![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 27 to 51 of 56. Go back in thread:
Posted by used2b on April 8, 2005, at 13:18:36
In reply to Re: Can't afford the maintenance » used2b, posted by Spoc on April 8, 2005, at 12:24:00
> > Let's just stipulate that I am not likely to attend law school, pass a bar exam and begin practicing law.
>
> Fine, but then you can't state that there isn't a market for you either.
>Yes, I can. And I can state that I will not likely be an astronaut, the President of the United States or the Pope. One need not deploy a product or service to determine the likely marketability of a concept. My knowledge of my age, income history, academic history, professional history and law practice in general is sufficient to tell me there i am not likely to develop a market with the resources available to me. A career counselor with access to my resume would reach the same conclusions.
> Ahh, few of us receive the luxury of being directed to what is right for us.
>Not by way of complaint, but yes, certain groups do enjoy career tracks that lead toward rewarding outcomes, thanks to adequate capitalization and abundant guidance.
> > ...looking for work at a law firm because it seems to fit my personality would be about as likely to improve my lot as would chasing a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
>
> Don't agree or find that to be sound reasoning, but that is also fine, wasn't here to change your mind about anything, nor to justify myself.
Well, it might satisfy you if I went looking for a job at a law firm, but I see no potential benefit in pursuing such a track merely because someone on the internet said, based on very little knowledge of my abilities, that i might fit in there or somewhere else.
>My input was only to attempt to compliment you. And yes I'm done with that now.
>Fine, then. But I already know my valuable assets. No, I have not approached every living person on Earth today and explored how my life might be valuable to them. Systematically, I have found what I represent about my lack of acceptance in capitalist culture to be true. I'm not going to tell you enough about myself to allow you to understand, and I'm not going to affirm an uninformed argument contrary to my experience. I will not entertain a notion that some linguistic psychological magic can effectively probe and amend the reasons my professional skills are underappreciated. I've recognized it in my life over many years and that's that.
> So how about a bunch of smileys and (((hugs))) then. ;-)No, and no kisses, hand holding or general bonding, either. It might all be real to you but it is all pretense to me.
Posted by used2b on April 8, 2005, at 13:43:51
In reply to Re: Insight » used2b, posted by kid47 on April 8, 2005, at 12:46:33
> Hello. Pardon the intrusion, but this thread has struck a chord with me.
No intrusion. Messages at this board can be posted by "Dr. Bob" and by other members of the group, and can be read by anyone with Internet access.
> My only hope is this perception I have of superior insight is merely a manifestation of dillusional thinking.(which I have been acused of more than once)
The idea that increased insight is superior might be grandiose, and any attribution of value to insight outside a proven context might be dillusional. But the insights are most likely a result of real etiology and the underlying perceptions are likely often coherent.
Genetics most likely play some role, but I suspect it has to do with thalamic gating. Aculturated people limit information available to there cerebral processes by training thalamic responses to familiar stimulus. Maybe it is the result of trauma, transience, training, disillusionment, genetics or some other factor, but some people's thalamus doesn't as readily limit the flow of information to the cerebrum. Uncontrollably open gates at the thalamus are likely related to schizophrenia and other disorders, but not everyone who walks around with an open thalamus is severely disabled. Those who can dialate their thalamic busses while retaining some sort of socially acceptable mental organization end up with capacities you seem to describe and I seem to recognize from my own experience.
> Prioritizing is nearly impossible and any attempts at establishing a belief system that I don't feel is hypocritical and only self serving (and maybe that's just what the fulfillment of a spritual need actually is) very difficult to develop.
Difficulty in prioritizing possible outcomes could be related to some loop in the back-end of the forebrain, where signals are assessed for continued consideration or immediate action. But those difficulties could as much be a product of your experiences as they could be a fundamental psychopathology. The problem with social difficulties arising from unusual neurological organization is that we often have layers of secondary symptoms, many of which develop their own momentum and can appear primary. Communities don't generally care how or why one is different, they just don't want to have to deal with unusual differences, especially those that tend to call into question their own social order.
