![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 16 to 40 of 40. Go back in thread:
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
>
>
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.
>
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.
___________________________________________
Posted by Mitchell on January 20, 2003, at 21:13:22
In reply to Research--Mitchell, posted by shar on January 20, 2003, at 20:37:24
> 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
In the design of an experiment, it is acceptable to examine one hypothesis that is not supported by prior research, unless human subjects are involved. When human subjects are involved, it is still okay, if subjects are not harmed and the research is overseen by an IRB.In published findings, the evidence should support the conclusions. A title should accurately summarize content. "Best" in the title of any scientific publication smacks of promotionalism rather than professionalism. A research paper that concludes something is the best can be expected to qualitatively examine the other side of the comparison. Hsuing explained in a research paper his opinion and his reasoning why banishment is part of the best world, but did not offer evidence that alternative methods had proven unworkable in other settings, nor that anything other than his opinion informed his conclusion.
My discussion of meta-review is a related by separate matter. I have not suggested he should consult meta-reviews for guidance on how he should run the board. I suggested he rely on meta-review of literature about therapeutic conversational techniques to learn which might best help members of his group learn to help each other. Science-based training in conversational therapeutic techniques, available free, on-line and without registration, would probably be more effective if techniques identified in meta-analysis as best practices were not mixed in with techniques for which is available less evidence of efficacy.
BTW, my preference would be that bob use a machine to delete words like "shit" from his board. My experience is that introduction of vulgar metaphor in open conversation can degrade the quality of interaction. I think use of the word "shit" in published dialogue requires one to reject the preferences of many adults who would rather words like that not be used in conversations children might join.
Posted by Jonathan on January 20, 2003, at 22:25:02
In reply to Corrections » Mitchell, posted by beardedLADY on January 20, 2003, at 16:10:12
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2003, at 22:56:20
In reply to Re: Research--Mitchell » shar, posted by Mitchell on January 20, 2003, at 21:13:22
> A research paper that concludes something is the best can be expected to qualitatively examine the other side of the comparison.
Well, I thought of it more as a hypothesis than as a conclusion. So in retrospect I do think it would've been better to have put a question mark in there...
> Science-based training in conversational therapeutic techniques, available free, on-line and without registration, would probably be more effective if techniques identified in meta-analysis as best practices were not mixed in with techniques for which is available less evidence of efficacy.
That's an interesting hypothesis, too...
Bob
Posted by beardedlady on January 21, 2003, at 8:18:11
In reply to Re: Corrections » beardedLADY, posted by Mitchell on January 20, 2003, at 20:43:41
> Beardy, I feel somewhat put down, but I hope Bob doesn't block you for it.
I didn't mean to put you down. A strong argument that has mistakes can prejudice some against the argument.
>I don't know why I am any more a threat to the language than the Capitalist propaganda-makers on Madison Avenue...
Oh, you're not. Don't worry; they get letters from me too. Martha Stewart even changed her ads one month after I admonished the former journalist for spelling "every day" incorrectly! (She had "learn something new everyday.")
>But many a fool speaks in flawless grammar.
I do too. : )>
I make mistakes all the time. Correcting others is a sign of my love.
> 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.
Nope. He erred the first time, too. It's "composed of" or made up of women. The forces comprise--include, contain, consist of--women.
"The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts; the parts compose the whole. ...While this distinction is still maintained by many writers, comprise is increasingly used, especially in the passive, in place of compose. ...That use of comprise is considered unaccceptable by a majority of the Usage Panel." (American Heritage, 2nd College Edition)
Oddipus: No, grammar interests me more. And here's why: Football players know the rules before they sign up. Scrabble players learn the game and play. Clubs have rules, too; when you sign up, you agree to abide by them.
From then on, the argument is usually whether certain actions fall within the limits of what is acceptable. Sure, in some instances, we argue about whether certain rules are Constitutional (like the Boy Scouts). But we rarely change rules.
