![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 5 to 29 of 31. Go back in thread:
Posted by Rzip on January 22, 2001, at 12:35:18
In reply to Re: The best of Both Worlds., posted by Noa on January 22, 2001, at 10:51:59
> Rzip, if you didn't know the prices, how did you get a copy of the article?
I work in a lab and the subscription was free courtesy of the department.
- Rzip
Posted by name on January 22, 2001, at 15:40:47
In reply to Re: The best of Both Worlds., posted by shar on January 22, 2001, at 12:30:44
I recall the Vesper post quite well, too. With respect to the person who posts as Vesper, I don't know what happened to cause that injury, and I don't intend to infer a cause.
But I read that post as a person who spends days in court listening to conflicting stories and perceptions of domestic violence. I had recently spoken with prosecutors, defense attorneys, police officials and victims' advocates about patterns of violence. I had followed an instance of an apparent false report of domestic violence that left a person in jail for an extended period and I had discussed with officials why victims often recant their reports of violence by a domestic partner.
I can't say what happened to cause Vesper's cut. But I can say what happened in my mind when I read the report, and the resulting concerns that arose regarding a supposedly supportive milieu offered here.
When a police officer responds to a report of an injury caused in a fight, it is usually investigated as a battery. The person who suffered the injury is not always the victim. Officers and investigators are alert for defensive injuries that might indicate the injured party is the perpetrator of violence. Police who respond the scenes of violence are well aware that men are often injured while they are abusing women. Attorney's general in most states advise local police to identify the primary aggressor rather than to sympathize with the most injured party.
If police rountinely hear contrived stories about the cause of an injury, it is fair to suspect similar stories will, for some reason, be posted on the Internet. For a person who has committed violence against a domestic partner, there are often feelings of guilt, and an urge to find sympathy and support to mitigate feelings of guilt. The anonymity of the Internet allows a person to elicit sympathetic and supportive responses to a representation of events that might not be at all accurate. In an environment where challenges and queries concerning a person's representation of facts are discouraged, there is ample opportunity for a person to find pollyannic sympathy.
This is a good reason for therapy to occur behind closed doors; in private a therapist can pursue hunches and investigate motivations that troubled individuals often try to mask. The caveat at the top of the page, that says people in a crisis should get help the old fashioned way, does not address people who have a pathological reason for avoiding old fashioned face-to-face encounters.
In some of the circumstances that are reported here, there are clearly other people involved. Those people are not always available to comment, and on at least one occasion, regular posters viciously criticized the friend of a spouse who advised the spouse that his private matters were being discussed here. The result is that the support offered here is at times limited to the person who posts here. Efforts to maintain a supportive milieu here seem to allow non-supportive and accusatory comments about people who are not here to defend themselves or to tell their side of the story.
As a medium for exchanging information about the effects of medications, this site might perform well. But as a medium for exploring personal problems, the format presents problems. In a domestic situation, threats of suicide are often recognized by victims' advocates as abusive and as efforts to control a domestic partner. Here, a person making such threats is most often treated with unmitigated and unqualified sympathy. If the suicidal postings reflect genuine despair, such a supportive response might be helpful. But if the suicidal posts are used to practice a rhetorical device and find support for a person who is losing control of their spouse, support here can serve to support a situation where one domestic partner is controling another.
In the case of the Littleton, Colo. school shooting, the perpetrators apparently used the Internet to practice their mindset before they actually committed violence. The lack of challenges to their behavior, even after the family of their young friend reported their on-line comments to police, allowed them to infer to themselves that somebody supported their mindset.
I am concerned that inattention here to the hazards of cyberpsychology is driven in large part personal enjoyment of the site and by affection for friendships developed through the site. I don't see unmitigated support for this process as being based on a realistic assessment of the real life situations involving thousands of people that in some way include posting here of select details of their situation.
It is a mistake to assume that the only malicious people who post here are those who are overtly abusive. People may use this environment to covertly find reinforcement for pathologic aspects of their personality. The "group" process here, using the limited information presented here, might at times be ineffective for sorting through some the problems presented here.
