Posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2010, at 12:46:41
In reply to Re: new members » Dinah, posted by vwoolf on September 1, 2010, at 15:23:22
> Where I post now ... people can naturally gravitate to a board that then becomes their primary home place.
>
> muffledOne advantage of small boards is that their members would have more influence over how they evolved. And Babble would have more diverse boards.
> I find this idea interesting. If you did have closed numbers, posters would have to commit more to the group and would have to examine their behaviour much more closely. I know for example that I often feel as if I have one foot in and one foot out, and I know I can get away with it because there are other people who will respond or get involved. In a small group I would not be able to do that. I would be much more visible - to others and to myself. Would I be prepared to make that sort of commitment? I don't know.
>
> vwoolf> There were those of us who objected to the idea of parties we could see and hear but not join. Nothing would stop people from leaving. The idea was to limit who could join.
>
> I thought being rejected could lead to hurt feelings.
>
> I confess it was long enough ago that I don't recall the specifics.> Babble, to me, is a community, and this would be more like having a party visible to all but to which only some are allowed to participate.
>
> You might be more able to see the therapeutic benefits to a closed group because we come from different therapeutic backgrounds. But I think we'd agree on the importance of having a skilled leader providing guidance if a group designed to bring up unconscious processes?
>
> Dinah> The fishbowl is a group technique that has a closed inner group (fish) and an outer observing group, and so is visible. Sometimes the participants switch roles and the observers become the fish, and vice versa.
>
> It felt as if I was just playing with ideas, and trying to be open to possibilities
>
> But now that you mention it, and I hadn't thought it through before, it would need a skilled leader who could intervene to support more fragile participants where necessary, and guide the process in some way, and keep the boundaries. I'm not sure that Dr Bob would want to take on that sort of role.....
>
> vwoolfThose are interesting ideas, that small boards could be used by posters who were interested in examining their interactions with others more closely, and that the fish and the observers could switch roles.
It was long ago, but the specifics are still available:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/308260.html
Small boards would be communities, too, just smaller ones. If one were "full", a poster might feel rejected, but they'd be able to start another one, so they'd still be able to have a small board experience if they wanted.
I wouldn't say small boards would be designed to bring up unconscious processes. Like the current boards, it would be up to the other members to support fragile participants where necessary and to guide the process, and it would be up to me to keep the boundaries.
Thanks for playing with and being open to this.
Bob
a brilliant and reticent Web mastermind -- The New York Times
backpedals well -- PartlyCloudy
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:958770
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20100806/msgs/961280.html