![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 16 of 16. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by shar on January 29, 2001, at 16:59:05
The words I attributed to Name came from several posts in this thread, beginning with the post that Name titled "The worst of both worlds." (# 279 I believe.)
Shar
Posted by name on January 29, 2001, at 18:23:05
In reply to Dr. Bob - The posts you were wondering about., posted by shar on January 29, 2001, at 16:59:05
I can understand the concerns about rehashing V's situation in the post at msgs/279.htm. That is why I tried in that post to clarify that I was not discussing the specifics of V's situation, but rather the specifics of violent relationships as an appropriate topic of discussion in an on-line therapeutic milieu.
It is unfortunate that V became the topic of a public discussion about best practices for on-line therapeutic groups, and it is unfortunate that V was put in the situation by the use of V's screen name in an article about on-line self-help groups.
But that violent relationships are an inappropriate topic for on-line therapy is established in the Standards for the Ethical Practice of WebCounseling of the National Board for Certified Counselors, Inc.
Those standards state that:
"WebCounselors shall ...mention at their websites those presenting problems they believe to be inappropriate for WebCounseling. While no conclusive research has been conducted to date, those topics might include: sexual abuse as a primary issue, violent relationships, eating disorders, and psychiatric disorders that involve distortions of reality."The list of ethical standards is posted on NBCC's web site at: http://www.nbcc.org/ethics/wcstandards.htm
Whether inappropriate topics for on-line counseling are also inappropriate topics for on-line self-help groups administered by mental health professionals presents an interesting question.
Posted by name on January 29, 2001, at 18:33:28
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - The posts you were wondering about., posted by name on January 29, 2001, at 18:23:05
I erred to say the NBCC has established that violent relationships *are* an inappropriate topic for on-line therapy. The NBCC standards state, as quoted, that inappropriate topics *might* include violent relationships.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2001, at 2:49:11
In reply to Dr. Bob - The posts you were wondering about., posted by shar on January 29, 2001, at 16:59:05
> The words I attributed to Name came from several posts in this thread, beginning with the post that Name titled "The worst of both worlds." (# 279 I believe.)
In fact, all the words seem to be in that one post:
> 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.
Yes, this implies that people receive "pollyannic sympathy" here. But it's just an implication and doesn't seem to me to refer to anyone specific, and it's true that we tend to hear just one side of each story.
> 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.
Yes, "pathological" has negative connotations, but again it was a general statement, and it's true that people who avoid (for whatever reasons) face-to-face encounters are going to resist getting help the old-fashioned way.
> 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.
I didn't know what incident was being referred to, so this also struck me as vague, but on second thought it does accuse people here of being vicious, so I do think it merits a warning.
Please restrain yourself, "name", or I'll need to block you (again). Thanks,
Bob
Posted by name on January 30, 2001, at 6:16:39
In reply to Re: please be civil » name, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2001, at 2:49:11
As I understand the warning, the first two passages cited were okay, because one "was a general statement, and it's true" and the other was "just an implication and doesn't seem to me to refer to anyone specific, and it's true," but that another, though it seemed "vague," "does accuse people here of being vicious," so it warrants a warning.
I don’t share the feeling that such a statement would, in the world at large, be considered uncivil, but I do agree to refrain from writing here that anyone’s behavior here is "vicious." And while I might not agree that such a statement is uncivil, I can recognize your preference, Dr. Hsuing, that people not make statements here that accuse people here.
In a reality check, to better understand what is considered civil on the Net, I checked Virginia Shea’s old standard "Netiquette."
Shea wrote that:
"Does Netiquette forbid flaming? Not at all. Flaming is a longstanding network tradition (and Netiquette never messes with tradition). Flames can be lots of fun, both to write and to read. And the recipients of flames sometimes deserve the heat.
But Netiquette does forbid the perpetuation of flame wars -- series of angry letters, most of them from two or three people directed toward each other, that can dominate the tone and destroy the camaraderie of a discussion group."
Shea's standard, though, includes an element of a "series of angry letters," and anger is not the emotion I intended to convey in that or any post related to reducing harm in on-line discussions. I also hope not to appear glib.
Perhaps I can rephrase the concern in general terms that do not accuse anyone here of being "vicious" or anything else. In a study about "The Nature and Prevention of Harm in Technology-Mediated Self-Help Settings," three authors identify types of harm that might result in such settings. They identify harm to individuals, relational harm and harm to the group. One type of relational harm identified as possible in on-line self-help groups is harm to "external" relationships.