Here, too, we can challenge the moderator regarding his individual decisions, but why bother challenging the rules? If you didn't agree to them, you should not have pressed the "I agree" button.
What I should have said is that I agree with Dinah. : )>
I have said way too much for a person who isn't posting anymore. Back to my fluorescent rock.
beardy : )>
Posted by Mitchell on January 21, 2003, at 8:20:09
In reply to Re: Research, posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2003, at 22:56:20
> > A research paper that concludes something is the best can be expected to qualitatively examine the other side of the comparison.
>
> Well, I thought of it more as a hypothesis than as a conclusion. So in retrospect I do think it would've been better to have put a question mark in there...
> Bob
Thanks, doctor. Your critique considerably lightens the burden on my end of this discussion.
Posted by Mitchell on January 21, 2003, at 8:33:36
In reply to Corrections and Rules--Oddipus and » Mitchell, posted by beardedlady on January 21, 2003, at 8:18:11
> >But many a fool speaks in flawless grammar.
>
> I do too. : )>
Oh? :O> I make mistakes all the time. Correcting others is a sign of my love.
Same with my mom. Some hugs would have worked, too, though.
> > 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.
>
> Nope. He erred the first time, too. It's "composed of" or made up of women. The forces comprise--include ...include is not a synonym for comprise. The eight percent mentioned do not include women, they are women.
>contain, consist of--women.
> "The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts; the parts compose the whole. ...While this distinction is still maintained by many writers, comprise is increasingly used, especially in the passive, in place of compose. ...That use of comprise is considered unaccceptable by a majority of the Usage Panel." (American Heritage, 2nd College Edition)If you love Mirriam Webster, maybe you can get them to change their usage comments on M-W.com, which say constitute and composed of are synonymous with comprise. Letting others hold their opinions in the face of contradictory evidence is a sign of my love.
> But we rarely change rules.
Perhaps a visit to legislative session would change your mind. And what consistent set of rules to we use to determine when our nation will violently attack and kill residents of another nation?
> ... why bother challenging the rules? If you didn't agree to them, you should not have pressed the "I agree" button.
If I took that as something other than a rhetorical question, I would answer it. If it's not rhetorical, the answers might be obvious, given a little thought.
This is a good example of reasonable and civil debate beardy, but I think we are about to get booted to PBS or PBGrammar.
Posted by OddipusRex on January 21, 2003, at 9:14:20
In reply to Corrections and Rules--Oddipus and » Mitchell, posted by beardedlady on January 21, 2003, at 8:18:11
I think bumperstickers be more intresting than grammar. Grammar just a tool in the service of ideas. Peace an love Sisterbeardy :)
Posted by rayww on January 21, 2003, at 11:24:10
In reply to Corrections and Rules--Oddipus and » Mitchell, posted by beardedlady on January 21, 2003, at 8:18:11
I hereby declare, by grant of permission to Beardy only, to allow her the rite, unopposed by Dr. Bob or any other people who wread or rite here to correct any and/or all of my grammer and mispelling of words.
Signed in the presence of all readers,
rayww
Posted by OddipusRex on January 21, 2003, at 11:26:36
In reply to Re: I just don't get it, posted by Dinah on January 20, 2003, at 5:35:57
Dinah, I don't think it is in anyway disrespectful of Bob's position as leader to discuss ways things could change. Isn't that part of what this Admin board is for? In fact Bob said he wants feedback. If people don't want to be part of that discussion, they are free to avoid this board.
I think one of the most interesting parts of Babble is watching Bob's policies evolve. His definition of civility is getting longer and longer in the faq's and in case by case pronouncements. Most other boards have one paragraph at most. Yet bannings seem to be more and more frequent here as the definition expands.