>Right now I feel a bit overwhelmed even trying to explain the intricacies and nuances of all that. I may be a bit off track (I am prone to tangents) but at a gut level I do feel a connection with what you are posting.
>
> Peace
> kidNo, I think you represent quintessentially the condition I deal with. I would schedule you for PET scans if I had a budget to research this.
Posted by kid47 on April 8, 2005, at 13:58:28
In reply to Re: Can't afford the maintenance, posted by used2b on April 8, 2005, at 13:18:36
Hi. I could be wrong (not really a possibility) but you seem to me to be kinda...uh...pis*ed off. ( I'm a quick one). If it's not too intrusive, how would you like your life to be? You've expressed an affinity towards ending it, but pretending that is not an available option, I would consider it a lovely courtsey if you might post your ideas of a near perfect or at least tolerable existence....or you might just want to tell me to f*ck off. (and suprisingly that wouldn't be the first time I've received that suggestion) What the heck, it's a slow news day and you seem pretty dogone smart.....so even though it's an imposition I sure would appreciate it (hoping I might learn something)
Peace Out
kid
Posted by kid47 on April 8, 2005, at 14:05:59
In reply to Re: Insight, posted by used2b on April 8, 2005, at 13:43:51
>The idea that increased insight is superior might be grandiose, and any attribution of value to insight outside a proven context might be dillusional. But the insights are most likely a result of real etiology and the underlying perceptions are likely often coherent.
> Genetics most likely play some role, but I suspect it has to do with thalamic gating. Aculturated people limit information available to there cerebral processes by training thalamic responses to familiar stimulus. Maybe it is the result of trauma, transience, training, disillusionment, genetics or some other factor, but some people's thalamus doesn't as readily limit the flow of information to the cerebrum. Uncontrollably open gates at the thalamus are likely related to schizophrenia and other disorders, but not everyone who walks around with an open thalamus is severely disabled. Those who can dialate their thalamic busses while retaining some sort of socially acceptable mental organization end up with capacities you seem to describe and I seem to recognize from my own experience.
>Difficulty in prioritizing possible outcomes could be related to some loop in the back-end of the forebrain, where signals are assessed for continued consideration or immediate action. But those difficulties could as much be a product of your experiences as they could be a fundamental psychopathology. The problem with social difficulties arising from unusual neurological organization is that we often have layers of secondary symptoms, many of which develop their own momentum and can appear primary. Communities don't generally care how or why one is different, they just don't want to have to deal with unusual differences, especially those that tend to call into question their own social order.>>EXACTLY! whew
kid
Posted by kid47 on April 8, 2005, at 14:19:07
In reply to Re: Insight » kid47, posted by Spoc on April 8, 2005, at 13:14:12
< (Kiddo, 1.5 feet out the door again, so if I miss you anywhere... I'll miss you. ;-) <
Alright Missy. Just where do you think you 're going? I absolutely forbid you to leave....and if you insist on going I'll...I'll...uh...switch from skim to whole milk...yeah that's what I'll do...you think I'm kidding?!? Try me!! Just try me....(no. really do ;)
Posted by Spoc on April 8, 2005, at 14:34:09
In reply to Re: Can't afford the maintenance, posted by used2b on April 8, 2005, at 13:18:36
> Well, it might satisfy you if I went looking for a job at a law firm, but I see no potential benefit in pursuing such a track merely because someone on the internet said, based on very little knowledge of my abilities, that i might fit in there or somewhere else.
I can't imagine who that could be, here it was stipulated in overabundance that nothing was being suggested, cheerleaded or advised, or was known or attempting to be known, about you.
It's usually noninflammatory to say to anyone, "Hey, you're good at (insert noninflammatory and indisputably positive trait). I think you'd make a great (insert noninflammatory and complimentary or neutral occupation/pastime). Well, so you don't agree or find those things feasible (not that I asked, or asked why not). I didn't say you should or must or that I would continue to cling to my initial impressions despite submission of any opinion or evidence to the contrary.