According to Waldron, Lavitt and Kelley, of Arizona State University West:
"Support group members sometimes shared secrets or asked for advice about their relationships outside the network. For example, some shared marital problems or criticized their spouses in their postings. Correspondents then offered diagnoses of relational problems and frequently supported the member's interpretation of the situation. Postings of this type create the possibility for several types of relational harm."
That is the kind of possible harm that came to mind when I first read the post at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20001031/msgs/2592.html. It was not in a spirit of incivility that I hastily chose an adverb to describe a person’s statement which asserted that an associate of a group member "was no friend" and which said "shame on that person." I don’t know if I totally agree that pointing others to posts here can be "a terrible violation of ... privacy" (as suggested in that thread). I suppose downloading them onto a disc could be a copyright violation. But the adverb I chose to describe the exchange was not chosen in a spirit of incivility. It was instead a result of not having learned a more effective way to describe concerns related to the exchange. Being unlearned is not uncivil, though learning better communication skills can help us to be more civil. Since studying this page, and other sources, all day, I have learned more about the nature and prevention of harm in technology-mediated self-help settings.
To avoid possible harm from their own efforts, in the study by Waldron, Lavitt and Kelley, the authors carefully avoided focusing their critique on any identifiable group members. "All member and group names and all identity-compromising comments have been changed to protect the participants. In no case is a member's actual utterance reproduced in its original form."
The search engine here readily allows any phrase from this site to be traced to the post where it originated. By not repeating any member's utterence in its actual form, the Arizona State authors set a challenging standard for maintaining anonymity in a research setting. It is not a standard I would easily construe from advice to "please be civil." It is not even advice I might have learned studying literature about Netiquette, reviewing other available research about on-line self-help, or reviewing discussions of ethics in the research of on-line self-help. Many of us are making decisions about on-line behavior based on intuition, and not based on experienced guidance, on literature or on research. As the Arizona State authors say:
"Much of the research to date has concerned itself with the quantity of Internet use and the types of social support provided by online groups (Braithwaite et al., 1999). Although suggestive, this work is limited by its failure to consider the quality of communication in on-line support groups. In particular, discussions of harmful and protective features of these support groups would be enhanced by qualitative data demonstrating the types of on-line behavior exhibited in real groups."
So, Dr. Hsuing, I, along with many other Net users are studiously trying to learn the very unique skills necessary to "restrain" ourselves so as to avoid all harm in on-line communication. Thank you for the inspiration toward continued study.
By the way, identifying this handle as belonging to a person you believe you have previously blocked seems to contradict your promise that "I won't release any identifying information to anyone else." Please respect my privacy.
Thank you,
The Arizona State authors identified the following kinds of harm that *might* occur in on-line self-help settings:
Harm to Individuals
Excessive dependence; On-line emotional distress; Loss of anonymity/confidentiality; Barriers to external medical and therapeutic expertiseRelational Harm
Harm to "external" relationships and displaced aggression; Premature intimacy and emotional intensity; Access and availability in mediated relationships; Potentially unsafe relationshipsHarm to the Group
Infiltration and hidden identities; Technological failure/complexityThe site was down last time I tried, but the study, “The nature and prevention of harm in technology-mediated self-help settings: Three exemplars,” published in Journal of Technology and Human Services was on-line at:
http://www.unh.edu/social-work/SW810/Waldron.htm
Vincent R. Waldron (Ph.D., Ohio State University) is Associate Professor of
Communication Studies, Melissa Lavitt (D.S.W., Tulane University) is Associate Professor and Chair of Social Work, and Douglas Kelley (Ph.D., University of Arizona) is Assistant Professor of Communication Studies, all at Arizona State University West. The authors may be reached at:
College of Human Services, Arizona State University West, 4701W. Thunderbird
Rd., Phoenix, Arizona, 85069.
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 30, 2001, at 9:20:55
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by name on January 30, 2001, at 6:16:39
So, you're saying that, if I were to be beaten by my husband, I ahve no right to come here and get support from my "friends". yes, I know the whole concept of friendship, and simply supporting your friends might be a strange one to you, but I know to many of here, we have developed some quite deep friendships here, and I feel able to talk here openly about things I wouldn't be able to talk about else where. And I also know there are people here that love me and care about me, and as such, here would be the first place I would come to if in need of such help and advice.
