Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 8860

Shown: posts 1 to 25 of 40. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

Re: Lost post but DR BOB your ETHICS « chad_3

Posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2003, at 11:26:08

[from http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030113/msgs/136286.html]

> Hey Bob -
>
> My post is lost so briefly ....
>
> You are a Dr. and also a webmaster editing patient posts. Your board is filled with misinformation and some dangerous (I got a toxic idea from your site - for example - which resulted in ongoing problem).
>
> You leave a lot of the toxic stuff up - you take off what you don't like.
>
> I propose your ethics are out of line.
>
> I would ask you to consider if you are doing net good for people reading your site.
>
> I doubt it.
>
> I seriously ask you to consider shutting down your board in lieu of any cost/benefit burden on viewers.
>
> You benefit (you learn or love or enjoy) - but please ascertain that you help others (net help).
>
> And remember you discourage negative posts - delete some - and people here do not represent the average view.
>
> Do you think people like Dr. Jack Gorman or Dr. William Wirshing (who interviewed me in front of 30 UCLA students and discouraged the "junk out there" when I mentioned (with some *embarrasement* or even *shame* that I had obtained a very toxic idea from "Dr. Bob's Website - a funny name and a sad interview we had) - anyway
>
> Dr. you think those like Dr. Jack Gorman and Dr. William Wishing would recommned a site like yours to patients.
>
> I propose most good Dr's would HIGHLY DISCOURAGE USE OF YOUR SITE.
>
> DO YOU EVER THINK ABOUT THIS DR. BOB - AND / OR DO YOU CARE?
>
> PLEASE CONSIDER SHUTTING DOWN YOUR SITE AFTER GIVING CONSIDERATION TO WHAT YOU ARE PRESENTING TO OTHERS AND HOW IT AFFECTS THEM
>
> CHAD
> HTTP://WWW.SOCIALFEAR.COM/
>
>
>
> > > If it makes you feel any better, you don't have nearly enough klonopin. LD50s for benzos are xxx.
> >
> > Thanks for supporting Dinah, but that information could also have been used by someone to hurt themselves, so I deleted it.
> >
> > Bob
> >
>
>

 

Re: ETHICS

Posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2003, at 17:10:10

In reply to Re: Lost post but DR BOB your ETHICS « chad_3, posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2003, at 11:26:08

> > I got a toxic idea from your site ... which resulted in ongoing problem

May I ask what idea, from what post or posts, and what ongoing problem? Also, could you report it as an adverse event?

https://dr-bob.securesites.com/cgi-bin/pb/advent.pl

> > Do you think people like Dr. Jack Gorman or Dr. William Wirshing (who interviewed me in front of 30 UCLA students and discouraged the "junk out there" when I mentioned (with some *embarrasement* or even *shame* that I had obtained a very toxic idea from "Dr. Bob's Website - a funny name and a sad interview we had)

There is in fact a lot of junk out there. For some links on the quality of information online, please see:

http://www.dr-bob.org/quality.html

Did Dr. Wirshing have concerns specifically about this site? If so, and if you're still in touch with him, please ask him to contact me.

Finally, if you'd like to say more about that interview, I (and probably others) would be interested, but please do that at PB instead of here.

> > DO YOU EVER THINK ABOUT THIS DR. BOB - AND / OR DO YOU CARE?

I've thought a lot about it, and I do care.

Bob

 

Can't we have a blocked posters board?

Posted by Arthurgibson on January 19, 2003, at 7:56:26

In reply to Re: Lost post but DR BOB your ETHICS « chad_3, posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2003, at 11:26:08

Can't we have a board for "blocked" posters?

It's a pity to lose some of the most interesting writers for long periods of time.

"Blocked" posters could be sent over to the "blocked posters" board until they learned to behave, but we could still debate with them. Moreover we could have a different set of rules on the "blocked posters" board. There we could speak our minds more freely without the "causing others to be put down" and "respecting other's faiths" taboos.

I think that a board full of Lost Boys, Chads and Arthur Gibsons could be a fascinating place. Who knows, we might not wish to return to the "normal" boards.

So I vote for a new "delinquent-babble" board.

 

Please don't ban people

Posted by Mitchell on January 19, 2003, at 10:36:16

In reply to Can't we have a blocked posters board?, posted by Arthurgibson on January 19, 2003, at 7:56:26

Block behaviors, not people.

In the nation that incarcerates more of its citizens than any other, it is no wonder the best strategy medical psychiatry can conceive for directing public behavior is individual banishment. It betrays a profession rather lacking in people skills, IMO.

