![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 26. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 21:31:31
The guidelines at this site state we are not to write anything about what any person place or thing makes us feel. We are told to write only about a feeling we experience when an event occurs. We are not allowed to attribute our feelings to any external onus.
We are not allowed to attribute any cause to our feelings, but this doctor supposedly can hold us responsible for anything he believes any person might theoretically feel upon reading our words. The administrator of this site maintains a policy based on the assumption that every word we post must be assessed for how it might make others feel, in his opinion. We can’t say what causes our feelings, but a doctor can tell us when we are causing others to have feelings. My, what powerful insight you have, doctor. No wonder you no longer treat patients, but only administer care for groups. Your skills are much too valuable to waste on any one person.
It’s nice to have a place to chit-chat, especially when it has a survivor atmosphere in which only a few can stay on the island and in which even the most seasoned players are often struck by the administration’s capricious interventions. But no doubt many quickly realize, once they see what is happening here, that this project that has never been proven to have any health benefit for even one person, much less has been shown to cause less harm than it causes benefit on a population-wide basis.
Guess what -- the emperor is naked.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 12, 2005, at 21:44:24
In reply to The doctor's skillful insight, posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 21:31:31
> The guidelines at this site state we are not to write anything about what any person place or thing makes us feel.
That's not correct, it's actually permissable to be quite direct about how something makes us feel. "it irritates me" "I get angry when" "That comment made me mad"..all those are acceptable.
> Guess what -- the emperor is naked.Someone says that about every 6 months, but the thing is, I don't think most of the grandeur or infallibilty nor do I get the feeling Dr. Bob does. It's an informative web board with really good people on it, run by someone who has done some great things for us, but can occasionally screw up.
Posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 22:15:49
In reply to Re: The doctor's skillful insight » used2b, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 12, 2005, at 21:44:24
"it irritates me" "I get angry when" "That comment made me mad"..all those are acceptable.
>Not according to the discourse the admin cited after I stated how I perceive something.
Are you saying we can state feelings, but not perceptions? That is more than bogus. It is bold-faced frontal assault against reason.
> Someone says that about every 6 months,But their insight is not legitimate? Even though it comes up repeatedly?
>but the thing is, I don't think most of the grandeur or infallibilty nor do I get the feeling Dr. Bob does.It appears to me to invite more mania than granduer.
>It's an informative web board with really good people on it, run by someone who has done some great things for us, but can occasionally screw up.The information aspect is interesting, but information about anything other than medicines is more or less prohibited. The front page is all about medicines then on the back pages people can joke and laugh and pretend to touch each other, but can't discuss anything weighty for fear someone might feel something.
The gall -- to tell me that symbols are not pretense. Go back to school doctor.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 12, 2005, at 22:49:37
In reply to Re: The doctor's skillful insight » Gabbi-x-2, posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 22:15:49
> "it irritates me" "I get angry when" "That comment made me mad"..all those are acceptable.
> >
>
> Not according to the discourse the admin cited after I stated how I perceive something.
>
> Are you saying we can state feelings, but not perceptions? That is more than bogus. It is bold-faced frontal assault against reason.No, the point is how it's said, not whether it's perception or feeling. It needs to be made personal. As in saying "I didn't like that" as opposed to "that was stupid" Or "that doesn't feel sincere to me" not "That's pretentious"
>
> > Someone says that about every 6 months,
>
> But their insight is not legitimate? Even though it comes up repeatedly?No, I didn't say that at all. When the comment is meant for all posters to read though, I do wonder who among us they think is seeing the emporer in the first place.
> The gall -- to tell me that symbols are not pretense. Go back to school doctor.
It wasn't that, it was that by saying it when you did you were implying that the person sending them or typing them to you was being insincere or pretentious. If you had said in another post that those hugs get on your nerves, they seem phony that would have been okay. I'm not saying I don't think it's not piccayune at times, but just trying to point out the difference.
Posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 23:36:25
In reply to Re: The doctor's skillful insight » used2b, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 12, 2005, at 22:49:37
> No, the point is how it's said, not whether it's perception or feeling. It needs to be made personal. As in saying "I didn't like that" as opposed to "that was stupid" Or "that doesn't feel sincere to me" not "That's pretentious"
Were that the case, I would have no complaint. But that is not the case. It was purely and technically a personal statement. I stated how something appeared to me, in contrast to how it probably appeared to someone else.
What about "that doesn't *seem* sincere to me". Or "To you that might be real, but to me it is not real"? You might convince yourself one of those would pass, but if this boy in Chicago decides it's time to slap you, he will tell you it was not enough of an I-statement, without ever telling you what is a sufficient I-statement. He will sanction you, then after the fact begin constructing reasons.
It is not about attributing a perception to one's self, as i did. The boy already stated that even if I were to couch my perception in his proposed model structure, he would still act hatefully toward me.
