![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 51. Go back in thread:
Posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 9:38:15
In reply to The article, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 18:45:22
ACK! When I click on "downloadable", the adobe acrobat window opens, but then the whole computer freezes up and nothing happens. I have to use the task manager to close it and free up the computer again.
Any ideas?
Posted by Greg on January 26, 2001, at 9:39:28
In reply to The article, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 18:45:22
Bob,
The article was pretty much what I was expecting. Good writing. Quite frankly, I think this discussion has blossomed a little out of control. I'm not trying to devalue anyone's opinion here, it just seems like much ado about nothing, IMHO of course.
I was surprised to see the reference to Haven though...do I owe you a finder's fee for any new members???
Have a great weekend,
Greg> > 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?
>
> Bob
Posted by stjames on January 26, 2001, at 11:17:12
In reply to Re: The article » name, posted by danf on January 26, 2001, at 4:35:19
> Given your bias & propensity for argument, I suggest you watch TV.
James here.....
Or we could just ignore name.
james
Posted by stjames on January 26, 2001, at 11:32:52
In reply to The article, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 18:45:22
Maybe in the future when more research is published some can hold off on the wild speculation that happened before we all got
to read it. Great article, no harm done, no names
reveiled.James
Posted by mars on January 26, 2001, at 11:44:55
In reply to Re: The article, posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 9:38:15
Noa, right-click on the PDF link and choose "save target as", which will save the file directly to your hard drive. If that doesn't work you might need to remove and reinstall Acrobat Reader.
mary
> ACK! When I click on "downloadable", the adobe acrobat window opens, but then the whole computer freezes up and nothing happens. I have to use the task manager to close it and free up the computer again.
>
> Any ideas?
Posted by mars on January 26, 2001, at 11:51:06
In reply to Re: The article, posted by stjames on January 26, 2001, at 11:32:52
I tried to say something like that on PSB, but don't know how many took a peek at the msg.
cheers,
mary
p.s. Vesper's screen name is still revealed in the screen shot. That seems like an oversight, since he's quoted elsewhere as w/o using his full pseudoname.
> Maybe in the future when more research is published some can hold off on the wild speculation that happened before we all got
> to read it. Great article, no harm done, no names
> reveiled.
>
> James
Posted by Rzip on January 26, 2001, at 12:31:31
In reply to Re: The article, posted by stjames on January 26, 2001, at 11:32:52
> Maybe in the future when more research is published some can hold off on the wild speculation that happened before we all got
> to read it. Great article, no harm done, no names
> reveiled.
That is precisely what I was trying to tell you guys! Ahhhhhh!- Rzip
Posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 14:15:46
In reply to Re: The article » Noa, posted by mars on January 26, 2001, at 11:44:55
Just printed it out. Thanks for the tech consult, Mary.
Posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 15:06:01
In reply to Re: The article, posted by danf on January 25, 2001, at 19:50:21
Just finished reading the article.
It seemed a good description of the board and some of the plusses and minuses of this format, kind of an overview of how it runs, some of the issues, etc. I think it will serve well as advice from an "old hand" to any "newbies" out there (Mental Health Professionals) who are thinking of starting some kind of online support group.
I think it is good to have this sort of descriptive, reflective paper--to reflect on the process, what has worked, what hasn't--as a way to step back and see how this medium is developing as a resource for mental health support.
Someone mentioned that it isn't exactly a research article. Even though it isn't an outcome study or controlled experiment, and even though it is rather an overview, I think it does contribute to the knowledge base because it steps back, describes the process, names phenomena that occur, reflects on the efficacy of problem solving, etc.
Dr. Bob, I don't know how much editing the journal did, but it seemed like there were a couple of passages where I would have wanted a bit more discussion: For example, on page 940, under "spectrum of posts", you seem to gloss over a primary focus of PB---med-related posts--- without describing or illustrating some "typical" patterns of information sharing and support. I think this is unfortunate because this is often (IMHO) the bulk of what happens here. I guess I would have liked to see an example ("typical") of some exchanges about medication and an example ("typical") of some exchanges of social support or information on non-med issues.
Another thing touched on briefly that I would have liked to see more discussion of is humor, both because it has been such an important part of the comeraderie, and because of the potential for misunderstandings, and because of how humor became a contended issue (although I can't remember if the big flare-up about humor happened after the time frame of the article).
Which brings me to another important topic that isn't covered: the issue of language--text communication--difficulty conveying nuances, attitude, humor, intention, etc. that have been discussed on the board many times, in addition to the ways that this format (board vs. chat, and text communication) may also facilitate growth, as was discussed when you posted the hypotheses a few months back.. I know this is a whole BIG topic in itself, but I would have liked to see it at least touched upon.
