![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 242 to 266 of 308. Go back in thread:
Posted by sigismund on August 6, 2010, at 3:09:44
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
I must have missed something.
I don't see the connection between civility and compassion.
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2010, at 6:32:50
In reply to Re: Karma » Dr. Bob, posted by vwoolf on August 6, 2010, at 2:10:40
It wouldn't bother you if the original poster found other posts on the thread helpful but not yours? How about if the original poster found every other post on the thread helpful, but not yours? You wouldn't feel any different about the original poster? Would you feel as likely to respond to the original poster?
It wouldn't bother you if you had one of the lower helpfulness ratings on the board of those who posted about the same number of times?
I suppose it would be a way of people expressing their negative feelings about a poster without being "uncivil" by Bob's standards. He'd probably like not giving so many pbc's.
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2010, at 6:57:12
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
Actually I suppose an administrator might see that as a positive thing. Instead of a poster asking another poster not to post to them, or telling them their post is a load of hot air, which wouldn't be civil by your standards, the poster could just choose not to mark them as helpful while marking others as helpful. The point would be made without it being uncivil by your standards.
Under the radar, so to speak.
You could even suggest it in your future pbc's. "If you don't find a poster helpful, please use the ratings system to tell them so, instead of being insensitive by saying it in words."
Although if you find it so normal and ok to tell posters they find some responses helpful and others not so helpful through a rating system, why isn't it ok to say it out loud? According to you, it's perfectly ok to indicate that some gifts are appreciated while others are not. Do you see a significant difference between telling them in a ratings system and telling them with words?
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2010, at 7:08:54
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
> Also, some people may have difficulty seeing themselves as compassionate, and a ledger of sorts might help them.
I've never actually found the prospect of being graded or having a ledger of my good qualities all that helpful. Even if I score well, it's unpleasant to be constantly scored. And it's not like there is a guarantee of a good ledger. Are you're saying a bad ledger would help those with poor self esteem?
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2010, at 9:07:39
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
Eh, never mind.
As you say, Babble can't be right for everyone. I suppose as someone with an academic interest in group dynamics, you might find the results interesting. I care about Babble so I hope more people are attracted by the possibility of earning points (and venting frustration) with the ratings system than are hurt by it or put off by it.
And I hope the net effect on civility is positive rather than negative.
Best of luck with all this, I'm bowing out of a discussion I can't possibly hope to influence.
Posted by chujoe on August 6, 2010, at 9:12:22
In reply to Re: Karma » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 6, 2010, at 7:08:54
I'm the one who brought up Karma & compassion because I think they make a more valid framework for interaction than civility and different grades of helpfulness. I agree with what Bob says above that the more compassion you spread around the more you're likely to have some splash back in your direction, but I think that's very unlike any sort of vending machine, exact or inexact. I'd go so far to say that expecting compassion in return for one's compassionate acts disqualifies the act as compassionate. Real compassion is unmotivated. And that's why the day that any sort of rating system appears on Psychobabble will be the last day I participate here. And please don't anyone take that as a threat or think that it means I don't like you, whatever your views on a rating system might be.
Posted by fayeroe on August 7, 2010, at 16:10:31
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
> > Karma is not a vending machine. You don't put compassion in hoping to get compassion out. You just spread compassion around in order to make a more compassionate world. Sometimes you benefit, sometimes not. But there is no bank, no bookkeeping, no system, no bureaucracy, no leader, no followers.
>
> It's an inexact vending machine. You don't necessarily get compassion out. But the more compassion that goes around, the more likely some is to come around.
>
> Also, some people may have difficulty seeing themselves as compassionate, and a ledger of sorts might help them.
>
> BobYou are going to rate posters as compassionate or compassionate? A ledger? What are you going to do with a ledger? Like in heaven? When St. Peter keeps a checklist of sinners and do-gooders?