So you see, sometimes there's nothing else to it. If I see something that gives rise to an observation or a rhetorical statement, sometimes I say it, as I've seen you do in various places. I knew and acknowledged that you weren't seeking help, and I wasn't trying to 'help' you, and overabundantly stipulated that also.
> >My input was only to attempt to compliment you.
> >
>
> Fine, then.Apparently not.
> I'm not going to tell you enough about myself to allow you to understand, and I'm not going to affirm an uninformed argument contrary to my experience. I will not entertain a notion that some linguistic psychological magic can effectively probe and amend the reasons my professional skills are underappreciated.
Again I can't imagine who here is asking you to do that, or wanted to (or subscribes to 'psychological magic'). You may be flattering yourself, or at the least, have predetermined what you will hear wherever you go, actually said or not.
But do note that no matter where you start threads or discussions are the parties likely to "know enough about (yourself) to understand and be informed about (you)." Good conversations and debates can't readily be had without parties making any reference to each other whatsoever; or if any missed attempt/guess is met with annoyance or conclusion-jumping of the same or a higher order.
> > So how about a bunch of smileys and (((hugs))) then. ;-)
>
> No, and no kisses, hand holding or general bonding, either. It might all be real to you but it is all pretense to me.That was soooo, hugely, even-without-knowing-me obviously only a joke (would have to be the one thing I didn't bother overabundantly stipulating). Playing on your worst case scenario of a simplistic, unwanted and unsuitable response. As an amiable goodbye and best-wishes. If you could leave it at that now it would be great.
Posted by used2b on April 8, 2005, at 15:02:04
In reply to Re: Can't afford the maintenance » used2b, posted by kid47 on April 8, 2005, at 13:58:28
> Hi. I could be wrong (not really a possibility) but you seem to me to be kinda...uh...pis*ed off.
That perception might be a result of how incongruent information is received and not a reasonable description of my outlook. I certainly can't guarantee anything I write here is reflective of what I truly feel, because my writing is in response to a context and I have no way of revising hastily posted comments that reflect nothing more than an outlook i was considering at the moment.
I appreciate the potential value of modeling preferred outcomes, but any information I might publish here is not private. Detailing my individual preferences today in a public web site serves no practical purpose but to comprimise my privacy. For that matter, while some indicate they feel supported or whatnot by this site, I see no empirical evidence of any benefit I might realize by participating here. It is possible my involvement here is responsive to mass communication intended to attract unselected individuals to new quasi-clinical forums with no proven benefit for individual participants. Somebody built it and here I came. It might be better for me to spend my time singing a blues song.
Posted by used2b on April 8, 2005, at 15:14:14
In reply to Re: Can't afford the maintenance » used2b, posted by Spoc on April 8, 2005, at 14:34:09
I don't mean this in a bad way, but you are arguing with yourself by vicariously suggesting alternatives to me that you found untennable or unworkable for yourself. I see that you are not recommending I do anything, you are posing possibilities, but they don't do me any good. So the affirmation you are getting from me appears negative -- I'm confirming that there are some things that might be nice to do, but they are just not likely to happen. Know it or not, you are writing things to me that prompt responses you want to hear so you can rebut them. And you are offering rebuttal statements probably for your own benefit, such as telling me I can't know I wouldn't be marketable as a lawyer if I don't try.
I'm not responding to the propriety or to the spirit of your responses, which is what you seem to be defending. I'm responding in logical detail to the suggestions you make, that I could be one of these things. I'm responding by asserting why I could not. It really has little bearing on any path I am likely to take. Today I'm probably either going to waste time here or somewhere else, waiting on opportunity to hatch. Old world beliefs that I would go farther if I try harder are just not relevant to me today.
Posted by Spoc on April 8, 2005, at 15:29:46
In reply to Re: Insight » Spoc, posted by kid47 on April 8, 2005, at 14:19:07
Awww heck... Now quite ironically here, YOU I can do this (or anything else) to:
((((((KID)))))
...although as you are aware that really ain't my style at all (well, of course we know I'm a freak for parenthesis of other kinds, ones that allow me to simultaneously overabundantly stipulate even more things in the exact same place). So, must be my really big guns behind something again.
