![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 13 to 37 of 37. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on January 1, 2005, at 21:37:39
In reply to Re: Idealizing » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2005, at 21:31:35
Why would you say that, Alexandra? I think this is where I first met you, isn't it?
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2005, at 23:27:45
In reply to Re: Idealizing » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on January 1, 2005, at 21:37:39
> Why would you say that, Alexandra? I think this is where I first met you, isn't it?
Yeah, it is. I remember you and gg in particular from when I joined up when I was in Australia.
Because it is too hard for me. To be reading and thinking about what it is that I am missing out on. Because I think IT IS NOT FAIR and then the way is paved for rage. Because it isn't anybodys fault, and it is especially not the fault of anybody here. But my rage doesn't care so much where it is aimed. Because I need to just forget about therapy. To move on. To decide what the hell I am going to do. I could spin out try to kill myself and maybe end up back in hospital. I could just get through this somehow without bugging anyone from the service. I would prefer the latter. In a calm moment. But then the panic starts up and I don't care anymore. Easier to deal if I just avoid. I am sorry. It is my weakness.
Posted by Dinah on January 1, 2005, at 23:47:05
In reply to Re: Idealizing » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2005, at 23:27:45
Awww sweetie.
Don't give up. You keep advocating for yourself. You hear about the inpatient program next month?
I'm so sorry you don't have access to adequate mental health care. That just plain stinks. Everyone should be able to get that. It's a shame that they tend to all share the same orientation where you are.
Arrrghhhh.
(((((Alexandra))))
Posted by 10derheart on January 2, 2005, at 0:55:23
In reply to Re: Idealizing » Toph, posted by Dinah on January 1, 2005, at 20:01:27
Yes, thanks for that link. It's packed with intense, thought-provoking stuff. I learned just from skimming it, and have saved it to read more later.
It got me thinking. I have never suffered what most would consider trauma, well, not in childhood, anyway. Nor as an adult either, or so I thought. But then again, who can say what precisely is traumatic for each of us? My new T and I were talking about transition, separation, grief and so forth. I wish I could recall exactly what I said, but it made him lean forward and say intently, as if he knew (and mind you we do not *know* each other yet)I'd need convincing, "Transitions can be crushing. Absolutely and totally crushing to a person's spirit." He didn't mean events from childhood, but only my earlier adulthood. I know I must be rambling here, but I did relate this to some of what I read about trauma and what can happen at some unexpected point later. Maybe it's emerging for me even from things that probably most adults would have just *taken in stride.*
Didn't mean to sidetrack this thread, which was really a great one, I thought. It's just when my brain dives into this stuff, it goes into overdrive connecting ideas, trying to understand all of your perspectives better, and I guess to find my place in all of it.
Any theory I have is at the Psych 101 level at best, plus what I've self-taught by voracious reading for three years. Plus Babble, my therapy experiences (fairly short and not as deep as I've needed - yet)and my intuition.
So maybe I'm clueless. Clueless but seeking.
Posted by Toph on January 2, 2005, at 7:07:03
In reply to Re: Idealizing » Toph, posted by Dinah on January 1, 2005, at 20:01:27
It would be a mistake to dwell too much here on purely theoretical concepts and not respond to the real difficulties that are mentioned, but the notion of dependency as pathological puzzled me when I read about it decades ago. These guys (and Melanie, Margaret, Anna and others) must mean that to be overly dependent on our parents (or surrogates) as adults is pathological not the functional dependency an infant has on it's protective and nurturing parents, right?
Posted by mair on January 2, 2005, at 9:20:29
In reply to Re: Idealizing » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2005, at 15:21:25
" Idealisation is about setting the object up so that the flaws are completely ignored or severely minimised.
>
> The trouble with idealisation (or at least my experience of it) is that it tends to be followed by devaluation. Once the idealised object falls short of your expectations (as it invariably will seeing as nothing is perfect) then you devalue the object and minimise or disregard anything of value while overemphasising the negative aspects."
>
Stick around here long enough and you'll see the process you describe play out with Bob over and over again. I think there are scads of ex-posters who left because their expectations of Bob were probably too high and unrealistic in the first place. In my very humble and probably misguided opinion, the ones who have stayed through some pretty awful upheavals either did so because they never idealized him or allowed themselves to care about whether he cared about them in the first place, were able to stick out the difficult process of lowering expectations without the devaluation you describe, or simply limited their participation in ways which didn't allow them to get caught up in feeling the unfairness of how he can deal with certain issues (eg: they stay off the admin board).Mair
>
Posted by Dinah on January 2, 2005, at 9:34:56
In reply to Re: Idealizing » alexandra_k, posted by mair on January 2, 2005, at 9:20:29
It seems as if my entire life consists of lowering expectations - often over and over again. :) Which approach did you take?