In the case of a person who comes here to discuss injuries incurred during a fight, sympathy and support for them might be unsympathetic and non-supportive to possible victims. That a similar situation was represented in a medical journal as evidence of the "Best of Both Worlds" and that the article is inaccesible to many of the people involved here might not represent the best spirit of peer review.
Posted by Rach on January 23, 2001, at 1:50:37
In reply to Re: The worst of Both Worlds., posted by name on January 22, 2001, at 15:40:47
I also recall the vesper post, and the replies he recieved.
I think you, name, are too harsh about this forum. You said so yourself - people find enjoyment, share pain, gain friends and aid each other's recovery through this site. How can that not be a good thing?
You also talk about pollyannic sympathy, unchallenged facts, and a controlling spouse boosting support for themselves via this forum. Basically, if this person wants to find support, they will find it. Whether it is from friends, on the internet, or in a some other form. There are unfortunately always going to be people who abuse the system. But that is no reason to question the system that is in place. And as far as challenging facts go - what good would that do? You're not going to catch someone in a lie becasue they can always go back and check what they said. If you challenge someone who is telling the truth, then it can be severely damaging to that person.
This place isn't without its flaws, I know. But you certainly are harsh with your belief (or lack thereof) in this system.
This place has improved people's lives. And I know of no instance when it has done the opposite. Where is the harm?
Posted by name on January 23, 2001, at 18:45:45
In reply to Re: The worst of Both Worlds., posted by Rach on January 23, 2001, at 1:50:37
> You said so yourself - people find enjoyment, share pain, gain friends and aid each other's recovery through this site.
I didn't quite say all that!
> How can that not be a good thing?
What I was trying to say is that, just because good things occur, it doesn't mean *only* good things result.
> You also talk about pollyannic sympathy, unchallenged facts, and a controlling spouse boosting support for themselves via this forum. ... But that is no reason to question the system that is in place.
In this instance, the questions were not so much of the system, but of how the system is assessed in a journal. If we assume that *only* good things result, we might lose sight of ways to improve evolving on-line discussions. Improving the system is a good reason to question the system.
>And as far as challenging facts go - what good would that do?
That might be a limitation of this kind of system that needs to be explored. Most law enforcement professionals and emergency clinical workers agree that it is best to inquire how and why people are injured.
> This place has improved people's lives. And I know of no instance when it has done the opposite. Where is the harm?
Those who seem to suffer from their contact with the site are sometimes exluded. There is no controlled method in place to measure the impact of this site on peoples' state of mind. The anonymity of the site precludes the kind of follow-up study that would identify circumstances where the group dynamic might dispose someone to harm themself or another.
Hypothetical benefits need to be weighed against hypthetical risks. Science can be a harsh test for systems of belief.
Posted by stjames on January 23, 2001, at 19:11:11
In reply to Re: The worst of Both Worlds., posted by Rach on January 23, 2001, at 1:50:37
For the sake of accruarcy, Vesper is female.
She also reported more than once about her cutting herself.James
Posted by name on January 23, 2001, at 19:48:31
In reply to Re: The worst of Both Worlds., posted by stjames on January 23, 2001, at 19:11:11
> For the sake of accruarcy, Vesper is female.
> She also reported more than once about her cutting herself.
>
> James
That was my impression, though "My gf beat on me" implies a f/f relationship, which is cool. But in f/f relationships and m/m relationships, parties have an even harder time requesting protection and getting protection from abuse.Gay relationships present the same opportunities, with complications, for an abuser to charge a victim with abuse. Anyway, I am not offering presumptions, insinuations or accusations about the person who posted as Vesper, but pointing out that on-line reports are unreliable. If on-line support can be helpful, on-line support for pathological mindsets potentially can be harmful.
Posted by name on January 23, 2001, at 21:26:14
In reply to Re: The worst of Both Worlds., posted by name on January 23, 2001, at 19:48:31
Perhaps it would be easier to think about the hazards of new technology, anonymity and the glowing reports of a practitioner in terms of a more distant example.