 

Re: Please don't ban people-MitchelArthur

Posted by BekkaH on January 19, 2003, at 17:36:15

In reply to Please don't ban people, posted by Mitchell on January 19, 2003, at 10:36:16

Yes, some of the banning reminds me of the human rights abuses that were routinely practiced against dissenters in the former Soviet Union and that are still practiced in China and many other countries throughout the world. How sad that it happens here.

 

Re: Please don't ban people » Mitchell

Posted by Phil on January 19, 2003, at 17:58:30

In reply to Please don't ban people, posted by Mitchell on January 19, 2003, at 10:36:16

There are, unfortunately some very heated discussions here and nobody has time to moderate the site. It's real world stuff and people get angry. There is no, "Charles, how else could you have reacted to that post calling your mother all those names?"

And, the internet just can bring out madness.

Back to your idea of blocking behaviors..what do you mean?

Phil

 

Re: Can't we have a blocked posters board? » Arthurgibson

Posted by kamikazi_ladybug on January 19, 2003, at 18:10:41

In reply to Can't we have a blocked posters board?, posted by Arthurgibson on January 19, 2003, at 7:56:26

I think thats a good idea. Alot of people use this as a source of support and being banned could really hurt them. On the other hand, I really don't post because of the fear that I may offend someone thus sending me to banned land, so I pretty much stay a lurker. :)

KL

 

Re: Please don't ban people

Posted by Mitchell on January 19, 2003, at 19:38:23

In reply to Re: Please don't ban people » Mitchell, posted by Phil on January 19, 2003, at 17:58:30


> ... your idea of blocking behaviors..what do you mean?
>
> Phil

I don't know of any strong evidence that publicly scolding people then banishing them is any more calming to group processes than removing offending messages and sending a private message to the writer advising why the message was not permitted. In academic publications, scholars insist on privacy for round-robin review. Scholars would be afraid to publish if their peers pre-publication criticisms of their unreviewed work were made public.

Hsuing has asserted in publications that publicly scolding group members who violate his rules helps increase group awareness of civil guidelines. The same purpose can be served by removing offending messages, and publicly stating why the message was removed. Battles over what messages may or may not be posted might be just as tedious as ad hoc banishment appeals, but they might be less hurtful.

 

Re: Please don't ban people

Posted by shar on January 19, 2003, at 20:19:47

In reply to Re: Please don't ban people, posted by Mitchell on January 19, 2003, at 19:38:23

> Hsuing has asserted in publications that publicly scolding group members

......Are you using "publicly scolding" to refer to issuing a "please be civil" request? Is saying "please don't say things that might make others feel put down" a public scolding?

I'm wondering specifically what constitutes a "scolding."

Shar

 

Re: Please don't ban people

Posted by Mitchell on January 19, 2003, at 22:04:56

In reply to Re: Please don't ban people, posted by shar on January 19, 2003, at 20:19:47

> ......Are you using "publicly scolding" to refer to issuing a "please be civil" request? Is saying "please don't say things that might make others feel put down" a public scolding?
>
> I'm wondering specifically what constitutes a "scolding."
>
> Shar

PBC's are at best conditional requests. There is always an "or else" involved, and the "or else" always asks another to do something Hsuing could do himself - to control the content of his web site. PBC's more often than not imply "you should have known better" with "better" meaning Hsuing's personal values.

Webster supports my understanding of the word scold as meaning to find fault noisily.

The cosmic truth is science can't determine who is responsible for whose feelings. Hsuing has no academic or professional authority to find fault in who caused who to feel what. Writers to this site often seem suprised that Hsuing presents as an arbiter of universal human values. People visiting his site routinely feel hurt after encountering his personal preferences offered as one-size-fits-all rules for human interaction. People are often hurt when others try to impose values.

Hsuing is the author of a web site whose authority extends to what he will allow on his web site. If he does not want to allow posts that he feels might provoke some feeling or the other, that is his choice and he might do well take responsibility for his own boundaries. He could as well say the only thing he really knows about it, which is that he, Bob Hsuing, has chosen not to allow certain comments on his site.

When Hsuing goes beyond enforcing his own preferences for what is allowed at his site and attempts to affect what group members believe to be proper, he is violating his self-described role as administrator and not therapist. An administrator enforces rules related to a particular organization. A behavioral therapist more often appeals to universal human values or local cultural mores.

 

Re: Please don't ban people - Mitchell

Posted by BekkaH on January 19, 2003, at 22:21:08

In reply to Re: Please don't ban people, posted by Mitchell on January 19, 2003, at 22:04:56

Bravo!