If memory serves, (((this))) will also embarrass you and cause you to flee, absolving me of my guilt for leaving you here without adequate representation of all forms of lunacy. ;-)
Posted by Spoc on April 8, 2005, at 16:46:55
In reply to Re: Can't afford the maintenance, posted by used2b on April 8, 2005, at 15:14:14
I don't mean any of this in a bad way either, and will in similar fashion use that to herald the imparting on you of things you aren't realizing here.
> I'm confirming that there are some things that might be nice to do, but they are just not likely to happen.
> I'm responding by asserting why I could not.Thing is I did not ask or mean for you to do even that. And you don't know me either, and as such can't conclude whether that is accurate. Really, I do understand that you have probably run into the same "techniques" and opinions so many times that this is all just reflex for you. But it just isn't what's going down here. And based on what you've been through yourself in life, I know you wouldn't condone those who think they know the right and only answer/assessment putting others in boxes.
> I'm not responding to the propriety or to the spirit of your responses, which is what you seem to be defending.
I'm not defending period. Like you believe you are, I am only showing you where you are mistaken in your assessments and processes in regard to myself.
> I'm responding in logical detail to the suggestions you make, that I could be one of these things.
Mere, straight, logical detail doesn't normally come with the particular tone featured in your replies.
> Old world beliefs that I would go farther if I try harder are just not relevant to me today.
Now this IS a good example of pure projection, which would no doubt be unanimously agreed from the script that has accrued here, in any qualified place even of your own choosing.
By way of what could even conceivably have been misperceived anyway, allusions to your willingness or unwillingness to make an effort, or the spouting of cliches and truisms, would not be amongst them. Try looking back here for even a strong connection to such a thing.
> Know it or not, you are writing things to me that prompt responses you want to hear so you can rebut them. And you are offering rebuttal statements probably for your own benefit,
That is what I posit you are doing. From the very beginning of this destined-not-to-live up thread. And I too am over here shaking my head benevolently that you don't realize this.
And by way of historical evidence, I for one am extrememly well known for wanting to stay out of threads and off the Internet to the extent I can muster. Including by the other individual present here. Highly contrary to what you theorize, I would have loved it beyond words if you had taken the rose to just be a rose, and offered no response at all (and repeat, you assume but do not know that I wanted any response of any kind). Or, would have preferred not to have ever seen this thread or any other, in my desire to disconnect.
In fact I even chose this thread for its potential NOT to generate any response, and I don't mean by way of "stumping" you or leaving you speeechless. But because... it was ONLY a freestanding, random, non-baiting compliment. Heck, even one that might momentarily impact the ahedonia. Or not. What matter was it to me. How could it POSSIBLY result in anything, I thought at the time.
And here again, I am not subconsciously or unconsciously seeking the last word, or to trigger another reply. I reply because I am as convinced as you are that you are quite mistaken about me and what makes me tick, including here; as well as about yourself and your unconscious reasons for participating and continuing to participate.
You do not in fact know the accurate answer to this. Would that it could be enough to put this to bed if I say, and mean, that I do not either. Hopefully from here we can at least agree not to make assumptions about the complexity of the other. In fact, to do so with this amount of knowledge of each other would actually negate the viability of the position of the party claiming it.
And again like you, I doubt anything else that is valid or relevant could or should be added here. If I bow out now know that it won't be because you finally delivered a poignant or poignant enough point, it is just time. So have at it if you wish.
Still, wishing you the best, whatever that might be.
Posted by kid47 on April 8, 2005, at 17:10:16
In reply to Re: Insight » kid47, posted by Spoc on April 8, 2005, at 15:29:46
>
> ((((((KID)))))
>
> ...although as you are aware that really ain't my style at all (well, of course we know I'm a freak for parenthesis of other kinds, ones that allow me to simultaneously overabundantly stipulate even more things in the exact same place). So, must be my really big guns behind something again.
