![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 16 to 40 of 56. Go back in thread:
Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 22:56:04
In reply to Re: please be civil-thanks pat » newwife, posted by fayeroe on October 9, 2004, at 22:41:43
you are so nice, i do love my job and i hope they are glad to have me. thanks for such support, it means alot to me.
Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 22:57:47
In reply to Re: I didn't read any. » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on October 9, 2004, at 22:51:01
sometimes dr bob is not in the right and this is one of those situations, i refuse to believe anything else. he put words in my mouth and took my writing out of context. read it once more, maybe u will change your mind. if not, once again everyone is entitled to there own opinion.
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2004, at 23:00:27
In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Toph on October 9, 2004, at 22:52:50
I wasn't being particularly defensive of Dr. Bob. I don't think thinking someone's style is literal rather than sarcastic is a case of enormous positive transference.
I just read it differently, that's all.
And no, that's not the word I was thinking of. It's some technical thing.
Anyone who wishes to is free to disagree with me. I just put forth a different possibility.
And I suggested that Dr. Bob clarify.
I'm not going to argue the point.
Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:01:18
In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Toph on October 9, 2004, at 22:52:50
that word works for me along with wrong, hurtful and judgemental. did i mention that he said i said something that i never wrote? hmmmm, not sarcasm...wrong, yes. he was totally wrong. i did nothing disrespectful or uncivil. i have never been called uncivil and i wont allow it. i am not wrong for making a comment on what i thought was the forum that you were allowed to do so.
Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:02:33
In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Dinah on October 9, 2004, at 23:00:27
that fair, i understand your point now. thanks.
Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:09:46
In reply to Re: I didn't read any.--dinah, posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:02:33
i hope i did not offend you, i just wanted to understand your view. i hope there no hard feelings. theres none on my end. have a good one. this is my last night of posting anyway, so this ordeal doesnt need to be dragged on. thanks danah
Posted by Toph on October 9, 2004, at 23:31:38
In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Dinah on October 9, 2004, at 23:00:27
I'm not sure what transference has to do with anything since there is no therapeutic alliance here, and I too don't want to argue, Dinah. But I see Bob's guestion about kicking the hotel patron out as a non-sequitur and therefore clearly sarcastic and inappropriate. One thing is clear, newwife felt accused and put down.
Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:36:01
In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Toph on October 9, 2004, at 23:31:38
i agree once again. i am so glad you agree and i am not over reacting. if i am oh well.
Posted by gardenergirl on October 9, 2004, at 23:54:01
In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Dinah on October 9, 2004, at 23:00:27
Hi Dinah,
Thanks for giving your reaction. I know you've read many many more of Dr. Bob's posts than I have, and your radar has to have been finely honed by all that experience.I may be off base, but I was thinking about the "technical thing" you mentioned. I can't think of what it's called, either...darn it...perhaps exaggeration for effect? I am thinking it fits in with other paradoxical interventions. Anyway, if we are thinking of the same thing, and I don't know for sure that we are, so have the salt ready :)...then I think of it as playing "stupid" in order to challenge a statement. I do this very occasionally, and you have to be very deadpan and seriously curious in your approach otherwise it comes across as disingenuous. If we are thinking of the same thing, then I am guessing this technique would not work in this media, as the nonverbal that goes along with it is just as important to the effect of the intervention. It's similar in some ways to Linehan's irreverence. You need the same kind of sort of genuine curiousity while simulaneously knowing that you are exaggerating.
So, if I am way off base, forgive me for taking up so much time...:) I hate it though, when I use a technique and I don't know what it's called. :( Makes it much harder to 'splain to supervisor about how my gut said to do it. :)
Take care,
gg
Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:57:36
In reply to Re: I didn't read any. » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on October 9, 2004, at 23:54:01
i am very interested in your post. i dont understand it, do you mind explaining it b/c i am so interested i can hardly stand it. do you mind doing that. it would be really nice of you. thanks, jess
Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:19:09
In reply to Re: I didn't read any. » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on October 9, 2004, at 23:54:01
I think I would describe it differently... But we may be thinking of the same thing anyway. The genuine curiosity part I pick up on when my therapist does it. I don't see it as playing stupid or even exaggerating. Perhaps my therapist leaves that part out. He does it so very gently and with such obvious positive intent. His voice even lowers. I think the intent is to subtly shift the focus of thought in such a way as to encourage a deeper understanding of what one has said. It doesn't seem to have any negative intentions.