It is about nothing other than whether some young man in Chicago is fed up with somebody's general tone and decides it is time call the person out to demonstrate his authority. The same stance and sentence structure can be okay for days and weeks until he decides to make it illegal, then a day later, it is legal again, with no consistent statement from him other than "I know it when I see it." followed by references to contradictory models that would never be accepted by any peer reviewed journal of English usage. The "tricky" rules he cites can be recognized by most casual linguists as internally inconsistent.
>
> > The gall -- to tell me that symbols are not pretense. Go back to school doctor.
>
> It wasn't that, it was that by saying it when you did you were implying that the person sending them or typing them to you was being insincere or pretentious.Absolutely not. I explicitly stated the person probably was sincere. It was a comparative sentence structure that juxtaposed my perception with the best possible view of the other's motivations. I stated my perception, based entirely on my internal state that leads me to so perceive symbols as pretentious. "To you it might be real, but to me it is all pretense."
"TO ME" .... did you read that?
I didn't state the whole truth, which is that all symbols are pretense. All cultural rites are pretense. We rely on pretense as the foundation of culture. That sort of honest science would no doubt lead to torture before lynching.> If you had said in another post that those hugs get on your nerves, they seem phony that would have been okay.
No it would not. That is exactly what I said. Except I didn't say they seem phony. I said they only seem phony to me. I didn't even say they get on my nerves. Maybe I would really like it. Maybe i would like a shot of heroin, too. I said I don't want to take part in that, and briefly explained my reasons -- to me they are pretense.
Now, having been abused for my honesty, I am stating and presenting evidence that symbols are not only pretense to me, they are pretense to real scientists (which Robert Hsuing is not, he is an academic and a clinician) who spend their lives studying animal behavior.
>I'm not saying I don't think it's not piccayune at times, but just trying to point out the difference.
>And I am pointing out that piccayune, capricious authority is the cause of, not the cure for, abuse. I hope this boy will surrender his medical license, and go back to school to study communication if that's what he wants to do for a career. Otherwise, his personal communication experiment offends language and offends those who care to use it accurately and consistently.
As for you, you are demonstrating typical survivor symptoms, offering yourself rationale for why you survived when someone else didn't. The rationale is not consistent with reality, which is evidence that it is compensatory.
And for me, having recognized the rules as farsical, I no longer find any need to pretend otherwise.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 12, 2005, at 23:58:34
In reply to Re: The doctor's skillful insight » Gabbi-x-2, posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 23:36:25
Well praise dog and pass the Buddha!
Not to be piccayune, but I just have to ask you about this one line in your post here.
>
> ...I am stating and presenting evidence that symbols are not only pretense to me, they are pretense to real scientists ...who spend their lives studying animal behavior.Um, aren't there loads of other "real scientists" who study loads of other things that have nothing to do whatsoever with animal behavior?
And boy howdy, you sure do seem peeved. I hope that you are able to access IRL support, because, uh, wow.
Regards,
ggPS Thanks for the HIPAA site. I've bookmarked it, as it will be a useful reference for me at work.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 12, 2005, at 23:59:24
In reply to Re: The doctor's skillful insight, posted by gardenergirl on April 12, 2005, at 23:58:34
Posted by used2b on April 13, 2005, at 0:45:24
In reply to Re: The doctor's skillful insight, posted by gardenergirl on April 12, 2005, at 23:58:34
> > ...I am stating and presenting evidence that symbols are not only pretense to me, they are pretense to real scientists ...who spend their lives studying animal behavior.
>
> Um, aren't there loads of other "real scientists" who study loads of other things that have nothing to do whatsoever with animal behavior?I advocate consitent use of language, but that doesn't mean I always accomplish what I advocate. The meaning required a definite article, or at least needed the sentence to be punctuated correctly.
revised: I am stating and presenting evidence that symbols are not only pretense to me, they are pretense to the scientists who spend their lives studying animal behavior.
It would need even more work to accurately describe the breadth of opinion among animal behavioralists.
> And boy howdy, you sure do seem peeved. I hope that you are able to access IRL support, because, uh, wow.
>I don't need support any more than I need a new addiction. I don't have any, at least not much, and I would usually refuse it if it were superficial. There are concepts worthy of support, such as accurate discourse, human rights, responsible authority, so please, send your support, real or pretend, to a deserving charity.
Obviously I care about the matter I am confronting, but I don't have to feel peeved at all to stage an effective confrontation. It's rhetoric. Remember I said it's all pretense to me? It's a skill that grows from a deep appreciation of pretense and an understanding of how hard one must push to budge large objects even a small distance.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 13, 2005, at 1:20:12
In reply to Re: The doctor's skillful insight » gardenergirl, posted by used2b on April 13, 2005, at 0:45:24
> Obviously I care about the matter I am confronting, but I don't have to feel peeved at all to stage an effective confrontation.Interesting word choice there, "stage".
gg
Posted by used2b on April 13, 2005, at 1:31:30
In reply to Re: The doctor's skillful insight » used2b, posted by gardenergirl on April 13, 2005, at 1:20:12
>
> > Obviously I care about the matter I am confronting, but I don't have to feel peeved at all to stage an effective confrontation.