Posted by fayeroe on August 7, 2010, at 16:20:57
In reply to Re: Karma » Dr. Bob, posted by vwoolf on August 6, 2010, at 2:10:40
> I agree with that, Bob - it could be helpful. The more conscious we become of ourselves, the more able we will be to make clear ethical choices in our lives. As long as it is not invasive and unsafe, I think it could be a valid idea.
>
> I am not sure why this discussion has become so polarised and emotional.I talk to my therapist in a real life setting to become more conscious of myself. I think that I work very hard to always make clear ethical choices in my life.
How can this reward system not be invasive and unsafe?
This discussion has become polarized and emotional because so many of us were judged and "graded" when we were children or maybe when we were married to someone who "kept" score.
In my opinion this system is going to hurt posters more than it helps us.
>
Posted by fayeroe on August 7, 2010, at 16:21:59
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by sigismund on August 6, 2010, at 3:09:44
Posted by fayeroe on August 7, 2010, at 16:33:02
In reply to Re: Karma » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on August 7, 2010, at 16:10:31
Posted by gardenergirl on August 7, 2010, at 20:38:18
In reply to Re: Karma.it is not compassionate-compassionate (nm) » fayeroe, posted by fayeroe on August 7, 2010, at 16:33:02
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 9, 2010, at 1:01:10
In reply to Re: Karma » vwoolf, posted by fayeroe on August 7, 2010, at 16:20:57
> It wouldn't bother you if the original poster found other posts on the thread helpful but not yours? How about if the original poster found every other post on the thread helpful, but not yours?
>
> It wouldn't bother you if you had one of the lower helpfulness ratings on the board of those who posted about the same number of times?
>
> DinahI can see that competitive posters might become preoccupied with how their point totals compare with those of other posters. It could trigger old feelings of being unpopular. It could be a challenge for them not to define themselves by their point totals. But that's also something other posters might be able to help them with: a poster might post that they feel unappreciated, other posters might post what they appreciate about the first poster, and the first poster might then feel more appreciated.
> I'd go so far to say that expecting compassion in return for one's compassionate acts disqualifies the act as compassionate.
>
> chujoeI'm more concerned with effects than motivations. If someone feels compassion, but posts something uncivil, I still see that as being uncivil. If they post something that's appreciated, but hope for compassion in return, I still see that as being appreciated. Some people are therapists in part because they expect to earn a living. I don't see them as lacking in compassion.
> How can this reward system not be invasive and unsafe?
>
> This discussion has become polarized and emotional because so many of us were judged and "graded" when we were children or maybe when we were married to someone who "kept" score.
>
> fayeroeI can see that the possibility of *not* being rewarded/appreciated might feel unsafe. However:
It's already the case that some posts are appreciated and others aren't, and posters seem to be able to deal with that.
Posters may underestimate how appreciated their posts will be.
Posters aren't the children of, or married to, particular other posters. If their replies aren't appreciated by certain posters, it might be worth their while to consider why they reply to them and not others.
Not being appreciated could be an opportunity for growth:
> > Replace shame with mature guilt. ... To illustrate: John feels shame that he is not the sort of person who can ever excel at his work. ... Finding the "smarts" and the courage to re-evaluate himself as "guilty" of inertia and poor training, he begins to create and achieve goals that are possible for him. ... He has moved into consciousness that his worth can be defined by realistic possibilities
http://www.psychsight.com/ar-shame.html
Bob
Posted by sigismund on August 9, 2010, at 2:59:00
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 9, 2010, at 1:01:10
>I can see that competitive posters might become preoccupied with how their point totals compare with those of other posters. It could trigger old feelings of being unpopular. It could be a challenge for them not to define themselves by their point totals.
Yes
>But that's also something other posters might be able to help them with: a poster might post that they feel unappreciated, other posters might post what they appreciate about the first poster, and the first poster might then feel more appreciated.No
That sort of reassurance (after requesting it) would ring (somewhat) hollow for me.
Posted by Dinah on August 9, 2010, at 6:54:34
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 9, 2010, at 1:01:10
May it bring Babble all the good you want, and none of the harm I fear. At least may it bring more good than harm.
I've withdrawn from this conversation, since I feel helpless in the face of it.