>
> If memory serves, (((this))) will also embarrass you and cause you to flee, absolving me of my guilt for leaving you here without adequate representation of all forms of lunacy. ;-)
Apparently you don't realize who you are dealing with here:Did I so much as wince while seated on stage at an Engineering Society convention in front of approximately 300 people while quietly waiting for my introduction as the fourth speaker of the evening and drifitng off to sleep, snoring, whilst simultaneously drooling down my chin and punctuating the entire ordeal by falling over backwards in my chair; then frantically trying to convince the Master of Ceremonies there was no need for an ambulance that I had not suffered a Coronary but merely was up drinking a bit too late the previous evening.....embarrass me?
The man (feeling quite Macho) who coming to a stop at an extremely busy intersection while riding his vintage Norton 750 Commando with Dunstall front end, 1/4 turn quick throttle and shorty exhaust pipes (very loud) upon trying to put his foot down not realizing that the cuff of his somewhat oversized bell bottoms had become snared on the kick start of said motorcycle making it impossible to bring his aformentioned foot to the ground, which allowed the aformentioned motorcycle to directly tip over causing the man to crank the aformentioned quick throttle to its full acceleration position thereby causing an undescribable amount of smoke and racket while no less than two dozen or so drivers sitting in their vehicles while stopped at the aformentioned intersection sat up craning their respective necks to see what in the world had transpired and as if on cue all began to laugh uncontrollably.....embarrass me?
While sitting in church one Sunday with my then 5 year old son, heads bowed during silent prayer, hear his piercing little voice declare in the loudest stage whisper imaginable "SOMEBODY F*RTED" forcing the preacher to turn his back to the congregation to try and conceal the convulsions of unsucessfuly stiffled laughter as the entire congregation was also attempting unsuccesfully the same to the point some may of actually done damage to their spleen or another equally vital organ....embarrass me?
These tame examples are just a small fraction of a great many otherwise horrendous instances I have stoically endured that would of killed (by embarrassment) a less durable being and there are sooo many more of these types of expereinces in my resume' unfortunately the vast majority of these are not suitable for print on a family oriented vehicle such as this.
Please stay awhile
kid
Posted by used2b on April 8, 2005, at 19:20:23
In reply to Re: Can't afford the maintenance » used2b, posted by Spoc on April 8, 2005, at 16:46:55
This is getting to be more words than I care to read, but if I post on an open board, I suppose people will respond.
I'm just advancing the theory that you would be interested in my outlook because it somehow informs your own concerns. I don't think that is an improbable assesment, and I don't think we are generally capable of recognizing fully how or why we involve others in our dialogue. I must've posted here because I wanted to hear somebody say "your smart you could have a good job," then rebutt the idea.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2005, at 11:00:27
In reply to Re: Can't afford the maintenance » used2b, posted by Spoc on April 8, 2005, at 14:34:09
> it is all pretense to me.
>
> used2b> You may be flattering yourself, or at the least, have predetermined what you will hear wherever you go, actually said or not.
>
> SpocPlease don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2005, at 11:00:46
In reply to Re: Can't afford the maintenance, posted by used2b on April 8, 2005, at 15:02:04
> I see no empirical evidence of any benefit I might realize by participating here.
You could try the Babbleometer:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/ometer
> It might be better for me to spend my time singing a blues song.
Do your own experiment? :-)
Bob
Posted by Spoc on April 10, 2005, at 16:54:51
In reply to Re: please be civil » used2b » Spoc, posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2005, at 11:00:27
Wow, amazing how things end up working out sometimes! Sure hadn't anticipated anything like this during my drop-in, and on the very heels of my fade-out yet. Can't at all see why, all things considered (including the subjectiveness of interpretation here and my own track record), a Please Rephrase wouldn't have been more than sufficient.