>
> Interesting word choice there, "stage".
>
> ggAnd quite deliberate. Various processes can help us access conflicting ideas within our own mind and to select which we will represent and how. Otherwise, we act according to some unexplored expecation in our own mind of who we think we should be. I think much of the research on social pretense focuses on child's play, and the role it serves in developing social performance.
Posted by 10derHeart on April 13, 2005, at 1:33:05
In reply to Re: The doctor's skillful insight » used2b, posted by gardenergirl on April 13, 2005, at 1:20:12
>
> > Obviously I care about the matter I am confronting, but I don't have to feel peeved at all to stage an effective confrontation.
>
> Interesting word choice there, "stage".
>
> ggOh, my, yes. gg, are you reading my mind?
Posted by gardenergirl on April 13, 2005, at 1:50:20
In reply to Re: The doctor's skillful insight » gardenergirl, posted by 10derHeart on April 13, 2005, at 1:33:05
Posted by used2b on April 13, 2005, at 1:56:26
In reply to Re: The doctor's skillful insight » gardenergirl, posted by 10derHeart on April 13, 2005, at 1:33:05
The concept is called dramaturgy.
Posted by 10derHeart on April 13, 2005, at 2:00:36
In reply to It's a great read (nm) » 10derHeart, posted by gardenergirl on April 13, 2005, at 1:50:20
Posted by Dinah on April 13, 2005, at 7:10:36
In reply to It's a great read (nm) » 10derHeart, posted by gardenergirl on April 13, 2005, at 1:50:20
My thoughts went instantly to a musing on what constituted an "effective" confrontation, along the lines of a long ago discussion with my therapist.
However, I suppose the point is moot when I have no real idea what effective means to any particular person.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 13, 2005, at 13:08:29
In reply to Re: It's a great read » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on April 13, 2005, at 7:10:36
For a confrontation to be considered 'effective' it would need to have made a point.
This us usually easier when the point being made is put out in clear concise language - as the whole idea is to communicate.
It doesn't necessarily have to change things, but it does need to be understood.
My opinion - for what *that's* worth these days.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 13, 2005, at 16:20:24
In reply to Re: my idea of effective » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on April 13, 2005, at 13:08:29
Yes, "effective" is another word that has a dictionary definition, but also depends on what the person intends to achieve.
For example, hypothetically, if a person wanted to increase traffic on a site or stimulate dialog about a specific idea, then one might consider that post's similar to used2be's posts have been "effective" in achieving that goal, at least to some end.
Interesting, no?
gg
Posted by used2b on April 14, 2005, at 1:07:41
In reply to Re: my idea of effective » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on April 13, 2005, at 13:08:29
> This us usually easier when the point being made is put out in clear concise language - as the whole idea is to communicate.
>Good idea. Newspapers average 17 words per sentence, so 12 words would be very concise, right?
Then comparing two perspectives within 12 words could not only concisely make a point, it could acknowledge other perspectives and explain the main point as purely the writer's perspective, right?
Such a sentence could be so powerful it might prompt thousands of words to be written that expound on its meaning and its propriety. That is my idea of effective writing.
Sometimes long passages juxtaposed against short statements are also effective.
Posted by Racer on April 19, 2005, at 12:53:27
In reply to Re: my idea of effective » AuntieMel, posted by used2b on April 14, 2005, at 1:07:41
Posted by chemist on April 20, 2005, at 20:38:45
In reply to I think this is one of those zen things... (nm), posted by Racer on April 19, 2005, at 12:53:27
hello there, chemist here...i could not agree more with the substance of your subject line...see posts below for further clarification....yours, tjm
Posted by Jai Narayan on April 20, 2005, at 22:48:43
In reply to Re: I think this is one of those zen things... » Racer, posted by chemist on April 20, 2005, at 20:38:45
Posted by alexandra_k on April 20, 2005, at 23:38:50
In reply to Re: I think this is one of those zen things... » Racer, posted by chemist on April 20, 2005, at 20:38:45
My head is still spinning from our conversation about fields of force...
And that was months ago!
Good to see you back.
Hope you stick around :-)
Posted by chemist on April 21, 2005, at 17:01:23
In reply to welcome back dear Chemist...it's been way too long (nm), posted by Jai Narayan on April 20, 2005, at 22:48:43
hello there jai...a pleasure to see(?) you as well....yours, tjm
Posted by chemist on April 21, 2005, at 17:03:36
In reply to Re: Yeah Chemist, welcome back!, posted by alexandra_k on April 20, 2005, at 23:38:50
> My head is still spinning from our conversation about fields of force...
>
> And that was months ago!
>
> Good to see you back.
> Hope you stick around :-)hello there alexandra, i missed our chats concerning the strong and weak forces....perhaps we can find a way to fit gravity into the standard model, yes? be well, tjm
Posted by Jai Narayan on April 21, 2005, at 17:08:55
In reply to Re: welcome back dear Chemist...it's been way too » Jai Narayan, posted by chemist on April 21, 2005, at 17:01:23
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.