![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 27 to 51 of 51. Go back in thread:
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 0:02:31
In reply to Re: The article, posted by Dr. Bob on January 27, 2001, at 2:17:09
What about having some online questionnaires here for participants at psychobabble. Maybe a test-retest type for new members. First, an anonymous (important they know this) questionnaire regarding problems and concerns they came with and a measure of affect and then another to follow-up on the later results and affective state. I guess you could compare it somewhat to an inventory like the Beck Depression Inventory or such-but not actually that because that isn't everyone's problem, of course. In addition another type of questionnaire could be constructed for members who have been here for varying amounts of time. When persons register, it could be given to only those who wish to participate. And other links to questionnaires could be *somewhere* on the different "psycho" boards themselves. :)
Posted by stjames on January 28, 2001, at 2:46:42
In reply to MARS or others - need technical support, posted by ksvt on January 27, 2001, at 21:48:30
> >Mars I followed the directions you gave Noa about saving the article to my hard drive. When I try to open it I get a box which says I have to convert it from "unsupported format". Do you know what I can do? Thanks K
>James here......
You need Adobe Acrobat Reader, a free download.
http://www.adobe.com
Download the Reader and install it, then click on
the article file and it will open correctly.James
Posted by judy1 on January 28, 2001, at 12:57:33
In reply to The article, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 18:45:22
Thank you very much for posting your article, I felt it accomplished what it set out to do- educate and inform your peers about this very unique place. As far as those who felt it was 'dry' probably don't read too many scientific papers, compared to many your article flowed beautifully. Perhaps this comment is outside the realm of your question, (and since I'm loaded down on medications you may be more liberal with me), this place has had a huge impact on me, it is a safe place and I have had very few of those in my life. Take care, judy
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2001, at 16:34:15
In reply to Questionnaires? » Dr. Bob, posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 0:02:31
> What about having some online questionnaires here for participants at psychobabble...
I've been wanting to do that for a long time. I think I mentioned looking at "outcomes" before, that would be using questionnaires.
Are there any particular questionnaires anyone would like to recommend? If they're in the public domain, that would be nice...
Bob
Posted by Rzip on January 28, 2001, at 19:00:46
In reply to Re: Questionnaires?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2001, at 16:34:15
Dr. Bob,
Perhaps you can investigate how is ON-LINE communication beneficial (or hindering) to a client who is currently seeing a therapist, whom does not have an e-mail address. My current therapist does not have or does not believe in e-mail exchanges. Unbelievable!
So, let us say that you have a new participant who is currently seeing such a therapist. Then, you can track his/her internal thought processes before, during, and after ten weeks. You figure out how to control and standardize this. What I am interested in is one, exactly how in more concrete terms does this online exchange change my affect. And how does it hinder me? Logically, the answer should lie in my self-control. So, at what point does this exchange "harm" me. What if I am triggered by something online. In a therapy session, I can always count on my therapist to guide me out of it. But, if something online triggers me, then who do I turn to? Perhaps you could investigate this further. When do a participant know that he/she should get off-line and contact the therapist? Obviously, if the poster is suicidal or is bleeding or hurt, then the obvious answer is the emergency room. But what if he/she just got spooked or triggered for whatever reason. At that time, should they continue to sit in front of the computer screen and wait for others to respond to the post. Or, should they extract themselves completely from the Internet setting and go do something (walking, studying, watch T.V.) at a place where there is actually no contact with a computer. Should they take a time-out. For me, personally, I am finding that the time-out option is the most effective. Perhaps, that only works for me because of my personality or the reason that I got triggered in the first place.
Would you be interested in formating a questionaire on this issue?
- Rzip
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2001, at 8:40:26
In reply to Re: The article » Dr. Bob, posted by judy1 on January 28, 2001, at 12:57:33
> this place has had a huge impact on me, it is a safe place and I have had very few of those in my life.
Thanks for your note. It's essential that this feel like a safe place, I'm glad it does to you.
Bob
Posted by Mark H. on January 29, 2001, at 20:43:09
In reply to Re: safe place, posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2001, at 8:40:26
> It's essential that this feel like a safe place, I'm glad it does to you.