Posted by badhaircut on January 2, 2005, at 10:21:11
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by Toph on January 2, 2005, at 7:07:03
> the notion of dependency as pathological puzzled me
Yeah. I think the overall tone of Klein & those folks makes it sound like "normal" babies are inherently pathological. It's like everything that goes on in a baby's mind is on the edge of psychosis. That's the way it reads: every baby is beside itself with overwhelming hatred of the goodness in the mother's breast and so on.
But they also thought that dependence continues throughout life even in "healthy" people — it's just that the adult depends more on the *internalized* good parent. My understanding is that object relations people try to get the client to see that the nurturing, protective surrogate is already *inside* her: she doesn't need to cling so desperately to other people.
So it's not that dependence should be stopped or go away so much as that it should be redirected inward. At least, that's my understanding.
-bhc
(Toph: I get Melanie Klein, Anna Freud; ... who is Margaret? Thanks!)
Posted by mair on January 2, 2005, at 10:39:55
In reply to Re: Idealizing » mair, posted by Dinah on January 2, 2005, at 9:34:56
Probably mostly the first which may say more about my own psychological profile than it does about Bob. People who idealize others tend to get hurt, and I think I have all kinds of armor for protecting myself from that kind of hurt.
But there are elements of the second and third also. On occasion, Bob has definitely disappointed me, which 1)justifies the use of the armor; and 2) has forced me to separate Bob from Babble - I've never reached the point where I felt that the harm of Babble (as maybe perpetrated by Bob) has outweighed the value of Babble. I mean this in an empirical way. I know this is not true in every individual instance, and certainly not true at all times maybe for any of us.
And while not always successful by any means, I do try to distance myself from those vicious admin wars. My observation is that many, if not most, of the people who leave Babble in anger, do so as a reaction to discussions which have occurred on that Board.
Mair
Posted by Toph on January 2, 2005, at 11:10:16
In reply to dependence » Toph, posted by badhaircut on January 2, 2005, at 10:21:11
Posted by badhaircut on January 2, 2005, at 11:25:35
In reply to Wasn't there a Margaret Mahler? (nm) » badhaircut, posted by Toph on January 2, 2005, at 11:10:16
In my "Psychoanalytic Terms and Concepts" book, there's references all through it to "Mahler" and "Mahler, M". I never knew who it was. Thanks!
Posted by gardenergirl on January 2, 2005, at 11:39:39
In reply to Re: Idealizing » alexandra_k, posted by mair on January 2, 2005, at 9:20:29
Wow, what an awesome insight about idealization and Bob. I've seen that too, now that you mention it. And actually, I think I went through it once, and fortunately came out on the other side okay. Now I think I'm one of those survivors.
Glad to see you stick around, too.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2005, at 19:23:45
In reply to Re: Idealizing » alexandra_k, posted by mair on January 2, 2005, at 9:20:29
Maybe there are more ways too. For example, one could think about why the issue that you think he is letting you down on is so very important to you. When have you felt similarly in the past? That happened with me and when I thought about it I realised that the issue wasn't really with Dr B. Don't know if it will work every time. But I figure there is at least one other way.
Posted by Toph on January 3, 2005, at 9:07:36
In reply to Re: Idealizing » Dinah, posted by mair on January 2, 2005, at 10:39:55
>
> But there are elements of the second and third also. On occasion, Bob has definitely disappointed me, which 1)justifies the use of the armor; and 2) has forced me to separate Bob from Babble - I've never reached the point where I felt that the harm of Babble (as maybe perpetrated by Bob) has outweighed the value of Babble. I mean this in an empirical way. I know this is not true in every individual instance, and certainly not true at all times maybe for any of us.
>
> And while not always successful by any means, I do try to distance myself from those vicious admin wars. My observation is that many, if not most, of the people who leave Babble in anger, do so as a reaction to discussions which have occurred on that Board.
>
> MairWhen I was new here, I felt (right or wrong) that most of the boards were clicky. So I gravitated to Admin where it was easy to join one side of a fight and feel appreciated by members of that side. Needless to say I crashed and burned quickly. I almost left PB. Then I took a risk and jumped on a few threads elsewhere, and surprisingly no one told me to get lost. Heck, I even start my own threads now! What is interesting to me is I have had a few therapists and invariably the beginning sessions are fights over rules before I take a risk of sharing some part of myself. Only one therapist told me, in her own way, to get lost.
As for Bob, idealizing him, seems to be in part because he hides behind a veil. I suppose he has to. But here we are talking about him and the dynamics of his website and he just watches. That sort of bursts the idealization bubble for me.