 

Re: I just don't get it

Posted by Dinah on January 20, 2003, at 5:35:57

In reply to Re: Please don't ban people - Mitchell, posted by BekkaH on January 19, 2003, at 22:21:08

Why do people object to Dr. Bob enforcing a policy of expecting us to behave politely to each other, to refrain from posting on how to obtain illegal drugs, etc? It doesn't really seem all that unusual or controversial to me. In fact, at most places I go, in real life or on the internet, I am expected to adhere to certain standards of behavior. In fact, at most places I go, I would be banned (not blocked for a certain length of time) if I continued to be uncivil after being requested to stop.

I understand that there are many sites where there is no moderator and no civility standards. People are free to seek support at those sites if that is the atmosphere they prefer. Babble is not the only source of support in the world. To me, the reason Babble is superior to those sites and the reason I choose to post here, is because of Dr. Bob's administering of the site along the lines of the site's civility guidelines. Is he perfect? No one is. But it's better than the alternative in my eyes. But to those who prefer the alternative, it's there. No need to try to change Babble into one of those other sites. Those other sites are there and waiting for anyone who wants to use them. And Babble is here for those of us who prefer this format.

It is far easier for me to refrain from responding to an uncivil post directed towards me or someone else if I know that Dr. Bob will take the appropriate measures. I don't particularly like the flavor the board takes on sometimes when Dr. Bob is obviously away, and things get out of hand.

As far as PBC's are concerned. That reminder from Dr. Bob saves people from a lot of argument that could get a lot nastier than a plain Please Be Civil. In fact, Dr. Bob discourages uncivil replies to an uncivil post. And I don't see blocks as anything but Dr. Bob's only way of enforcing the standards. I know Mitchell mentioned deleting all offending posts and privately communicating administrative decisions. But unless those privately communicated decisions could include a block, he'd have to be here 24/7 to delete offending posts. And I don't see anything particularly supportive or improved by having things done secretly with the majority of the board left to gossip and guess about what happened. Plus people would see the post before it was deleted, other people wouldn't know what they are talking about, etc. Posters would be able to say that Dr. Bob told them this or that without any public record to keep matters straight.

I just don't get the whole controversy.

 

Re: I just don't get it » Dinah

Posted by Mitchell on January 20, 2003, at 8:36:55

In reply to Re: I just don't get it, posted by Dinah on January 20, 2003, at 5:35:57

> Why do people object to Dr. Bob enforcing a policy ...
>Dinah

The discussion, as I perceive it, is about how Robert Hsuing enforces policy, not about whether a policy will be enforced.

If there were only one way to control the behavior of message board participants, there would be no controversy. As long as some fail to acknowledge alternative ways to enforce policy, there will always be controversy.

Hsuing titled a publication about his self-styled site "The Best of Both Worlds" without reviewing the context which he was declaring his procedure the best, or summarizing literature that qualitatively analyzes the worlds he claims to have bettered. That is just bad science. Science weighs alternatives.

 

Re: I still don't get it » Mitchell

Posted by Dinah on January 20, 2003, at 9:30:47

In reply to Re: I just don't get it » Dinah, posted by Mitchell on January 20, 2003, at 8:36:55

Is there more going on here than meets the eye, Mitchell? Because I still don't understand.

I seem vaguely to remember reading an article by Dr. Bob, or perhaps it came up in a series of posts, in which he does acknowledge that there are other ways to enforce the policy. Including the off board ways you described. I don't recall why he decided not to use them on this board, but I don't think it can be concluded that they weren't considered.

And as I stated in my previous post, I think it's probably best that way. Can you imagine a situation where someone posts an uncivil post, the poster it was directed to read it, then Dr. Bob deleted it and admonished the first poster privately. The second poster now has good reason to be angry with the first poster, but no one has any context in which to place any future interactions between the posters. The possibilities under this or any number of other possible scenarios that involve that sort of private communication and deletion of posts are endless for the amount of trouble they can cause.

As it is, there is enough of that with private email or with participation on other online groups that creeps onto this board.

So again, I really don't understand. Dr. Bob chose this way of moderating the site. It isn't an unreasonable decision.

Is your problem with his research or his articles or his science? If I understood your objections to be with his publishing or research I think I could understand better.