>
> BobDear Dr. Bob,
I respectfully disagree. Psycho-Babble boards should BE a safe place (and in fact are), but it is counter-productive to say that "it's essential that this *FEEL* like a safe place," which contradicts the possibility that *feeling* unsafe and *being* unsafe are two completely different things.
Therapy (or growth, healing, movement forward, positive change) begins when the participant is willing to *feel* something uncomfortable or even unsafe in an environment that is, in fact, inherently safe, such as a supportive peer group. Being able to discern the difference between a difference of opinion and a life-threatening situation is a major therapeutic goal for many people.
As much as I dislike the recent tenor of "name's" postings, he or she is demonstrating perfectly the difference between being civil and being disagreeable. As far as I can tell, "name" has been consistently civil. I understand why some of my closest friends on this board find him/her infuriating, but as long as he/she is civil, their feelings about him/her are their problem.
Please don't impose on PB/PSB the need to "make" people "feel" safe. Check with your clinical colleagues -- dont' take my word for it. People ARE safe here; how they feel is up to them.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mark H.
Posted by Cecilia on January 30, 2001, at 0:38:18
In reply to The article, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 18:45:22
> > I'm still waiting to hear back from them again, so I assume they're considering a discount...
>
> Wrong! Well, I'll pay the toll (and not out of donations). Journals do need to make a living, too. Anyway, here it is:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/research.html
>
> You'll let me know what you think?
>
> BobDr. Bob: this link doesn`t work for web tv, any chance the article can be printed in this thread so web tv users can see it? Thanks!
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2001, at 1:16:34
In reply to I Respectfully Disagree, posted by Mark H. on January 29, 2001, at 20:43:09
> I respectfully disagree. Psycho-Babble boards should BE a safe place (and in fact are)...
Of course you're right, they should *be* a safe place. :-)
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2001, at 1:18:20
In reply to Re: The article, posted by Cecilia on January 30, 2001, at 0:38:18
> this link doesn`t work for web tv, any chance the article can be printed in this thread so web tv users can see it?
Sorry, the link to research.html that I posted doesn't work, or that works, but the link there to the pdf file doesn't work?
Bob
Posted by Rach on January 30, 2001, at 6:09:12
In reply to Re: Questionnaires?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2001, at 16:34:15
Not sure if anyone remembers, but a while back I posted an informal questionnaire just because I thought it would be interesting, about people's opinions on their own depression.
Not scientific by any means - but an interesting read. Perhaps I could find it in the archives and repost it to see what answers people have now? We have a lot of new people and I know that my own answers have changed.
Posted by Noa on January 30, 2001, at 9:05:57
In reply to Re: Questionnaires? (Informal one last year), posted by Rach on January 30, 2001, at 6:09:12
Egroups had (and I assume yahoo continues this) a survey format, so if needed, we could have a link to a questionaire there.
Posted by anna78 on January 30, 2001, at 11:53:13
In reply to Re: The article, posted by name on January 26, 2001, at 1:35:56
Thanks for the helpful followup reply, name..... I very much appreciate your input on this matter, since nobody else seems to see much wrong with what doc has done here.An issue not yet discussed is one about the power differential that exists between the doc/administrator and his subjects/posters/consumers/advice-receivers. in therapy, I know that therapists seek to try and limit having more than one relationship with the client at a time..in other words, the therapist is the therapist, she is not the client's "friend" or anything else. (although transference may make the therapist something else temporarily or symbolically..)
Here, doc is in the role of administrator, with the unique and unequalled power to kick anybody off of his little world he doesn't agree with or thinks is acting in a manner inconsistent with what he'd like. he is also in the role of psychiatrist, doling out tidbits of information on high, very much like a traditional doctor. and he is in the role of resource provider, giving everyone the actual technical resources to participate and be together. last, he is in the role of secret researcher and author, collecting our posts as 'data' for his studies, but not letting anyone know about it until after-the-fact.
Seems like a lot of roles to juggle and to juggle well. it's no wonder that so many people defend him so vigorously, because they owe him so much and after all, what is vesper's privacy worth? apparently not all that much.