-Toph
Posted by mair on January 3, 2005, at 15:32:01
In reply to Re: Idealizing » mair, posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2005, at 19:23:45
Are you suggesting kind of a transference reaction, or just a way of realizing that it (whatever it is) doesn't have to be such a big deal?
Mair
Posted by Toph on January 3, 2005, at 16:10:46
In reply to Re: Idealizing » alexandra_k, posted by mair on January 3, 2005, at 15:32:01
> Are you suggesting kind of a transference reaction, or just a way of realizing that it (whatever it is) doesn't have to be such a big deal?
>
> Mair
I'm not sure what you mean, but if someone mentions my name in a post, I am compelled to read it and invariably compelled to respond. I have even more anonymity than Bob does, so how can it be that I must respond but he remains a silent observer when someone says something nice about him, attacks him, or discusses his website?Toph
Posted by alexandra_k on January 3, 2005, at 16:41:38
In reply to Re: Idealizing » alexandra_k, posted by mair on January 3, 2005, at 15:32:01
> Are you suggesting kind of a transference reaction, or just a way of realizing that it (whatever it is) doesn't have to be such a big deal?
Hmm. Maybe both? Thinking about why the issue is so important to you may involve thinking about when you have felt similarly upset by what you perceive to be similar situations in the past. And I suppose that by the past I am not really getting at last weeks upset, or even last years, so yeah transference reaction I guess. But then if you can kind of see that and see that the real issue (or what is really upsetting you) isn't even about Dr B, well then the issue kind of loses its significance. I suppose this would only work when people are overinvolved emotionally in the issue. And like I say, who knows if it will work every time???
Posted by Toph on January 3, 2005, at 16:47:39
In reply to Re: Idealizing » alexandra_k, posted by mair on January 3, 2005, at 15:32:01
Posted by alexandra_k on January 3, 2005, at 17:04:37
In reply to Re: Idealizing » mair, posted by Toph on January 3, 2005, at 9:07:36
>fights over rules before I take a risk of sharing some part of myself.
Yeah, I guess it is something to say. Something to do. Something that tends to prompt a response. Keeps them awake, eh? I do this too. Maybe it is a 'test' in a way. See how they handle it. I mean, if they are going to get all upset with you at that point, well, then it is good to know that before divulging something of real personal significance. Something where their upset can really cut you to the bone.
>He hides behind a veil. I suppose he has to. But here we are talking about him and the dynamics of his website and he just watches. How can it be that I must respond but he remains a silent observer when someone says something nice about him, attacks him, or discusses his website?Legal consequences of getting involved. There is also the point that we are here for us and our needs. Emotional needs. Dr. B, on the other hand is not and so I guess he just has to restrain his desire (which I figure he may have at times though I guess I could be wrong) to give us an earful or whatever. I too am compelled to respond.. I mean, here I am yaking to you guys after having vowed to stay clear of this board. Certain issues on this board. I should have said that...
Anyway, if he really did respond more then would that really help us or hurt us? Maybe idealisation comes from so very many blanks for our little minds to get busy filling in the details, but then on the other hand maybe more involvement would just provide all the more 'evidence' that Dr B is 'just like' so and so from the past. Maybe the transference responses would be worse.
Of course I am just raving...
Posted by Toph on January 3, 2005, at 17:24:44
In reply to Re: Idealizing » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on January 3, 2005, at 17:04:37
>
> Yeah, I guess it is something to say. Something to do. Something that tends to prompt a response. Keeps them awake, eh? I do this too. Maybe it is a 'test' in a way. See how they handle it. I mean, if they are going to get all upset with you at that point, well, then it is good to know that before divulging something of real personal significance. Something where their upset can really cut you to the bone.
>
After a couple years of therapy I got pissed at my T repeatedly suggesting that I could alleviate much of my depression with intensive psychotherapy. I stood up and told him he was selfish and cruel for suggesting something he knew I couldn't afford. Well, he lost his composure and yelled back. I can't remember what he said I was so shocked to see a psychiatrist yelling at me. For the next 4 weeks I was obsessed with what had happened. Wasn't I allowed to vent my frustration at him without reprisal? When we next met he began the session with an explanation of what had transpired, as if it had bothered him as well, but not exactly an apology. We didn't really process it to my satisfaction. I suppose I could be glad that he is human and defends himself as anyone else would. But that idealization we are talking about, I'm afraid it is irretrievably lost for me.Toph
Posted by mair on January 3, 2005, at 22:08:56
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by Toph on January 3, 2005, at 17:24:44
Did you idealize him before this argument? I had a similar experience which stuck with me for a long time. For a few years I saw a pdoc who was also my T. He took a leave of absence for a few months and left me in the hands of a colleague who was part of a group of psychologists in his office who were splitting off to form their own practice. The break up was contentious and i frankly felt caught in the middle. When he returned, I decided I wanted to take a break from therapy and in what was supposed to be our last session for awhile, I sort of blew up at him about what I perceived to be the lack of communication and coordination between he and his colleague during his absence. He told me it was really unfair of me to raise this when I did, particularly since I was disinclined to hang around long enough to explain myself more clearly. I felt bad about the way I left things and made another appointment during which I apologized. He accepted the apology as if it was totally merited and never really tried to get me to process what had happened with him. I saw him off and on for over a year after that and I really felt that he had drawn away from me - almost like I had hurt him and he was determined not to be hurt by me again. He got tons less proactive about treating me. Of course I felt that it was all my fault. What happened with him has come up a couple of times with my current T and she's been very critical of him for not owning up to his part of what happened and for not working to find a way to help me process this exchange.