Nevertheless, to tidy up, here are the benign actual ingredients that went into the wording (but not seeking further examination; would be great to be left "here"):
Re sentence snip, part #1: it is repeatedly insisted that one has tried or offered very unwanted help, constructive criticism, and interest/investment in knowing the background of another. When in fact one is demonstrably not doing so. Under those circumstances, it is not unlikely and not an insult to hypothesize that on previous occasions (which probably have looked similar on the surface), they *were* usually being offered help and to be 'studied.' Or, that that pattern has understandably led them to assume more feeling, willingness and interest, than may always be the case. In fact, one really can't think of other reasons at the moment.
That part of the call may involve intent having been presumed (although I thought it wasn't supposed to be). Not unlike the issues involved in the recent Admin discussion of the phrase "big cheese" and others, and idioms in general. (Note that if intent is being assessed, many additional well-suited utterings were also available.)
Re sentence snip, part #2: when it is repeatedly insisted that one has tried or offered that very unwanted help, constructive criticism, and interest/investment in another, but through referencing the actual words involved as well as the clarification attempts, it can be seen that one in fact did not, it is not unlikely and not an insult to hypothesize that what was heard was only what was expected to be heard, rather than what was actually said. We all do this kind of thing at times and it is not a put-down.
I also thought it came across that this thread had been tricky to -- but fortunately was -- finally brought to a mutually satisfactory close. Was clearly and happily over now, with no harm or violation having been alleged by either party involved, and so was best or at least quite sufficient to just leave at that.
Ok, fini (Kid, calm down, I know how crazy it drives you when I speak French! Can I drone on forevermore about needing to get to work and stay off the Internet, if it is in French? ;). I think this kind of thing is worth noting, including because even an isolated PBC is in *some* cases tracked, and can show up as foundation for a block with no warning, even months and months (or potentially years?) later. However, I guess such notation, even if valid, does not in fact change anything in the records book.
Am again hoping circumstances will remain such that I 'can' stop 'talking' now. If circumstances do not remain "such," but I am mute anyway, I might not deserve credit for anything like self-discipline. It would probably mean that I managed to even unsubscribe from remaining threads in order to cyberscram.
But the thing that may help the most with that is the irony of the fact that on this, one of my last threads as I determined whether to head for the door, all I had done was give someone a compliment. And this is how it ended up. Coming from not even just one, but two fronts.
Oh well. Happy Sunday, anyone out there. :-)
Posted by used2b on April 10, 2005, at 19:47:25
In reply to Re: empirical evidence, posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2005, at 11:00:46
> > I see no empirical evidence of any benefit I might realize by participating here.
>
> You could try the Babbleometer:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/ometer
>I not only am slower than the average person to accept the sincerety of casual affection, I also am a bit slow at discerning between humor and serious discourse.
Are you suggesting that, to the best of your scientific knowledge, you consider an individuals' analysis of personal Babbleometer data to be reliable evidence of the efficacy of this forum?
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2005, at 9:57:03
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Spoc on April 10, 2005, at 16:54:51
> Sure hadn't anticipated anything like this during my drop-in...
I responded over at Psycho-Babble Administration:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/482726.html
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2005, at 10:12:27
In reply to Re: empirical evidence » Dr. Bob, posted by used2b on April 10, 2005, at 19:47:25
> Are you suggesting that, to the best of your scientific knowledge, you consider an individuals' analysis of personal Babbleometer data to be reliable evidence of the efficacy of this forum?
I'm suggesting that it's one way to track how you do over time and that it may give you a helpful perspective on how things are going and a better idea of what helps and what doesn't.
You might also consider sharing the data with your health care professionals for their input.
Bob
Posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 12:03:05
In reply to Re: empirical evidence, posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2005, at 10:12:27
> > Are you suggesting that, to the best of your scientific knowledge, you consider an individuals' analysis of personal Babbleometer data to be reliable evidence of the efficacy of this forum?
>
> I'm suggesting that it's one way to track how you do over time and that it may give you a helpful perspective on how things are going and a better idea of what helps and what doesn't.
>
> You might also consider sharing the data with your health care professionals for their input.
>
> Bob
I suppose we could also share with a health care professional information we get from a psychic or a palm reader. But none of it would comprise empirical evidence by accepted scientific or medical standards.BBmeter can only record self-reported changes in an individual, though the instrument is flawed even for that purpose. It cannot determine if those changes are a result of participating in PB, nor whether the changes are durable.