In 1997, Rolling Stone revealed the true story of John/Joan, a young boy whose sexuality was altered after a doctor botched a circumcision. For a decade and a half, Dr. John Money represented the case as proof that sexuality was pliable, and could be altered by upbringing. With no access to independent follow-up studies, much of the public accepted Money's assertions as credible. When other investigators finally interviewed John, they found he had not been satisfied with his assigned female identity.
The story is on-line at:
http://www.pfc.org.uk/news/1998/johnjoan.htmThe case of Dr. Money's promotion of his sex-change theories, using an anonymous case as proof, is not exactly parallel to the case of Dr. Hsuing's reports of the benefits of on-line self-help groups. But there are parallels. Here, as with the case of John, there is no effort to track and report results among anonymous clients that contraindicate the otherwise promising new procedure.
Posted by stjames on January 23, 2001, at 23:17:31
In reply to Re: The worst of Both Worlds., posted by name on January 23, 2001, at 21:26:14
> The case of Dr. Money's promotion of his sex-change theories, using an anonymous case as proof, is not exactly parallel to the case of Dr. Hsuing's reports of the benefits of on-line self-help groups. But there are parallels. Here, as with the case of John, there is no effort to track and report results among anonymous clients that contraindicate the otherwise promising new procedure.
James here.....Way out on a limb, aren't we ? BTW, persons on this list contacted Vespers doc(s). Really, Name,
since you were not on this list while Vesper was here and don't have your facts straight; please stop using her to further your point. She was in considerable pain and your conjectures as to what/why she did are an insult to her. I think we got your point a long time ago. Your leap from gay relationships to transexualisim to what Dr Bob
does here is not based in reality. Perhaps that is the problem, in general.James
Posted by name on January 23, 2001, at 23:30:29
In reply to Re: The worst of Both Worlds., posted by stjames on January 23, 2001, at 23:17:31
> Way out on a limb, aren't we ?We? I don't sense any commonality in your tone.
> not based in reality. Perhaps that is the problem, in general.
Questioning a person's grasp on reality serves to avoid the substance of a concern. To dismiss the substance of a concern is hardly supportive.
Posted by shar on January 23, 2001, at 23:50:32
In reply to Re: The worst of Both Worlds., posted by stjames on January 23, 2001, at 19:11:11
James,
when Janice (that's her screen name) called Vesper's psychologist after Vesper gave her permission to do so, Janice referred to Vesper as "he" several times. I believe he's male. It was about Feb. 2000 when that happened.Just for the record.
Shar
Posted by Noa on January 24, 2001, at 12:49:49
In reply to Re: The worst of Both Worlds. » stjames, posted by shar on January 23, 2001, at 23:50:32
Yes, Vesper is male, but disclosed that he has gender identity issues.
When that post about the sutures appeared, I believe it was a few months after the episode when Janice had permission, and did, call Vesper's doctor to alert her of the emergency.
Vesper acknowledged both suicidal thoughts and actions as well as self-injury actions not intended as suicide. What I, personally, found difficult about Vesper's posts, and I was honest about this to Vesper, was that he would appear suddenly after an absence, announce having made serious, possibly life-threatening, cuts (or having taken large amounts of medication in a suicidal impluse), a flurry of supportive and frantic posts would follow, in which people would entreat him to go for help immediately, and then He would suddenly sort of drop the whole thing, as the crisis passed. I did not see Vesper as purposely manipulative or anything, just very troubled by rapidly changing feeling-storms, and there was a lot of approach-withdrawal. It was very difficult for me, emotionally, and my way of coping, after a few rounds of this, was to withhold from responding (I told Vesper this so he knew I was not ignoring him out of lack of caring, just out of self-preservation).
I am not sure if I fully understand Name's comments in this thread, but I don't believe that most people's responses to Vesper were uncaring. I am aware that a few were angry and perhaps harsh ( this is from recollection--I haven't read those archives recently) but I saw that as coming out of the frustration from the quickly shifting moods that Vesper presented--crisis on, crisis off--with what seemed like such high stakes (deep, self inflicted knife wounds, for example). It was scary stuff, and really stirred people up.