I guess I would also have to agree with whoever said, above, that a couple of the citations were long and perhaps not the best examples of "typical" exchanges.
Although you did use single letters to denote posters, the illustration of the frames format shows Vesper's screen name in full, and I am wondering if this was intentional or not.
Some of the things I mentioned here that I would have liked to see a bit more discussion of, would actually make great subjects to explore more in depth on their own.
Well, you asked, and I probably gave you more than you wanted to hear.
It was a good article.
Posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 15:07:29
In reply to Re: The article, posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 15:06:01
PS--btw did I say 'thanks' for posting it so we could read it? Thanks.
Posted by Cam W. on January 26, 2001, at 16:29:59
In reply to Re: The article, posted by stjames on January 26, 2001, at 11:17:12
> > Given your bias & propensity for argument, I suggest you watch TV.
>
> James here.....
>
> Or we could just ignore name.
>
> jamesJames - Thanks, I sometimes forget that I can do that. Sorry to all for my knee-jerk reactions. Hmm... maybe some sort of anger management course may be in order for me.
Keep me cool, dude - Cam
Posted by Greg on January 26, 2001, at 18:07:23
In reply to Re: The article » stjames, posted by Cam W. on January 26, 2001, at 16:29:59
> > > Given your bias & propensity for argument, I suggest you watch TV.
> >
> > James here.....
> >
> > Or we could just ignore name.
> >
> > james
>
> James - Thanks, I sometimes forget that I can do that. Sorry to all for my knee-jerk reactions. Hmm... maybe some sort of anger management course may be in order for me.
>
> Keep me cool, dude - CamCam,
Anger Management is a big thing in Cal, I'll check into some courses you can take while you're here. :)
Posted by Rach on January 27, 2001, at 0:08:35
In reply to Re: The article--it worked--thanks! » mars, posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 14:15:46
> Just printed it out. Thanks for the tech consult, Mary.
I had exactly the same prob - and it also worked for me. Thank you too, Mary!
Posted by Rzip on January 27, 2001, at 0:15:35
In reply to Re: The article, posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 15:06:01
> Someone mentioned that it isn't exactly a research article. Even though it isn't an outcome study or controlled experiment, and even though it is rather an overview, I think it does contribute to the knowledge base because it steps back, describes the process, names phenomena that occur, reflects on the efficacy of problem solving, etc.This is an article and not a research paper because it violates the essence of the scientific method. See BMJ Volume 315 2 August 1997. I do not know what BMJ stands for, I just have the article, which is titled, "How to read a paper". I use it to help me think through the reading of research papers.
Dr. Bob's article sets the basis for future papers. It is a good reference article about the PB website. When he writes a real paper, all he has to do is reference it. That is if the PB background info. as we know it has circulated to a larger audience by the time he publishes these future research papers.
Why isn't this a research paper, you ask...
First, let me explain a little about the history of the problems with scientific psychiatry. Prior to WWII, people believed that each mental patient should be regarded as an individual (n=1). Since you can not run a study with only one test subject, the scientific method was not applied to psychiatry. After WWII, people began to realize that subjects could be grouped together, and thus null hypotheses could be applied to a certain theory concerning a certain disease. The scientific aspect of psychiatry (as opposed to the Freudian psychoanalysis theory). I am probably not making any sense. The bottom-line is that Dr. Bob's article did not follow Karl Popper's formulation of falsificationism. The falsificationism formulation by Karl Popper states that "A scientist should begin by making conjectures about how the world is and then seek to disprove them...If...a scientist tries diligently to disprove a hypothesis, and fails, the hypothesis gains in stature." (Can J Psychiatry, Vol 41, May 1996). It is from Pg. 227-8 of The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.So, Dr. Bob's article is not a scientific article because the hypotheses if there is one, is very ambigiously phrased: "An online self-group hosted by a mental health professional...is hypothesized to combine the best of both worlds." Let us assume that there is a well-acknowledged reason to form this hypotheses in the cyberpsychology field, what Dr. Bob then fails to do is to go on and illustrate that this particular combo makes a significant difference in the Online mental health field. By the way, I did not understand the wording, "Best of Both Worlds". Ambigious! What worlds? Show me the specific stats that illustrate the benefits of inter-twining the Online Self-Help Group with the Online Mental Health Professional hosted group.
O.K. Here is the main problem. What intrinsic quality are you measuring, Dr. Bob? One variable at a time, remember. For instance, take the SUPPORT character. A research paper should first state the null hypotheses that Online Self-Help group vs. Online group hosted by a Mental Health Professional is equally as supportive as the combo. The paper should then go on to measure the support character within the group. If the Test of Support, let us call it ToS show that the ToS value in the Combo group is significantly higher than that of the Test group as well as the Control group (people who are not engaged in this form of Online communication). Then, the author can reject the null hypotheses and support Dr. Bob's alternative hypotheses that this is indeed the best of both worlds.