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 30, 2001, at 12:17:03
In reply to Re: The article - power differential, posted by anna78 on January 30, 2001, at 11:53:13
I think you have confused the issue entirely here. Since when has Dr Bob acted as therapist to *any* of us. Infact, I've never seen him post advice on medical issues to anyone.
He is simply a doctor, who having noticed that a medium such as this can be helpful, he has provided US with an area WE can use.
If YOU don't like it, no one makes you post. It is NOT therapy, in that you're told to return each week / month. here it is an open space, like a park wall, that you can visit and leave messages if you wish. If you don't wish to, it really doesn't matter, as no one is expecting you, or will notice if you haven't. Dr Bob does not invite people to come here, we all just stumble upon it in our own little ways.
It is known here that Dr Bob would use this for his own uses, eg writing papers, as it virtually says so. I am not the most intelligent person in thw world, but the phrase ". Submitting a message gives me permission to use it as I wish" makes me think that he might write papers or something about stuff here.
Your points would be perfectly valid if this were a private place in the great big mall known the the "net", if it were passworded for example, and the only people posting were people invited to use it a group therapy kind of a way. But it isn't. Anyone with access to a pc can come here and read what they want, post what they want, and use it in any way they want to. How mnay of us may not have actualy mental health problems, but just get a kick out of posting an dtrying to get a reaction?? How many of us might ust get a kick out of igving people advice - whether true or not... You don't know this, because of the sort of medium it is.
OK, so you were upset that Dr Bob deigned to write an article without personally informing you. Thats life I'm afraid. I'm pretty sure this site has been reviewed in magazines the world over and we've not been told about it. I know other sites I visit have been, and I've always felt quite proud that I am associated with a site like that.
And yes, I owe Dr Bob alot really. Without this site I would never have found some wonderful people I now have as friends, whom I love and care about,and whom (I think!!) love me and care about me. Call me a suck up if you wish, but I am fed up of people thinking Dr Bob owes THEM something, when in fact, he is providing US with a service.
I could say alot more, but it would certainly get me banned.
Nikki
Posted by judy1 on January 31, 2001, at 13:55:59
In reply to I Respectfully Disagree, posted by Mark H. on January 29, 2001, at 20:43:09
My first reaction when I read your post was what an obnoxious twit, which is extremely uncivil and will probably get me kicked off, but also make my shrink very proud of me (since I RUN from any confrontation). My second was you demonstrated an excellent command of the English language, which tells me you probably aren't on 6 different psychotropic drugs. I respectfully submit I wrote a public post expressing my feelings to Dr. Bob, he graciously responded and I didn't need your interference. Thank you.
Posted by Mark H. on January 31, 2001, at 14:19:19
In reply to Re: I Respectfully Disagree » Mark H., posted by judy1 on January 31, 2001, at 13:55:59
Dear Judy,
Good for you for confronting me. That's positive. I'm also pleased to see that I've come up somewhat in your estimation (not kidding -- being characterized as an obnoxious twit is definitely better than being characterized as cruel). Perhaps I'm doing better. I hope so.
Why do I provoke such strong sentiments from you? (Will I be sorry I asked?) I'm an amazingly normal, caring person, and I'm puzzled at why I would evoke such sentiments from anyone.
I actually am on 5 psychotropic medications, not 6, and I've received a lot of support and assistance from people on this board, for which I am deeply grateful. I respect that you and I may have differences of opinion on some matters.
Dr. Bob -- don't slap judy1 with a "please be civil" on my behalf. I'm glad she is comfortable stating her concerns directly to me.
Thanks for writing, Judy.
Best wishes,
Mark H.
Posted by judy1 on January 31, 2001, at 14:40:26
In reply to judy1, posted by Mark H. on January 31, 2001, at 14:19:19
I reacted that way because I tried to express a deeply held feeling and reading your post made me feel stupid- like I was incapable of distinguishing feeling or being safe. Now I'm thinking if someone is going to jump on me for semantics, I should probably just e-mail Dr. Bob with my thoughts. I hope this helps- judy
Posted by Mark H. on January 31, 2001, at 15:06:23
In reply to Re: judy1 » Mark H., posted by judy1 on January 31, 2001, at 14:40:26
Hi Judy,
It does help, thanks. Your statement was completely valid, intelligent and appropriate. Dr. Bob's response raised some concerns for me, I shared them with him, and he responded. Since the thread was about the article and had taken off in several directions, I didn't think I would be interfering by commenting. I apologize if it seemed personal -- in fact, I had no idea who had written the statement Dr. Bob quoted in his comment, and as I mentioned above, I thought the statement was fine anyway.