 

Re: I just don't get it---well said! (nm) » Dinah

Posted by shar on January 20, 2003, at 12:44:30

In reply to Re: I just don't get it, posted by Dinah on January 20, 2003, at 5:35:57

 

The delinquent-babble board

Posted by Arthurgibson on January 20, 2003, at 12:54:19

In reply to Re: I just don't get it---well said! (nm) » Dinah, posted by shar on January 20, 2003, at 12:44:30

It was just my English sense of humour trying to wind up Dr Bob. But of course he is to smart to be drawn and did not respond.

This is an excellently run board and does a great deal of good for many people. The trouble makers should be banned. They are lucky that its only for fixed periods. Banning on other boards is often for life at the first offence, no matter how trivial.

 

Re: I still don't get it » Dinah

Posted by Mitchell on January 20, 2003, at 14:37:58

In reply to Re: I still don't get it » Mitchell, posted by Dinah on January 20, 2003, at 9:30:47

> Is there more going on here than meets the eye, Mitchell?

The study of human cognition reveals that not all of what meets the eye is processed and perceived by the conscious mind.

> It isn't an unreasonable decision.

Scientific reasoning is a process. A person's individual reasons do not comprise sufficient rational to conclude something is reasonable by scientific standards. Merely considering alternatives does not comprise scientific reasoning. Methodically weighing alternatives comprises the work of science.

> Is your problem with his research or his articles or his science? If I understood your objections to be with his publishing or research I think I could understand better.

My observation is that Hsuing published research conclusions profering his site at the best of both worlds before doing the scientific work needed to qualitatively measure the worlds he purports to have bettered. People routinely feel put down by his administrative style. The style he has chosen is based in his personal preferences, and perhaps styled to fit his capacity to manage the board. His preference for public admonishments and for policies that benefit what he describes as a group at the expense of individual members are not research based. Unfortunately, the product of his uncontrolled research (research with no control group) may set precedent for similar projects.

 

Re: I still don't get it

Posted by oracle on January 20, 2003, at 15:40:11

In reply to Re: I still don't get it » Dinah, posted by Mitchell on January 20, 2003, at 14:37:58

OK, fine. Lets do it the way most boards do it.
People are banned for life at the whim of the moderator. Or this is no system and the lists run amuck. (see: USENET)

10 years or being on internet lists has allowed
me to see the many ways lists are controled.
Few do it as well as this one.

Those that are banned always complain about the banning.

 

Corrections » Mitchell

Posted by beardedLADY on January 20, 2003, at 16:10:12

In reply to Re: I still don't get it » Dinah, posted by Mitchell on January 20, 2003, at 14:37:58

Dear Mitchell:

> Scientific reasoning is a process. A person's individual reasons do not comprise sufficient rational to conclude...

It's rationale, with an e on the end, not rational.

>Merely considering alternatives does not comprise scientific reasoning.

I think you mean, "Considering alternatives is not the only component of scientific reasoning." Comprise means to consist of, include, or contain, so that would read, "Merely considering alternatives does not include scientific reasoning." Comprise is used incorrectly in the first sentence, too.

> My observation is that Hsuing published research conclusions profering...

That's proffering, with two efs.

I hope this helps.

Bearded Lady
defender of the English language

 

corekting other's spelling gramar » beardedLADY

Posted by OddipusRex on January 20, 2003, at 16:24:35

In reply to Corrections » Mitchell, posted by beardedLADY on January 20, 2003, at 16:10:12

woodent it be more usefull to discus ideations than speling?
no disrepute to yor mitey intelectuals intent.

>
> > Scientific reasoning is a process. A person's individual reasons do not comprise sufficient rational to conclude...
>
> It's rationale, with an e on the end, not rational.
>
> >Merely considering alternatives does not comprise scientific reasoning.
>
> I think you mean, "Considering alternatives is not the only component of scientific reasoning." Comprise means to consist of, include, or contain, so that would read, "Merely considering alternatives does not include scientific reasoning." Comprise is used incorrectly in the first sentence, too.
>
> > My observation is that Hsuing published research conclusions profering...
>
> That's proffering, with two efs.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Bearded Lady
> defender of the English language

 

Re: Welcome back. Good to see you. :) (nm) » beardedLADY

Posted by Dinah on January 20, 2003, at 17:55:27

In reply to Corrections » Mitchell, posted by beardedLADY on January 20, 2003, at 16:10:12

 

Re: Corrections » beardedLADY

Posted by Miller on January 20, 2003, at 20:11:16

In reply to Corrections » Mitchell, posted by beardedLADY on January 20, 2003, at 16:10:12

Beardy!!!

We sure have missed you. Will will be back on a regular basis now?

