, pains are probably taken to assess things scientifically and impersonally, and maybe it’s hard after awhile for the researcher to discern commitment to that from the possibility that certain “emotional reactions” from the very demographic being studied can indeed be valid.
Anyway, it’s said by some people who have been or were here for awhile that “justice” is not only defined too narrowly, but is randomly and unevenly applied. So if that is what’s happening yet nothing other than the effect of conservative but consistent civility rules on behavior was intended to be studied, I think that would mean that what actually got studied wasn’t what was intended to be studied. And that’s probably an important difference. Otherwise, I can only think of a couple other things that could be the case if that is not in fact what’s happening; but things are indeed random and uneven. On the dark end, there could be other co-existing hypotheses of a “classified” nature being examined, such as the role of randomness -- and the apprehension of it -- in getting things to police and run themselves!
Assuming that’s not it, on the benign end maybe Dr. Bob really just doesn’t agree that his decisions have been uneven. Or doesn’t see why it should upset people if things like equal or more serious transgressions are slipping under the wire; for reasons like the elapsed time before noticing them, or other technicalities. (Law enforcement can work like that in real life, can’t it!). In that case, if he chooses not to debate this kind of thing here, I’d hope he has other qualified source(s) that he does consult. Because he probably wouldn’t claim that things have tended to pan out well historically when one person’s opinion rules the masses without checks and balances! But then again, this isn’t a country, it’s a research project and a work in progress. So the bottom line rationale may simply be that we are all free to leave and take up citizenship elsewhere (although admittedly I’d also need help in seeing how that would prove the mission statement!).
So! Just posted to brainstorm possibilities and factors from the “PB as research” angle. But maybe I should have just gone to sleep instead! ;- )
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.