But, you think this is wrong!! So we all have to bow down to your idealogies and refrain from posting?? What ever the outcome to ourselves??
Please, instead of just thinking about the "rules" and about what you feel is right or wrong, try sparing a thought for the ones of us here in pain, and in need of the love and support of friends.
You're going the right way to putting alot of people off posting here. You're causing a nasty, uncomfortable feeling.
Please, I'm asking you nicely, consider others before posting your diatribes on how you think this place should be run. As Dr Bob says, a bit of constructive critism is a good thing, but you take it *way* too far.
Nikki
Posted by Rzip on January 30, 2001, at 11:14:44
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by name on January 30, 2001, at 6:16:39
Name,
I used to think that I could use this board to show off my knowledge and such. But at some point, I realized that what I really wanted from PB is not the attention, but rather the interpersonal connections. I wanted be accepted into the PB community. To do that, I had to learn to put down my emotions and feelings in their naked form; and not hide behind the intellectual/acadmic style of reasoning. I can play that game anywhere in school, but here on PB, I have the golden opportunity to connect in a more personal way. I haven't really figured out how to do that...I think just lurking around and reading other people's exchanges and really care about their exchanges helps me to becomeing more humble, more softened, and a better person all-around.
If you want to continue to go on this warpath till Dr. Bob kicks you off once again, then not only will you lose a golden opportunity to better yourself and to satisify your wishes and desires to connect (I realize that I am being biased by my own perception and situation, here). But, I can image it makes hurt you pretty bad inside to spend hours constructing the posts just to have it thrown back at you; or to be received in such a negative way. I think to make mistakes and to try out new approaches is human. But to continue to make the exact same mistakes and to be stubborn is stupid and not very healthy to you or to the others on this board. This is not an academic medium in which people argue the legality and theories of life. There is numerous journals and conferences that you can engage yourself in for that.
I mean do you think that your posts help you in the long run? Do you actually feel better today than when you did the first time that you posted? Only you can answer that.
I know this is going to provoke you, but I am going to kindly ask you not to respond to this post at all...rather think and reflect upon it.
- Rzip
Posted by dennis on January 31, 2001, at 1:27:50
In reply to I don't think this is working, Name, posted by Rzip on January 30, 2001, at 11:14:44
maybe this guy Name is just way too smart for everybody else I am not sure I believe that myself but Im just saying its possible, I mean his posts tend to be long and not fun for me to read but that alone cannot be a problem. Being uncivil would be a problem, but is he really being uncivil? I havent seen anything uncivil from Name? Nobodys forceing you to read Name's posts either.
Posted by dj on January 31, 2001, at 11:56:24
In reply to Re: I don't think this is working, Name, posted by dennis on January 31, 2001, at 1:27:50
> ...posts tend to be long and not fun ... to read but that alone cannot be a problem. ...is he really being uncivil? I havent seen anything uncivil from Name? Nobodys forceing you to read
> Name's posts either.I tend to agree with Dennis. Name may be argumentative, impersonal, long-winded and pedantic but from what I've scanned of his or her posts and the re-action against them, I have a hard time seeing what all the concern is about and why people are working themselves into such a re-active "feeding frenzy"...
In his or her discussion of Cam's reputed (but not real) ban he or she went out of the way to not mention Cam by name - kinda weird but not cause for frothing at the keyboard, it seems to me, unlike some of the pointed, heated and personalized comments I and others have re-acted to at other times...
Name seems to be reasoned in his or her approach, thouogh long-winded and kinda boring, unlike some of the former rabble rousers here, before, so what is it that he or she is doing that is ruffling so many folk's feathers here, other than Cam's re-action which he acknowledged is partially due to personal changes and coming off ADs...????