I have a tendency to do it myself in Sunday School. And I remember it distinctly from philosophy class. Not enough to explain it correctly, or to know the name of it.
Of course, I have no earthly idea what Dr. Bob intended. Only he could say that. That's how I read it. Perhaps he was genuinely interested in the nuances of hotel management, or how hotel management could be applied to Babble.
For myself, I can see a difference between asking someone or forcing someone to leave a place of business and asking someone or forcing someone to leave a community. Especially a community designed for support. Naturally, Dr. Bob *does* effectively do it, through blocks. But blocks are imposed for actions that violate specific rules. I realize that we sometimes don't understand enforcement, but I'll bet that's mainly because we can't see inside Dr. Bob's brain. I'm sure there's an internal logic.
Thank heavens I can't quite imagine Dr. Bob asking someone to leave for any other reason. Even when he says "Babble isn't right for everyone" or "You have to do what is best for you, of course" I wince. That sounds *enough* like "Don't let the door hit you on your way out". To do even that seems like a slap across the face. To say anything more direct, especially in the absence of civility guideline violations, would seem like a rejection of the person as a whole. I honor Dr. Bob for not doing that, especially when it has a cost for him in terms of monitoring time.
Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:33:16
In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Toph on October 9, 2004, at 23:31:38
I have no desire to argue, either.
I think I define transference more broadly and I tend to think we experience it with many people, Dr. Bob more than most because he's such a blank slate, and tends to be cryptic in his posts. So Dr. Bob says something, and we tend to interpret in a way, and ascribe motivations to him, based more on our habitual ways of viewing the world, authority figures, etc. than on his actual meaning. Because his actual meaning is usually obscure. Trying to get him to express himself in such a way that an average selection of reasonable people would interpret it the same way is such a challenge that I only undertake if the issue is very important to me. And that's probably a byproduct of the brevity of his remarks. So it leaves a lot of room for interpretation and transference.
Which is a rather academic discussion, and I really am not sure how much sense I'm making these days, so take it with a grain of salt.
Regarding non-sequitur, I thought his final comment was related to the first line in the PBC post and thus *did* have continuity. But you might not see the connection, and that's cool.
Posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 0:39:38
In reply to Re: I didn't read any. » Toph, posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:33:16
maybe i am totally wrong but this is about me and i dont know why your posts are to everyone but me. also, i tried to apologize and i never got a response. it that purposly done. i still do not agree with you and i dont think you are willing to look at the other side. all i can say is i have noticed that you have had past disagreements and you should know how it feels to have your feelings hurt. i would appriciate u not refering to me in any future posts unless you post to me. thanks
Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:43:35
In reply to Re: I didn't read any.--dinah, posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:09:46
My posts were mainly academic rather than impassioned.
It isn't easy, but it is possible to establish a dialogue with Dr. Bob in which he could explain his meaning more clearly. If this is important to you, I think it would be worth it.
It can be difficult to learn how to apply the civilty standards and understand Dr. Bob's expectations. I realize it must have been frustrating to you to work so long and hard on a post and have Dr. Bob flag it.
I'm trying to learn not to be such a b*ttinsky and not to proffer civility interpretations, particularly unasked. It's not easy for me, as I'm a b*ttinsky by nature. :)
I'm sorry you feel hurt. And I hope that Dr. Bob can clarify at least some things to ease some of the hurt.
Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:51:10
In reply to Re: I didn't read any.--dinah, posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 0:39:38
I'm sorry. No offense was intended. It just that I am taking care of bedtime rituals in between posting. And concentration isn't my strong suit right now.