I think there are other ways to deal with the civility issues. I think it would be a good idea to have banned posters apologize and or rephrase the particular comment that resulted in banning before being readmitted. It seems like this would give positive examples of the acceptable way to post on this board. It would also be a place to "mend fences" with the posters who might have been offended. Being willing to do that might also give an indication of future willingness to abide by Bob's rules. I think leaving the uncivil comments there with no correction leaves an unsettled amd unpleasant feeling sometimes.I'm not sure I would choose the word scolding for Bob's Please Be Civil pronouncments. I think shaming might describe it better especially when it is used in connection with never removing any post. I prefer his Please do not say anything which might make someone feel put down,etc. I think this addresses the behaviour more explicitly than PBC which could be interpreted as a judgement about the person rather than the action.
I think the biggest problem with the civility standards is that they are not applied consistently. I think it would be almost impossible for one person to do that in any case since this board has grown so much.
I don't think throwing out ideas about why the site is like it is or how it could be changed is a hostile act. Just the opposite. Bob is doing research and I think we're helping. And it's fun. Everyone can be an amateur social scientist
PS Please don't correct my grammar and spelling. It makes me feel intimidated. If you don't understand something because of the way I spelled or grammed, just ask and I'll try again:)
> 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.
>
>
Posted by shar on January 21, 2003, at 23:34:33
In reply to Re: Research--Mitchell » shar, posted by Mitchell on January 20, 2003, at 21:13:22
Hmmm, am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that if I use the word "shit" in this forum, I am then required to reject the preferences of many adults (who don't want words like "shit" used in the presence of children)?
I don't think I can, at once, fulfill the requirement of rejecting preferences with which I agree.
And, I guess I don't know who is doing the requiring in that instance. (Required by whom?)
Shar
>I think use of the word "shit" in published dialogue requires one to reject the preferences of many adults who would rather words like that not be used in conversations children might join.
Posted by shar on January 22, 2003, at 0:30:37
In reply to Re: Research--Mitchell » shar, posted by Mitchell on January 20, 2003, at 21:13:22
>
>In the design of an experiment, it is acceptable to examine one.........do you mean "one" (the numerical value, like one and only one) or "a" hypothesis?
>hypothesis that is not supported by prior research, unless human subjects are involved. When human subjects are involved, it is still okay, if subjects are not harmed and the research is overseen by an IRB.
.........we agree!
>
> In published findings, the evidence should support the conclusions. A title should accurately summarize content. "Best" in the title of any scientific publication smacks of promotionalism rather than professionalism.........Except, I would guess, if the title had something to do with "best practices" (which we know are not best among *all*, but best among those that the author decided to look at).
>A research paper that concludes something is the best can be expected to qualitatively examine the other side of the comparison. Hsuing explained in a research paper his opinion and his reasoning why banishment is part of the best world, but did not offer evidence that alternative methods had proven unworkable in other settings, nor that anything other than his opinion informed his conclusion.
.......ok, yes, I get what you're saying. Previously I believed you were saying he shouldn't be using "untested" methods in research, period; but you're saying he shouldn't say his methods (tested or otherwise, I suppose) are "best" if he isn't comparing them to something else?
>would probably be more effective if techniques identified in meta-analysis as best practices were not mixed in with techniques for which is available less evidence of efficacy.
>
.........I agree with this statement, but believe that it is nearly impossible to accomplish if research is taking place 'in the field.' It is rare that in a basically uncontrolled setting, a researcher will be able to adhere only to an existing set of techniques that may well not cover all the situations that the researcher must handle.........That's why I believe research publications (journal articles, scholarly reviews, even conference documents and white papers) should be excrutiatingly well-documented. It is possible to be absolutely misled about an experiment or research study, and the outcomes, without such detail. Even with strict adherence to an external set of standards, it's possible to leave out extremely important information about the study that could compromise the reliability and validity of any results. Or, as some might say, the devil is in the details. But, there seems to be a belief in the social science community (starting about 15 years ago) that details are passe'.
........As an aside, dr. bob has control over the techniques he uses and chooses, and he is also dealing with the chaos that makes up real life, and makes decisions about the expression of ideas by humans from all walks of life, and all the complexity of humans and expression and communication--and, there is not likely to be a set of techniques that will satisfactorily address how to deal with all possible events, occurrences, and outcomes he encounters. It is reasonable to consider the setting of any study when analyzing research models and designs, and determining what can effectively be implemented.