Posted by stjames on January 24, 2001, at 14:23:16
In reply to Re: The worst of Both Worlds., posted by name on January 23, 2001, at 23:30:29
>
> > Way out on a limb, aren't we ?
>
> We? I don't sense any commonality in your tone.
>
> > not based in reality. Perhaps that is the problem, in general.
>
> Questioning a person's grasp on reality serves to avoid the substance of a concern. To dismiss the substance of a concern is hardly supportive.James here....
I was not being critical of Name, just making the observation that given body of his/her posts
and how often some poster's have resonded with "What" or "Huh" and some questionable leaps
or logic in these posts, it is resonable to question Names' grip on reality.james
Posted by name on January 24, 2001, at 19:14:01
In reply to Re: The worst of Both Worlds., posted by Noa on January 24, 2001, at 12:49:49
> I am not sure if I fully understand Name's comments in this thread,
That is understandable. I don't think that is a question of my grasp on reality, but rather speaks of different perspectives, and different ways people recognize and express concerns.
> but I don't believe that most people's responses to Vesper were uncaring. I am aware that a few were angry and perhaps harsh...
I recall mostly concerned responses, too, though uncaring responses, and character attacks are not uncommon on Internet bulliten boards, even when there is an effort to maintain a supportive environment.
My comments in this thread have consistently included assertions that I do not speak directly to Vesper's situation, but to that situation apparently as used as an example in another publication. My concern stems from the widely recognized lack of a hierarchy of credibility in on-line publications.
The situation described is an example of one in which a third party was reportedly involved in violence. Third party's interests are sometimes not represented on the board, and those parties might be effected by responses offered here to a person who posted a selective or inaccurate version of their circumstances.
>It was scary stuff, and really stirred people up.
That is my perspective, expressed very well. My concern is for the results that occur outside the scope of this sometimes scarry and stirring dialogue. I believe that is a realistic concern.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 2:13:16
In reply to Re: The worst of Both Worlds., posted by name on January 23, 2001, at 21:26:14
> Here ... there is no effort to track and report results among anonymous clients that contraindicate the otherwise promising new procedure.
The posts are all here, and therefore could in fact be analyzed by others who were less biased -- or had different biases. :-)
Bob
Posted by name on January 25, 2001, at 2:24:49
In reply to Re: independent follow-up, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 2:13:16
> > Here ... there is no effort to track and report results among anonymous clients that contraindicate the otherwise promising new procedure.
>
> The posts are all here, and therefore could in fact be analyzed by others who were less biased -- or had different biases. :-)
>
> BobGranted, but the analysis is slanted toward those who were allowed to return and who commented on their experiences here.
We know nothing about the circumstances of people who never returned. Analysis of posts only reveals what people voluntarily report here, not what happened in their life, or in the lives of those around them.
Posted by Cam W. on January 25, 2001, at 7:00:42
In reply to Re: independent follow-up, posted by name on January 25, 2001, at 2:24:49
>
>
> > > Here ... there is no effort to track and report results among anonymous clients that contraindicate the otherwise promising new procedure.
> >
> > The posts are all here, and therefore could in fact be analyzed by others who were less biased -- or had different biases. :-)
> >
> > Bob
>
> Granted, but the analysis is slanted toward those who were allowed to return and who commented on their experiences here.
>
> We know nothing about the circumstances of people who never returned. Analysis of posts only reveals what people voluntarily report here, not what happened in their life, or in the lives of those around them.Name - Sounds like almost any clinical trial I have ever read. Do not take this the wrong way, I do not intend it to be mean, but I just want to clarify an issue or two that have been baffling me.
I cannot understand what you are trying to accomplish with your posts. Are you trying to impose your own brand of "white bread", "moral majority"-like political correctness to this site? Or is it that you think that because some are excluded for not acting like responsible adults, that this site is incapable of helping people. If you have such grievences with this site, why do you keep posting, or even return? Any site that disgusts me the way this one seems to do to you, I do not return to (eg pro-Neo-Nazi sites).
If you think that this site does do harm to those who frequently ask advice here, why not take up your issues with the AMA or the U of Chicago? They have trained experts that should be able to make judgements (or at least come to a consensus) if this site is helpful or harmful.