Posted by BayLeaf on August 9, 2010, at 8:07:44
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 9, 2010, at 1:01:10
who would give me a biscuit for this post?
can i be the elephant in the pink tutu driving the wee purple convertible?
Posted by BayLeaf on August 9, 2010, at 8:41:58
In reply to still feels like circus animal training » Dr. Bob, posted by BayLeaf on August 9, 2010, at 8:07:44
I swear it's coming clear...all of babble as a behavior modification program for civility.
the actual token dispensing system is in almost place!
weee!
(bay is losing it this morning)
Posted by violette on August 9, 2010, at 17:46:38
In reply to Re: still feels like circus animal training - II, posted by BayLeaf on August 9, 2010, at 8:41:58
I'm laughing about the circus images in my head :)
Bob-it's really the synergy between the 2 posters-what would 'measuring' one side of the equation prove after all?
Poster A finds Poster X's comment UNhelpful because poster X didn't tell him 'what he wanted to hear'. -1 point
Poster B finds Poster X's comment UNhelpful because Poster X told him 'what he wanted to hear' rather than new ideas. -1 point
Poster C finds Poster X's comment helpful because it provided Poster C with new information he had not previously considered. +1 point
Poster D finds Poster X's comment helpful because Poster D wants sympathy and that's what Poster X provided. +1 point
Poster X's rating = 0
Poster X will be rated both unhelpful and helpful for the same type of responses. And if the other variables-the other poster's opinions-contribute to the sum of Poster X's rating, it would be a result of the same effect.
Even if there are no negative points involved, it might have the same effect in reality: no conclusion as to what is helpful and what is not.
I guess I don't see the point or the reasoning behind this.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2010, at 1:56:11
In reply to Re: still feels like circus animal training - II, posted by violette on August 9, 2010, at 17:46:38
> > But that's also something other posters might be able to help them with: a poster might post that they feel unappreciated, other posters might post what they appreciate about the first poster, and the first poster might then feel more appreciated.
>
> That sort of reassurance (after requesting it) would ring (somewhat) hollow for me.
>
> sigismundSure, it might. It might depend in part on how on-target the other posters were, and on how convinced the first poster was that they were unappreciated. And it might have to happen more than once.
--
> Poster C finds Poster X's comment helpful because it provided Poster C with new information he had not previously considered. +1 point
>
> Poster D finds Poster X's comment helpful because Poster D wants sympathy and that's what Poster X provided. +1 point
>
> Poster X's [point total = 2]
>
> no conclusion as to what is helpful and what is not.
>
> I guess I don't see the point or the reasoning behind this.
>
> violetteOne might conclude:
Poster C appreciates information.
Poster D appreciates sympathy.
Poster X is appreciated by others.
And so Poster X would feel good about helping others out and have tangible proof of their appreciation. Poster X could look at the points they had and think, wow, I've helped a couple people!
Bob
Posted by vwoolf on August 12, 2010, at 5:53:25
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2010, at 1:56:11
I've just come across a passage in a book, "The Mystery of Analytical Work" by Barbara Stevens Sullivan, that seems to fit into this debate, although I haven't really thought it through too much yet. She writes:
"Symington ..... has developed a theory that all psychopathology can be understood as a form of narcissism, where 'narcissism' implies arrogance, selfishness and an inability to love. In this approach, narcissism may look very different from the popular image of someone who thinks himself superior to the ordinary run of people. Indeed, the individual may consciously feel inferior. But regardless of the presenting symptomatology, the person's focus is on himself, rather than on himself and the group. The narcissist may even seem compassionate in his behaviour, but if his secret focus is on how virtuous and loving he is being and on the 'credits' he is racking up in heaven or in the eyes of the world for his kindness, the orientation is narcissistic rather than related."
Am i putting the spanner back in the works here? I hope not.