Am I making any sense? The bottom-line is that the article by Dr. Bob is a great description of how PB works, but I do not know if it contributes to the scientific library in the Cyberpsychology field.
There is just WAY too much variables in here for this article to even be considered as a research paper. I do not even know where to begin to think through this. So, I came to the conclusion that this is merely a primitive basis for future studies. Besides, it is kind of hard to conduct a research study when the author do not really know his subjects at all. Who knows whether the form of exchanges on PB is reliable or not.
In conclusion, Dr. Bob, who I love dearly wrote an unscientific article about a very complex medium for future therapeutic exchanges. I am sure he realizes this and is seeking for feedback. Beware of what you contribute though...he just might throw you into a future study or publication that he is currently stewing over. By continue to participate on this site, you guys are volunteering (informed or otherwise) to participate in Dr. Bob's research sampling or studies. A word of caution: Don't post another word if you are against the idea of being used. Dr. Bob can be pretty vicious when it comes to research opportunities and such. I mean at this junction, I really wish that he would take the time to be more upfront regarding his future research plans in terms of this site. Even if he does chose to reply, still read between the lines. Once a researcher, always a researcher :-)
- Rzip
Posted by Rach on January 27, 2001, at 0:19:18
In reply to Re: The article » Cam W., posted by Greg on January 26, 2001, at 18:07:23
Like Nikki, I must complain that I was not included!!! :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 27, 2001, at 2:17:09
In reply to Re: The article, posted by danf on January 25, 2001, at 19:50:21
> Well the article was pretty much as I expected. A bit dry...
You don't think they'll want to make it into a movie? :-)
> How extensive and to what degree are the research you are planning to post here?What I do, I'll post (if at all possible), but I don't have specific plans. However, I do think, and have mentioned before, that it would be interesting to try to collect some outcome data... And shar just suggested a comparison with other message boards...
> jeez, did you have to mention me only in a "please be civil" context*Please* don't jump to any conclusions based on the posts of yours that I chose or didn't choose. I was trying to convey an idea of what goes on here, not to present a balanced sample of the contributions of individual posters.
> While the group might offer benefits of both types of groups, there is no evidence offered to support a finding that the group offers the “best of both worlds” because neither “world” outside the author's project is thoroughly surveyed in search of its best qualities...Hey, how about a letter to the editor? :-)
> name - I'm sorry. Do you have a mental health issue to discuss or are you just trying to impose your particular view of the world on us. Your posts do lack substance and, even though wordy, do not say anything.Please, I know there's more to this than meets the eye, and I value your contributions, but if you're not able to be civil, I'm going to need to block you. At least for a while.
> I was surprised to see the reference to Haven though...do I owe you a finder's fee for any new members???Good idea, maybe 10% of your subscription fees? :-)
> It seemed a good description of the board and some of the plusses and minuses of this format, kind of an overview of how it runs, some of the issues, etc...How about another letter to the editor? :-)
One thing that's obvious, but which I think I may not have made explicit, but should have, is my bias...
> I guess I would also have to agree with whoever said, above, that a couple of the citations were long and perhaps not the best examples of "typical" exchanges.
Hmm, I guess I did say "typical", oops! They were actually intended as examples of how good posts *can* be. Bias in action, maybe?
> Although you did use single letters to denote posters, the illustration of the frames format shows Vesper's screen name in full, and I am wondering if this was intentional or not.
Here's the deal. I wanted to include a screen shot, a picture is worth a thousand words, etc. But a real screen shot has the name of the poster. If I edit the web page, it's no longer authentic.
The answer (or one answer, anyway) is to use the actual web page, but to black out in an obvious way the name of the poster. But I just didn't think of that then.
> Some of the things I mentioned here that I would have liked to see a bit more discussion of, would actually make great subjects to explore more in depth on their own.
Like in a book? :-)
> Well, you asked, and I probably gave you more than you wanted to hear.
>
> It was a good article.Thanks, and I do appreciate *all* the input. After all, I couldn't have done this without you. :-)
> This is an article and not a research paper because it violates the essence of the scientific method. See BMJ Volume 315 2 August 1997...A third letter to the editor! :-)
Bob
Posted by ksvt on January 27, 2001, at 21:48:30
In reply to Re: The article-PS, posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 15:07:29
>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
PS--btw did I say 'thanks' for posting it so we could read it? Thanks.
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!
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.