![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 19 to 43 of 51. Go back in thread:
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!
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2001, at 1:16:34
In reply to I Respectfully Disagree, posted by Mark H. on January 29, 2001, at 20:43:09
> I respectfully disagree. Psycho-Babble boards should BE a safe place (and in fact are)...
Of course you're right, they should *be* a safe place. :-)
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2001, at 1:18:20
In reply to Re: The article, posted by Cecilia on January 30, 2001, at 0:38:18
> this link doesn`t work for web tv, any chance the article can be printed in this thread so web tv users can see it?
Sorry, the link to research.html that I posted doesn't work, or that works, but the link there to the pdf file doesn't work?
Bob
Posted by Rach on January 30, 2001, at 6:09:12
In reply to Re: Questionnaires?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2001, at 16:34:15
Not sure if anyone remembers, but a while back I posted an informal questionnaire just because I thought it would be interesting, about people's opinions on their own depression.
Not scientific by any means - but an interesting read. Perhaps I could find it in the archives and repost it to see what answers people have now? We have a lot of new people and I know that my own answers have changed.
Posted by Noa on January 30, 2001, at 9:05:57
In reply to Re: Questionnaires? (Informal one last year), posted by Rach on January 30, 2001, at 6:09:12
Egroups had (and I assume yahoo continues this) a survey format, so if needed, we could have a link to a questionaire there.
Posted by anna78 on January 30, 2001, at 11:53:13
In reply to Re: The article, posted by name on January 26, 2001, at 1:35:56
Thanks for the helpful followup reply, name..... I very much appreciate your input on this matter, since nobody else seems to see much wrong with what doc has done here.An issue not yet discussed is one about the power differential that exists between the doc/administrator and his subjects/posters/consumers/advice-receivers. in therapy, I know that therapists seek to try and limit having more than one relationship with the client at a time..in other words, the therapist is the therapist, she is not the client's "friend" or anything else. (although transference may make the therapist something else temporarily or symbolically..)
Here, doc is in the role of administrator, with the unique and unequalled power to kick anybody off of his little world he doesn't agree with or thinks is acting in a manner inconsistent with what he'd like. he is also in the role of psychiatrist, doling out tidbits of information on high, very much like a traditional doctor. and he is in the role of resource provider, giving everyone the actual technical resources to participate and be together. last, he is in the role of secret researcher and author, collecting our posts as 'data' for his studies, but not letting anyone know about it until after-the-fact.
Seems like a lot of roles to juggle and to juggle well. it's no wonder that so many people defend him so vigorously, because they owe him so much and after all, what is vesper's privacy worth? apparently not all that much.
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 30, 2001, at 12:17:03
In reply to Re: The article - power differential, posted by anna78 on January 30, 2001, at 11:53:13
I think you have confused the issue entirely here. Since when has Dr Bob acted as therapist to *any* of us. Infact, I've never seen him post advice on medical issues to anyone.
He is simply a doctor, who having noticed that a medium such as this can be helpful, he has provided US with an area WE can use.
If YOU don't like it, no one makes you post. It is NOT therapy, in that you're told to return each week / month. here it is an open space, like a park wall, that you can visit and leave messages if you wish. If you don't wish to, it really doesn't matter, as no one is expecting you, or will notice if you haven't. Dr Bob does not invite people to come here, we all just stumble upon it in our own little ways.
It is known here that Dr Bob would use this for his own uses, eg writing papers, as it virtually says so. I am not the most intelligent person in thw world, but the phrase ". Submitting a message gives me permission to use it as I wish" makes me think that he might write papers or something about stuff here.
Your points would be perfectly valid if this were a private place in the great big mall known the the "net", if it were passworded for example, and the only people posting were people invited to use it a group therapy kind of a way. But it isn't. Anyone with access to a pc can come here and read what they want, post what they want, and use it in any way they want to. How mnay of us may not have actualy mental health problems, but just get a kick out of posting an dtrying to get a reaction?? How many of us might ust get a kick out of igving people advice - whether true or not... You don't know this, because of the sort of medium it is.
OK, so you were upset that Dr Bob deigned to write an article without personally informing you. Thats life I'm afraid. I'm pretty sure this site has been reviewed in magazines the world over and we've not been told about it. I know other sites I visit have been, and I've always felt quite proud that I am associated with a site like that.
And yes, I owe Dr Bob alot really. Without this site I would never have found some wonderful people I now have as friends, whom I love and care about,and whom (I think!!) love me and care about me. Call me a suck up if you wish, but I am fed up of people thinking Dr Bob owes THEM something, when in fact, he is providing US with a service.
I could say alot more, but it would certainly get me banned.
Nikki
Posted by judy1 on January 31, 2001, at 13:55:59
In reply to I Respectfully Disagree, posted by Mark H. on January 29, 2001, at 20:43:09
My first reaction when I read your post was what an obnoxious twit, which is extremely uncivil and will probably get me kicked off, but also make my shrink very proud of me (since I RUN from any confrontation). My second was you demonstrated an excellent command of the English language, which tells me you probably aren't on 6 different psychotropic drugs. I respectfully submit I wrote a public post expressing my feelings to Dr. Bob, he graciously responded and I didn't need your interference. Thank you.
Posted by Mark H. on January 31, 2001, at 14:19:19
In reply to Re: I Respectfully Disagree » Mark H., posted by judy1 on January 31, 2001, at 13:55:59
Dear Judy,
Good for you for confronting me. That's positive. I'm also pleased to see that I've come up somewhat in your estimation (not kidding -- being characterized as an obnoxious twit is definitely better than being characterized as cruel). Perhaps I'm doing better. I hope so.
Why do I provoke such strong sentiments from you? (Will I be sorry I asked?) I'm an amazingly normal, caring person, and I'm puzzled at why I would evoke such sentiments from anyone.
I actually am on 5 psychotropic medications, not 6, and I've received a lot of support and assistance from people on this board, for which I am deeply grateful. I respect that you and I may have differences of opinion on some matters.
Dr. Bob -- don't slap judy1 with a "please be civil" on my behalf. I'm glad she is comfortable stating her concerns directly to me.
Thanks for writing, Judy.
Best wishes,
Mark H.
Posted by judy1 on January 31, 2001, at 14:40:26
In reply to judy1, posted by Mark H. on January 31, 2001, at 14:19:19
I reacted that way because I tried to express a deeply held feeling and reading your post made me feel stupid- like I was incapable of distinguishing feeling or being safe. Now I'm thinking if someone is going to jump on me for semantics, I should probably just e-mail Dr. Bob with my thoughts. I hope this helps- judy
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.