> BTW, my preference would be that bob use a machine to delete words like "shit" from his board. My experience is that introduction of vulgar metaphor in open conversation can degrade the quality of interaction. I think use of the word "shit" in published dialogue requires one to reject the preferences of many adults who would rather words like that not be used in conversations children might join.
...........I responded to the "shit" section in a separate post.
Shar
Posted by Mitchell on January 22, 2003, at 0:36:53
In reply to Re: Research--Mitchell » Mitchell, posted by shar on January 21, 2003, at 23:34:33
So you seem to be saying it is better not to use potty language in conversations children might join?
> Hmmm, am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that if I use the word "shit" in this forum, I am then required to reject the preferences of many adults (who don't want words like "shit" used in the presence of children)?
>
> I don't think I can, at once, fulfill the requirement of rejecting preferences with which I agree.
>
> And, I guess I don't know who is doing the requiring in that instance. (Required by whom?)
>
> Shar
>
>
> >I think use of the word "shit" in published dialogue requires one to reject the preferences of many adults who would rather words like that not be used in conversations children might join.
>
>
Posted by Mitchell on January 22, 2003, at 0:53:36
In reply to Re: Research » Mitchell, posted by shar on January 22, 2003, at 0:30:37
> >would probably be more effective if techniques identified in meta-analysis as best practices were not mixed in with techniques for which is available less evidence of efficacy.
> >
> .........I agree with this statement, but believe that it is nearly impossible to accomplish if research is taking place 'in the field.' It is rare that in a basically uncontrolled setting, a researcher will be able to adhere only to an existing set of techniques that may well not cover all the situations that the researcher must handle.
We seem to be on the same page, for the most part. I'm not suggesting this site be hard-wired to be governed by some computer analysis of some vast data set summarizing all related research. In fact, I'm weaving dialogue on two seperate research tracks - research into how on-line groups work is one track; the other is how to identify techniques to offer now for practical learning by members of an on-line self help group.In the second track, I am suggesting that meta-reviews of available research can provide a guideline as to which approaches might best cut to the chase. For example, praying for other members of the group might be a technique some prefer, but it might rank low in meta analysis that qualititively compared the efficacy of prayer for conflict resolution compared to techniques that rely on specific verbal strategies. That's just an example. If research said prayer is the best practice, it should probably be at the top of a guide written for on-line self-help group members about how to best help each other.
Posted by shar on January 22, 2003, at 1:03:58
In reply to Re: Research--Mitchell » shar, posted by Mitchell on January 22, 2003, at 0:36:53
My post was about the "requirement" of "reject[ing] the preferences of many adults who would rather words like that not be used in conversations children might join" when I agree with them. And who required it.
As it happens, I believe people should avoid saying the word "shit" around children, whether or not the children not join the conversation.
> So you seem to be saying it is better not to use potty language in conversations children might join?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hmmm, am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that if I use the word "shit" in this forum, I am then required to reject the preferences of many adults (who don't want words like "shit" used in the presence of children)?
> >
> > I don't think I can, at once, fulfill the requirement of rejecting preferences with which I agree.
> >
> > And, I guess I don't know who is doing the requiring in that instance. (Required by whom?)
> >
> > Shar
> >
> >
> > >I think use of the word "shit" in published dialogue requires one to reject the preferences of many adults who would rather words like that not be used in conversations children might join.
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2003, at 18:52:06
In reply to Re: Research, posted by Mitchell on January 22, 2003, at 0:53:36
> For example, praying for other members of the group might be a technique some prefer, but it might rank low in meta analysis that qualititively compared the efficacy of prayer for conflict resolution compared to techniques that rely on specific verbal strategies.
Someone who prays for others may themselves benefit, too. It's good to give as well as to receive...
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.