I'm not at all sure that I ever idealized this T, but I think I wanted to feel better about our relationship, and this incident pretty much prevented that from ever happening.
I'm not sure that this has anything to do with the idealization that I think goes on here.
I've sort of been all over the place in how I've felt about Bob and his administration of this site, but I don't think I've ever put him on the high pedestal some others have.Mair
Posted by mair on January 4, 2005, at 21:45:35
In reply to Re: Idealizing » mair, posted by alexandra_k on January 3, 2005, at 16:41:38
I wanted to respond sooner but I was chased off the computer last night before I could finish a post.
I think what you've described is another way of analyzing anger, which to my way of thinking is part of the cost/benefit analysis we all have to engage in here from time to time. I don't disagree with you at all but it struck me that it sounds like you're generally assuming that the anger is misplaced.
Most (admittedly not all) of the time when I've been angry about the administration of the site, I've felt my anger was justified. I guess what I was talking about is what you do with that anger or how that anger affects your on-going participation on the site.
But it is complicated. Who we are probably informs what sorts of things operate as triggers, and I think the administration of this site is a breeding ground of triggers. And even when I do get angry or frustrated, I can come up with any number of rationales for not allowing that anger to escalate to the point where I feel that I need to separate myself in some permanent way, or as with some ex-posters, where I feel that i have to take some action against Bob.
And it is strange talking about all of this as if Bob isn't here - maybe it's not the kind of thread he'd pay attention to. (;
Mair
Posted by mair on January 4, 2005, at 21:51:56
In reply to Re: Idealizing » mair, posted by alexandra_k on January 3, 2005, at 16:41:38
I'm sure you're sick of my ramblings on this topic. What I meant to add to the post I just sent is that the rationales I use to look beyond my anger about the administration of the site are available to me because I don't think I idealize Bob or ever have - at least not to the extent of some others.
Now I'll shut up. (;
Mair
Posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2005, at 0:09:31
In reply to Re: Idealizing » alexandra_k, posted by mair on January 4, 2005, at 21:45:35
I guess I never really thought of it as anger specific. Just any intense feeling that you aren't too keen on (and perhaps some that you are).
> sounds like you're generally assuming that the anger is misplaced.
It was more the INTENSITY that I was worried about. That sometimes peoples emotional responses may be more intense because they perceive the situation in light of past issues and respond more to the past issue than the present situation.
> Most (admittedly not all) of the time when I've been angry about the administration of the site, I've felt my anger was justified.I think we typically do think our anger is justified (and that is partly why we are so mad). If you interpret something as UNFAIR then the way is paved for anger.
>I don't think I idealize Bob or ever have - at least not to the extent of some others.
Yeah, me neither. I am supposed to idealise and devalue pretty much by definition with my diagnosis so it is something that I have thought about a lot. But I really don't think I do that. I do get hacked off at times, though, but I think that is usually related to a certain issue - but I don't think I ever lose sight of the good completely. I don't really think that I do idealise and devalue. Well, not any more than lots of others, and I have seen lots more extreme than me.
Now I'll shut up. (;
You don't have to shut up if you don't want to. I was finding this thread interesting..
Posted by Toph on January 5, 2005, at 7:27:26
In reply to Re: and another thing » alexandra_k, posted by mair on January 4, 2005, at 21:51:56
>Did you idealize him before this argument?...
If I think about it, no, we were just starting to develop a trusting relationship which may have made this incident all the more destructive.
> I'm sure you're sick of my ramblings on this topic. What I meant to add to the post I just sent is that the rationales I use to look beyond my anger about the administration of the site are available to me because I don't think I idealize Bob or ever have - at least not to the extent of some others.
>
> Now I'll shut up. (;
>
> MairI wish I had more time to respond. My wife is cracking down on my computer time, so I kind of sneak off to PB. I find your "ramblings" very thoughtful and candid. Just wanted to say this before I get in trouble.
Toph
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | 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.