Some thoughts to ponder, perhaps, or not...
dj
Posted by ksvt on January 31, 2001, at 22:11:10
In reply to Re: I don't think this is working..., posted by dj on January 31, 2001, at 11:56:24
> >I think I agree with dennis and dj that all of this is a tempest in a teapot. There isn't much here that should have gotten everyone so worked up. However, Rzip, I think you expressed wonderfully well the sentiment that Name's message, whatever it may be, will get well lost in his heavy academic analysis. It really isn't the way people connect here and because that seems so obvious to me, I've had trouble figuring out what Name wants to accomplish with his participation. Just some thoughts ksvt
Posted by willow on February 1, 2001, at 7:55:10
In reply to Re: please be civil » name, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2001, at 2:49:11
From this thread I'm getting the impression that "everyone better play the bully's game or they don't get to play." In Name's posts, concerning this thread, I don't read anything uncivil. Is Name being judged by a previous faux pas? If so this I believe would be unchartitable and counter productive to everyone's growth!
Posted by Rzip on February 1, 2001, at 7:56:45
In reply to To dj, dennis and rzip, posted by ksvt on January 31, 2001, at 22:11:10
> > >I think I agree with dennis and dj that all of this is a tempest in a teapot. There isn't much here that should have gotten everyone so worked up. However, Rzip, I think you expressed wonderfully well the sentiment that Name's message, whatever it may be, will get well lost in his heavy academic analysis. It really isn't the way people connect here and because that seems so obvious to me, I've had trouble figuring out what Name wants to accomplish with his participation. Just some thoughts ksvt
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 1, 2001, at 23:48:14
In reply to One sided ..., posted by willow on February 1, 2001, at 7:55:10
> From this thread I'm getting the impression that "everyone better play the bully's game or they don't get to play."
Well, that would be one way of viewing it. :-)
> Is Name being judged by a previous faux pas? If so this I believe would be unchartitable and counter productive to everyone's growth!
Partly so, yes. IMO, it's charitable for it only to be partly. Why would it be counterproductive to everyone's growth?
Bob
Posted by willow on February 2, 2001, at 22:30:39
In reply to Re: One sided ..., posted by Dr. Bob on February 1, 2001, at 23:48:14
"IMO, it's charitable for it only to be partly."
I don't understand this. What does IMO stand for? Perhaps this will help clarify it for me.
"Why would it be counterproductive to everyone's growth?"
Learning acceptance is a good trait to have. It is easy to say, "We agree to disagree!" but so much more rewarding to actually feel it.
As a child I got a dislike for cheese and peanut butter. I can recall the whole experience in both instances. I still have both in my house. Now I even eat cheese when it's in a recipe or sandwich, but anything with a nutty taste I still don't like.
People are the same. Sometimes on first meeting we're so turned off that any reminder upsets us. (The peanut butter stuck to the roof of my mouth.) Or a bad encounter can sour a whole relationship for awhile. (I thought I was getting a carrot, but instead it was a chunk of cheese.) But we still have to learn to tolerate them, we can't expect them to drop dead because we don't like their views or personality. With time we may begin to learn to enjoy their company or just acceptance.
An accepting society results in positive growth. I'm not so polyanna as to believe that there should be no conflict. Conflict can also lead to growth too!
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2001, at 23:33:03
In reply to Re: One sided ..., posted by willow on February 2, 2001, at 22:30:39
> > > Is Name being judged by a previous faux pas?
> >
> > Partly so, yes. IMO, it's charitable for it only to be partly.
>
> I don't understand this. What does IMO stand for? Perhaps this will help clarify it for me.In My Opinion, see also:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010122/msgs/52652.html
What I meant was, it wasn't *only* a previous "faux pas" that was being taken into account.
> > Why would it be counterproductive to everyone's growth?
>
> Learning acceptance is a good trait to have.I agree, but complete total unconditional acceptance?
> I'm not so polyanna as to believe that there should be no conflict. Conflict can also lead to growth too!
I agree, it can, but it doesn't always.
Bob
Posted by Yankee Willow on July 6, 2002, at 4:51:28
In reply to One sided ..., posted by willow on February 1, 2001, at 7:55:10
> From this thread I'm getting the impression that "everyone better play the bully's game or they don't get to play." In Name's posts, concerning this thread, I don't read anything uncivil. Is Name being judged by a previous faux pas? If so this I believe would be unchartitable and counter productive to everyone's growth!
I love it when I'm right, although I won't say "I told you so" because that would be uncivil. In my opinion, when you change the rules after the dice have been thrown that is equally unsupportive to the 'community'.
Why is one person being penalized for another's thoughts without the original poster having anything said to them? (no offense beardy) You are the boss and we are the peons....
wacked out willowp.s. vodka and watermelon goes really good.
This is the end of the 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.