Posted by sigismund on August 12, 2010, at 20:15:26
In reply to Re: Point system, posted by vwoolf on August 12, 2010, at 5:53:25
>Symington ..... has developed a theory that all psychopathology can be understood as a form of narcissism, where 'narcissism' implies arrogance, selfishness and an inability to love
Given currently existing human relations and child rearing practices it's no surprise.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2010, at 1:38:00
In reply to Re: Point system, posted by vwoolf on August 12, 2010, at 5:53:25
> > In this approach, narcissism may look very different from the popular image of someone who thinks himself superior to the ordinary run of people. Indeed, the individual may consciously feel inferior. But regardless of the presenting symptomatology, the person's focus is on himself, rather than on himself and the group. The narcissist may even seem compassionate in his behaviour, but if his secret focus is on how virtuous and loving he is being and on the 'credits' he is racking up in heaven or in the eyes of the world for his kindness, the orientation is narcissistic rather than related.
A point system might be an issue for some people. They might, for example, become preoccupied with their point total.
You might not want to emulate someone just because they have a lot of points, just like you might not want to emulate someone just because they make a lot of money.
OTOH, it doesn't strike me as such a bad situation if a poster feels good about their point total and they have a lot of points because others often appreciate their posts.
Bob
Posted by muffled on August 29, 2010, at 12:42:51
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2010, at 1:56:11
> Poster C finds Poster X's comment helpful because it provided Poster C with new information he had not previously considered. +1 point
> >
> > Poster D finds Poster X's comment helpful because Poster D wants sympathy and that's what Poster X provided. +1 point
> >
> > Poster X's [point total = 2]
> >
> > no conclusion as to what is helpful and what is not.
> >
> > I guess I don't see the point or the reasoning behind this.
> >
> > violette
>
> One might conclude:
>
> Poster C appreciates information.
>
> Poster D appreciates sympathy.
>
> Poster X is appreciated by others.
>
> And so Poster X would feel good about helping others out and have tangible proof of their appreciation. Poster X could look at the points they had and think, wow, I've helped a couple people!
>
> BobBob, I haven't been here ina long time, but was looking for distraction.
Well, surely I got it here!
This point system is utterly ridiculous and seems to me another attempt to quantify something for YOUR own personal curiousity.
Posters on boards get satisfaction when people REPLY to their posts. And if they post consistently, and reply to others posts, and reply promptly in their own threads, well, then they tend to get more feedback, more satisfaction/encouragement.
The point system would just be embarassing and put pressure on people.
Just had to post this cuz I wonder at your thought processes Bob. Not that its a bad brain, its sort of fascinating. I just wish you wouldn't be barging ovver other people so insensitively with some of these ideas you have.
Yes, this is YOUR website, but I do hope you will listen to the people that *actually* ARE the life of the site.
Stop messing with them, listen to them, and if you actually have any caring in your heart, you will back off.
My thots,
M
ps , best wishes to alla you babblers, or whats left of you.
M
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2010, at 1:51:27
In reply to Re: Appreciation » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on August 29, 2010, at 12:42:51
> This point system is utterly ridiculous
>
> I just wish you wouldn't be barging ovver other people so insensitivelyPlease don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by muffled on August 30, 2010, at 11:59:22
In reply to Re: please be civil » muffled, posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2010, at 1:51:27
> > This point system is utterly ridiculous
> >
> > I just wish you wouldn't be barging ovver other people so insensitively
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.ROFL!!!
Okey dokey.
Hmmm.
I completely don't understand the use of a point system.Hmmmm.
Hmmmm.
Hmmm.
I wish admin on this site could listen and hear what people say here. Cuz its seems like we talk and nothing changes.
OK, thats my first shot at this.....
Lemme know...
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2010, at 21:29:30
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by muffled on August 30, 2010, at 11:59:22
> I completely don't understand the use of a point system.
>
> I wish admin on this site could listen and hear what people say here. Cuz its seems like we talk and nothing changes.
>
> OK, thats my first shot at this.....
> Lemme know...Very civil, thank you. :-)
What would you like to change? I'd like to know, and will try to hear, and to listen. But that doesn't necessarily mean I'll make those changes.
Bob
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.