:) :) :) :)

-Miller


 

Re: corekting other's spelling gramar

Posted by shar on January 20, 2003, at 20:12:45

In reply to corekting other's spelling gramar » beardedLADY, posted by OddipusRex on January 20, 2003, at 16:24:35

Here we are with comparisons, again. I'm chiming in that discussing 'ideations' is not more useful than discussing spelling, just different.

Shar

> woodent it be more usefull to discus ideations than speling?
> no disrepute to yor mitey intelectuals intent.
>
> >
> > > Scientific reasoning is a process. A person's individual reasons do not comprise sufficient rational to conclude...
> >
> > It's rationale, with an e on the end, not rational.
> >
> > >Merely considering alternatives does not comprise scientific reasoning.
> >
> > I think you mean, "Considering alternatives is not the only component of scientific reasoning." Comprise means to consist of, include, or contain, so that would read, "Merely considering alternatives does not include scientific reasoning." Comprise is used incorrectly in the first sentence, too.
> >
> > > My observation is that Hsuing published research conclusions profering...
> >
> > That's proffering, with two efs.
> >
> > I hope this helps.
> >
> > Bearded Lady
> > defender of the English language
>
>

 

Research--Mitchell

Posted by shar on January 20, 2003, at 20:37:24

In reply to Re: I still don't get it » Dinah, posted by Mitchell on January 20, 2003, at 14:37:58

In any experimental design there will be (must be) personal preferences. The principle investigator (or the PI's designee) will make choices about everything from the hypotheses, the design itself, what scales are used (if any), to data collection methods and the details involved in that, to ...well, every part of the experiment. At some point, it all comes down to personal preference. Yes, even the statistical analyses can come down to that.

The point in research is not that everything one does in an experiment or an analysis is research-based (else how would we ever come up with any new information?), but that, when published, it is properly described and, thus, open to analysis by others.

To be sure, there are generally accepted standards for doing research, but none of them ban experiments where personal preferences exist, nor do they ban experiments without control groups (the social science community would be up shit creek if they always had to have a control group; the basis of most psychology was formed without one).

So, I think that while you may disagree with Dr. Bob's choices about handling matters of manners on the board, that in itself isn't sufficient to invalidate his research or findings.

Shar

> My observation is that Hsuing published research conclusions profering his site at the best of both worlds before doing the scientific work needed to qualitatively measure the worlds he purports to have bettered. People routinely feel put down by his administrative style. The style he has chosen is based in his personal preferences, and perhaps styled to fit his capacity to manage the board.

>His preference for public admonishments and for policies that benefit what he describes as a group at the expense of individual members are not research based.

Unfortunately, the product of his uncontrolled research (research with no control group) may set precedent for similar projects.
>

 

Re: Corrections » beardedLADY

Posted by Mitchell on January 20, 2003, at 20:43:41

In reply to Corrections » Mitchell, posted by beardedLADY on January 20, 2003, at 16:10:12

Beardy, I feel somewhat put down, but I hope Bob doesn't block you for it. I don't know why I am any more a threat to the language than the Capitalist propaganda-makers on Madison Avenue, but I don't hold you responsible for my feelings of being singled out and put down. I don't even take the put down feeling seriously. Feelings are sometimes like escaping body gas, so I don't think you should be banned for making me uh... feel something. And now I am on to a different, equally meaningless feeling anyway.

Rational/rationale - I know, but I rely on a spell checker as sort of a prosthetic extension to my brain.You might notice that as the pace of my posts increases, my spell checking seems to wain. Also, when I write during my lunch hour, I do not edit as carefully as I otherwise might. Same with proffering profer as the proper spelling for proffer. If I couldn't speak until I mastered the language so perfectly I would never err, I would remain silent. But many a fool speaks in flawless grammar.

Comprise, now there is a sticky one. In this usage, propriety is further clouded by my use of a negative modifier.

I think I am right on this. When Jimmy Carter said eight percent of our forces are comprised of women, he spoke correctly. If he said our forces are comprised of 8 percent women, he would have erred.

He could also have correctly said women comprise 8 percent of our forces. If he said the 8 percent of our troops who are women do not comprise an entire army, he would have spoken correctly. And then I can say, correctly, that simply looking at something does not comprise a full examination.
__________________________________________

From M-W.com (Merriam-Webster):
Comprise, definition 3: COMPOSE, CONSTITUTE <a misconception as to what comprises a literary generation -- William Styron> <about 8 percent of our military forces are comprised of women -- Jimmy Carter>
usage Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up.


___________________________________________



Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.