In reality though, it seems to me that your are being antagonistic to see whose buttons you can push. I really doubt that you sincerely feel that you are crusading in a cause against the people wronged via this site. It would seem to me (and this is only my opinion) that you just enjoy being antagonistic; that you want adult interactions, but seem to push them away with your "if you say it is hot, I say it is cold", attitude or when you relate events that occur on this board to events at that high school in Colorado (which is absurd - I find it hard to come to a rational connection between this board and Littleton).
Who are you trying to save by continuing to post here? You are not the messiah, saving the sick from the "evils" of those who subscribe to a scientifically, evidenced-based pharmacotherapy/psychotherapy form of treatment for those with mental illnesses. If you don't like the way things are done around here why do you continue to stay and post? Besides, the form and style of your writings sounds very familiar....
Sincerely - Cam
Posted by Rebecca on January 25, 2001, at 12:23:24
In reply to Re: independent follow-up » name, posted by Cam W. on January 25, 2001, at 7:00:42
woah.
I think part of what name is trying to do is address Rach's assertion:
"This place has improved people's lives. And I know of no instance when it has done the opposite. Where is the harm?"
I agree with name, inasmuch as he/she disagrees with Rach on this point. Not everything that has come out of this board has been good for every person who has read/participated. As name has pointed out, the people who continue post tend to be those who have had good results (if I can use such a word in this context); hence it's hard to find the people who have been dissatisfied/harmed by PB and its various incarnations by looking at posts. However, I recall several instances when regular posters have left the board for varying intervals because it was not proving beneficial. Various reasons were given as the rationale for staying away--it was taking up too much time, the individual needed to spend more time working on real-world issues, the individual could not take the emotional strain of participating, and so on. someone with more time to look through the archives could give a deeper analysis.
Name is trying to address some other stuff stemming from the Vesper post. but I think Cam and others are trying to read more into them than is there.
Posted by Noa on January 25, 2001, at 16:02:17
In reply to Re: independent follow-up, posted by Rebecca on January 25, 2001, at 12:23:24
I would agree with you on this--a lot of people have benefitted, but this (or any other) board cannot be all things to all people, and I am sure some people either have gotten nothing particularly helpful out of it, or have gotten some good things out of it but had too much anxiety stirred up by it that overshadowed any benefit, or perhaps for some people, it just stirs up a lot without offering any benefit. Each of us is different.
It is a support board, not a panacea. It is not necessary for it to be 100% successful for it to be considered a good thing.
Posted by ksvt on January 26, 2001, at 12:54:37
In reply to Re: independent follow-up » Rebecca, posted by Noa on January 25, 2001, at 16:02:17
this (or any other) board cannot be all things to all people,
I agree with this and would add that like most things in life, it can't be all things to even a few people. At times this board has been a critical lifeline, and occasionally I can feel good about what I've been able to contribute. For me, and I'm sure for lots of people, there are also times when I feel like I have nothing to say, or I'm too mentally fatigued to participate or I'm angry or hurt by something said or not said by others. We can all opt in and out and in again. Hopefully we can do this in a manner that maximizes the benefits. I don't disagree with some of what name said, but I read into his post an inference that any detriments underminded the value of the board. If you hold this board to an impossible standard, it's bound to disappoint. ksvt
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2001, at 23:41:06
In reply to Re: independent follow-up » name, posted by Cam W. on January 25, 2001, at 7:00:42
> Are you trying to impose your own brand of "white bread", "moral majority"-like political correctness to this site?
> it seems to me that your are being antagonistic to see whose buttons you can push.
Please, it's important to be civil -- even if you think someone else is being outrageous. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 27, 2001, at 14:18:59
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2001, at 23:41:06
Dr Bob... why do you feel unable to also ask Name to be civil?? I am getting increasingly annoyed by his posts (and sorry, I just feel this need to read them!!). he just seems to want to argue. What ever is said he is going to reply with a post that argues that view point. I have re-read all his posts, and read your article twice too, but seem incapable of understanding what the problem is.