Thanks for explaining to me -- it helps me to understand and hopefully grow.
Best wishes,
Mark H.
Posted by danf on February 1, 2001, at 8:01:26
In reply to Re: The article - power differential, posted by anna78 on January 30, 2001, at 11:53:13
I do not understand the hostility !!!
Dr Bob administers this BB... nothing else within the BB...
The other information on the site refers to PUBLIC PUBLISHED INFORMATION...
There is a major difference between content interaction & observing behavior.
If Dr Bob had interacted with the posts in a content specific manner, then I could understand someone taking affront... However he never has !
This board is not therapy, even tho some try to use it for such... At best it is peer interaction with some level of support. Advice is freely given & sometimes that advice is even wrong... That is the way life & the real world works, even in person.
To observe only, takes great restraint????
Then there is this thing about a screen name being used in a publication... so what ??
screen names do not identify a person... if the content of posts do... that is the fault & responsibility of the person posting, not the BB admin... anyone can read this BB, just like a newspaper.
All BB managers with a sense of decorum, maintain peace & some rules of civility... otherwise the BB degenerates into ego battles & meaningful content disappears....
I have to commend Dr Bob for maintaining peace & civility in one of the most non-intrusive ways I have seen... this is across numerous BB & BB on many different topics..
Posted by judy1 on February 1, 2001, at 20:10:36
In reply to Re: judy1 » Mark H., posted by judy1 on January 31, 2001, at 14:40:26
I'm going over to psychobabble social because I don't think my comments belong over here (nothing bad, I promise :-)- judy
Posted by Cecilia on February 3, 2001, at 2:22:50
In reply to Re: The article for web tv, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2001, at 1:18:20
> > this link doesn`t work for web tv, any chance the article can be printed in this thread so web tv users can see it?
>
> Sorry, the link to research.html that I posted doesn't work, or that works, but the link there to the pdf file doesn't work?
>
> BobThe link takes you to the abstract but to read the whole article you have to download Acrobat Reader and web tv can`t do that.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2001, at 1:50:44
In reply to Re: The article for web tv, posted by Cecilia on February 3, 2001, at 2:22:50
> to read the whole article you have to download Acrobat Reader and web tv can`t do that.
I had no idea. Hmm. Unfortunately, that's the only form I have it in. And PDF files like this are pretty common online. If you ask me, this is a significant limitation of WebTV. Have you tried contacting them? If they really can't handle these types of files, it might be time to consider switching to another Internet service provider...
Bob
Posted by Neal on February 4, 2001, at 11:43:18
In reply to The article, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 18:45:22
Dr Bob- Over 500,000 P-B pages served in one month! I never would have guessed that much! Congratulations!
I guess it would be fair to say that for every one of us who are posting regularly, there are scores or hundreds who are just reading or *lurking*. I knew there were a lot, I just didn't know there were that many.
That, in my mind, means we who post have and obligation to check our facts carefully, be as informative and supportive as possible, and keep the rhetoric toned down.
Posted by Lorraine on February 17, 2001, at 16:40:02
In reply to The article, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 18:45:22
Anyway, here it is:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/research.html
>
> You'll let me know what you think?
>
> Bob
Bob: I thought it was a great article. You made a lot of good points, like how to police the site (private email vs public postings). I liked your comments about very important posters and how sometimes they are therapists. I'm on another list where one of the posters has told us this is her background. More emphasis is placed on her posts even when they are coming from a personal perspective--this can be disconcerting. There's nothing like being dis'd by a professional. I don't see that on your site. Your ambivalence about what you do with suicidal posters (ban them as a threat to the group vs allow them because they need the group most) was good. All in all a great article.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 18, 2001, at 0:20:17
In reply to Re: The article, posted by Lorraine on February 17, 2001, at 16:40:02
> All in all a great article.
Thanks! :-)
Bob
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.