Evidence that one individual alone reported beneficial changes that correlate to participation in PB would not be reliable evidence. We would need to review a data set for a statistically significant sample of participants, selected randomly from the group. Otherwise, our evidence might be tainted by those who self-select to report improvement as an unconscious means of re-enforcing a placebo effect.
Then, from that random group, we would need test results collected at pre-determined times, and not at times the subjects choose to voluntarily self-report. Again, self-selection of reporting time could allow results to reflect subjects' choice, intended or not, to report only when they are feeling better or worse.
Then, even if we had data from randomly selected subjects, collected according to a pre-determined schedule, at most we would perhaps collect evidence of a correlation between subjects' conditions and participation in this forum. We would have no evidence that any changes reflected in aggregate data were caused by PB.
Then our evidence would need to be compared with other sources of data - especially adverse event reports. It is doubtful there is any way of reliably tracking individuals who have engaged in self-harm after participating in the site, so even if we have adverse event data, we have to question whether it is complete.
Once we have a set of reports from the babblemeter instrument, and some indication of the prevalence of adverse events, we would still have no way of determining causation, or whether the group is selecting individuals who might best benefit while engaging in practices that trigger unreported deterioration or self-harm in others. And even if we did have a relible instrument, administered dispassionately, before I accept the results as reliable scienctific evidence, I would want to see results you report reviewed by your professional peers.
Surely you recognize that many of the people who visit this site are informed about standards of scientific and medical evidence. While some individuals might gain interesting information from casual use of your test instrument, I feel somewhat put down that I would be expected to accept such an instrument as a source of empirical evidence about the likelihood I will enjoy any benefit from participating in this forum. The suggestion presumes I am not as smart as those who publish medical journals, and that I would do as well to rely on substandard evidence in selecting best approaches for my own care.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2005, at 13:45:44
In reply to Re: empirical evidence, posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 12:03:05
> > > I see no empirical evidence of any benefit I might realize by participating here.
> >
> > I'm suggesting that it's one way to track how you do over time and that it may give you a helpful perspective on how things are going and a better idea of what helps and what doesn't.
>
> BBmeter can only record self-reported changes in an individual... It cannot determine if those changes are a result of participating in PB, nor whether the changes are durable.
>
> Evidence that one individual alone reported beneficial changes that correlate to participation in PB would not be reliable evidence. We would need to review a data set for a statistically significant sample of participants, selected randomly from the group.Sorry, I thought your question was about what benefit one individual might realize...
I agree, a better idea of what helps and what doesn't is far from conclusive proof of cause and effect. Repeating the process over time could, however, indicate whether changes were durable.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 11, 2005, at 20:44:41
In reply to Re: empirical evidence, posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 12:03:05
Posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 21:43:44
In reply to Ummmm.... (nm), posted by Dinah on April 11, 2005, at 20:44:41
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 11, 2005, at 22:18:36
In reply to Re: empirical evidence, posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 12:03:05
I wonder how many times science will have to go through the cycle of ridiculing the health advice suggested by "radicals" "old wives" or "folk wisdom" and then discovering they were themselves mistaken, before some will realize that science is hardly infallible. In fact it is often very late to validate what many already know to be true.
Posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 23:12:25
In reply to Re: empirical evidence » used2b, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 11, 2005, at 22:18:36
> I wonder how many times science will have to go through the cycle of ridiculing the health advice suggested by "radicals" "old wives" or "folk wisdom" and then discovering they were themselves mistaken, before some will realize that science is hardly infallible.
Likewise, I wonder how long clinical practitioners will represent to lay people that various unique approaches are supported by empirical evidence, when the approaches are instead based primarily on anecdotal reports of efficacy.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 12, 2005, at 0:17:31
In reply to Ummmm.... (nm), posted by Dinah on April 11, 2005, at 20:44:41
Dinah,
Have you taken up meditation?gg
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.