Maybe you can explain!! :o)
Nikki
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2001, at 16:23:28
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by NikkiT2 on January 27, 2001, at 14:18:59
> Dr Bob... why do you feel unable to also ask Name to be civil?? I am getting increasingly annoyed by his posts (and sorry, I just feel this need to read them!!). he just seems to want to argue. What ever is said he is going to reply with a post that argues that view point.
Well, it's possible to argue in a civil way. Being civil is about how someone interacts, not what they think. And it's good to hear different points of view. But if there's something specific you think I've missed, let me know, and I'll take another look.
Also, you may feel a need to read those posts, but of course you don't really need to... :-)
Bob
Posted by shar on January 29, 2001, at 0:16:57
In reply to Re: being civil, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2001, at 16:23:28
What I find in Name's posts does not exemplify support for this site, although the writing is lengthy, quasi-academic, and multisyllabic enough to thinly veil the continuous criticism of the site and its posters, particularly with respect to how it could be improved in hypothetical circumstances.
It is hard for me to read Name's posts and consider them civil, simply because the approach is more toney than someone who comes right out and says "grow up" or "shut up" (for example). Name hypothesized that posters (Vesper) might have a pathological reason for posting here. That posters viciously attacked the spouse of another poster. Name described the support some people gave as pollyanna support (or something to that effect).
I'm afraid I don't find that much more civil than some others who have been chastised. Overall, I find the tone of Name's posts to be extremely negative and nonsupportive of the site and its posters' behaviors, and an underlying theme of disdain (or maybe arrogance, or maybe both) toward anyone who responds to Name's posts, IMHO.
I suppose it is all in the way you want to define civility.
True, Name does not stamp his or her little foot (which might IMHO actually be more genuine), but Name does indeed go on and on and on (and on) about the faults inherent in this site and quite freely uses examples of posters on this site who display the "faults."
However, it is and always has been your call, doc. I don't always agree with you and do not envy your responsibility!.... :-)
Shar
> > Dr Bob... why do you feel unable to also ask Name to be civil?? I am getting increasingly annoyed by his posts (and sorry, I just feel this need to read them!!). he just seems to want to argue. What ever is said he is going to reply with a post that argues that view point.
>
> Well, it's possible to argue in a civil way. Being civil is about how someone interacts, not what they think. And it's good to hear different points of view. But if there's something specific you think I've missed, let me know, and I'll take another look.
>
> Also, you may feel a need to read those posts, but of course you don't really need to... :-)
>
> Bob
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 29, 2001, at 8:18:27
In reply to Re: being civil--is glib always civil?, posted by shar on January 29, 2001, at 0:16:57
Oh, so as long as I were to attack people / ideas using nice long "academic" words, that would be OK would it??
name feels the need to attack anything posted that others here may believe in. he causing serious tension and upset on this site - not just to myself. One person, who I feel was a HUGE asset to this site, has already been banned by voicing the opinion of the masses regarding name. How can you actually have considered doing this, as the person banned has helped both you (I'm sure) and many many members of this site with his knowledge. I was flabagasted when I heard you had banned him. Ridiculous is pretty much a good answer.
But if you feel that name, with his so called academic ideas is a greater asset to this, so be it. personally, I think you're making a huge mistake.
Nikki
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2001, at 10:17:41
In reply to Re: being civil--is glib always civil?, posted by NikkiT2 on January 29, 2001, at 8:18:27
> What I find in Name's posts does not exemplify support for this site, although the writing is lengthy, quasi-academic, and multisyllabic enough to thinly veil the continuous criticism of the site and its posters, particularly with respect to how it could be improved in hypothetical circumstances.
Criticizing the site I can handle, I try to be open to feedback, and it's not like the site couldn't be improved. Criticizing posters, however, is a different story.
> > if there's something specific you think I've missed, let me know, and I'll take another look.
> Name hypothesized that posters (Vesper) might have a pathological reason for posting here. That posters viciously attacked the spouse of another poster. Name described the support some people gave as pollyanna support (or something to that effect).
OK, I'll take another look. Was that all in one post? Do you have the URL handy? If not, that's OK, I'll just search for it.
Thanks for your patience, everyone, while we hash this out...
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.