I wasn't aware that I *had* referred to you when not addressing you. I thought I had just responded to post content. But if I'm mistaken, I apologize. It was not my intent.
I didn't interpret your post as a "Do Not Post to Me" since you included "unless you post to me". If I misinterpreted, I apologize. I will try not to refer to you in future posts unless I'm posting to you, but it's a difficult thing to promise as I wasn't aware I had done so this time. I was under the impression that I was discussing ideas, not personalities.
Best wishes.
Dinah
Posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 0:52:13
In reply to No hard feelings » newwife, posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:43:35
thank you for that. i can sleep easy. maybe i overeacted. i study law and i tend to speak my mind. this has never happned since i have been posting. when i beielve strongly about my thoughts and feelings and i know in my heart i meant no harm, it hurts to have it flagged like that instead of him taking to time to read through it and write me back. i gave my time and got negative feedback and nothing else. i am a strong taures that has never not spoken my mind. it toook me a long time to be able to sit count to ten and express my thought calmly. i used to not know how to do that. it goes much deeper then dr. bobs post, i actually felt like i would get positive feedback and it backfired. it was a test to me to sit down and handle a situation like my husband tells me to. i really read the home page and it said the admin site welcomes comments and concerns. it took alot for me to be a first time poster on this site. everyone else seems really close. to me i was proud of myself and my writing. i took minutes to write a sentence in fear of it being un civil. my opinions are not uncivil. dr. bob needs to understand that some people take there posts seriously and un civil describes cussing or racist comments to me. i am trying so hard to explain this. un civil can be a hurtful way of describing something that someone may take pride in. maybe there should be another way of handling these situations in the future. i am sure i am not the only one that has felt low and rejected and kinda humiliated in a tiny way. let me know what you think.--jess
Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 1:15:04
In reply to Re: No hard feelings either dinah, posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 0:52:13
I understand. While I have an unreasonable fondness for the PBC (Please Be Civil) after spending many a sleepless night in fear of getting one, I do understand that the word "Civil" has wider connotations than Babble rules. And that being told to be civil sounds like a personal indictment, while in truth I don't believe Dr. Bob intends it to be.
I can think of far better wording, yet I can't say I'd campaign for it because of my admitted fondness for the history involved.
Perhaps an additional canned paragraph in the PBC could add that civility has a particular meaning in Babble, not the general meaning in the community. Clearly some PBC's involve actual incivility, and others are more accurately described as violations of Babble rules. So a Please Read and Follow Babble Rules would be more appropriate in some cases, if less catchy than a PBC.
Ordinarily, I would offer to have you Babblemail me to discuss the applicability of Babble rules in this instance, althouth it would be utterly insufferable of me to do it, I know. But I also know I'm more likely to spend a lot of words trying to get a dialogue to explain than Dr. Bob probably would. And I can see you have a genuine desire to understand what happened.
But unfortunately I'm not in any real shape right now to gather my thoughts well enough to be helpful in that way. If you have any interest in doing so, I could offer to do so in the future. I know, I know, I'm being insufferable and know it all-y. It's just that I've made such a study of Dr. Bob's civility rulings and the rules themselves. I guess I have some deep seated desire to share what I've gleaned over the years. I'm trying to overcome it. I really am.
Posted by Toph on October 10, 2004, at 1:25:47
In reply to Re: I didn't read any. » Toph, posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:33:16
>
> I think I define transference more broadly and I tend to think we experience it with many people, Dr. Bob more than most because he's such a blank slate, and tends to be cryptic in his posts...You know, up until tonight Dinah I thought that Bob's approach to interacting here was a sort of tabla rasa technique. But I feel like he got ticked at me for teasing him in my earlier post. Is that the tone you sense here?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/400811.html
Maybe I'm just paran.., er, overly sensitive. But these feelings can carry over into subsequent posts. Maybe that's why I see Jess' situation as if Bob is having a bad day and his question is not neutral but layered with his humanity and not mere slate.
Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 1:43:28
In reply to Re: I didn't read any. » Dinah, posted by Toph on October 10, 2004, at 1:25:47
Personally, no. That wasn't what I picked up. Dr. Bob doesn't seem to mind good natured teasing. I do it all the time.
Which is not to say I think Dr. Bob always responds neutrally, without regard to what is said about himself. He'd have to be inhuman to do that, and I doubt even the blankest slates are able to totally eliminate personal reactions. I do think he tries to step back in those circumstances and give himself time to moderate his reaction. Have you ever noticed that when something emotional is going on on Babble, he focuses on the easy stuff first? It's absolutely maddening sometimes to see him respond to a post about Babblemail when all H*ll is breaking out elsewhere. I could be wrong of course. I'm extrapolating motive from action, and that frequently leads to incorrect assumptions.
My interpretation, and that's all it is, is that there might be three reasons for Dr. Bob's response.
There may be specific posters who have reason to believe that you may be referring to them. I could see how that could be possible, and if I can I imagine Dr. Bob could as well.
In the past, I've been extremely touchy about dissociative disorders. Others may have been as well. I'm not sure. I am so busy being touchy that I don't notice what others are doing. He might be concerned that people who believe they have alternate ego states might be offended. So he might be trying to short circuit troubles on that front.
Drat. I can't remember the third.
Or I could be wrong about all three, and Dr. Bob might have something else completely in mind. It's hard to tell, because he's such a blank slate. :)
He didn't actually give a PBC, did he?
Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 1:44:48
In reply to Re: I didn't read any. » Toph, posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 1:43:28
As I should have done many posts ago.
Dr. Bob should speak for himself.
And I'm being a real Cliff Clavin.
Apologies all around.
Posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 2:01:40
In reply to And now I must shut up., posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 1:44:48
dr. bob should be very thankful to have you today. i think he owes you a big hug. unfortuantly he wont be getting one from me anytime soon. haha:)
Posted by fayeroe on October 10, 2004, at 5:28:41
In reply to Re: I didn't read any. » Toph, posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:33:16
All of the explaining what Bob "may" have meant reminds me of asking someone what time it is and they tell you how to build a clock..........I don't feel that he is THAT complex, for pete's sake.
Even if he was being "clever", I took it in the context of when it happened and am laying aside all of the "psych" explanations and am viewing it as something someone mortal did. I feel that for me, putting it in a smaller box, in context, allows me to see it for what it was. Sarcasm. When I get a gut reaction by reading something someone wrote, that means something. And I actually felt it in my gut when I saw it. And it made me sad, as GG said. (I'm just going to stay with Ethel and try to get her to Tallulah's wedding without ten more disasters.)
Since I was the one to first mention the sarcasm, I feel that I would like to lay it to rest and not cause "newwife" anymore hurt. I feel that she suffered undue anguish due to what unfolded here. And to all that supported her, thanks. Sometimes just stepping up and having someone else's back really helps a person.
And I feel that "newwife" needs it more than Bob does.
Posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 5:50:26
In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by fayeroe on October 10, 2004, at 5:28:41
thanks for expressing how you feel. i dont even know you and you are making this so much easier for me. i can understand your posts and we are alot alike, i read something and take it for what is written, i dont dig and dig and dig. when i feel disrespected it really does not matter what others think. i am so glad you can see it. i am not counting on an apology though.
Posted by fayeroe on October 10, 2004, at 5:53:28
In reply to Re: I didn't read any. thanks, posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 5:50:26
You're more than welcome, newwife!! I have to go do my moonlighting job now and will be away from my 'puter til evening. Have a good day and don't dwell on all this stuff......It ages you!! Pat
Posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 5:58:26
In reply to Re: I didn't read any. thanks » newwife, posted by fayeroe on October 10, 2004, at 5:53:28
i hope you have a wonderful day
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.