![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 64 to 88 of 164. Go back in thread:
Posted by rskontos on November 9, 2008, at 13:23:47
In reply to Re: My contention., posted by Sigismund on November 9, 2008, at 12:41:18
So many of you have great points. I think in the end I agree with Sigismund. This is all very unsettling during a time when I am the most unsettled. Leave it Dr. Bob to dump and run.
I might just opt out for a while and lurk. I will probably be like Sigismund and assume newbies are participants and see how they behave.
I feel this does change things. Time will only tell what the change will mean. And right now my frame of reference doesn't not allow me to assume good is the outcome of change.
And it just seemed like Babble was slowly recovering from the march 08 rupture.
Again, I think Dr. Bob cannot leave well enough alone.
rsk
Posted by lucie lu on November 9, 2008, at 13:31:34
In reply to Research project, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2008, at 2:22:01
To me, the analogy of the blood samples falls short because the samples exert no effect on one another. The Psych board, in particular, has psychosocial elements that distinguish not only from the blood sample model but also from other boards as well. While not all Psych Babblers share some degree of trauma history and associated interpersonal trust and attachment issues, a significant number have. Many or most are in long-term therapy and have deeply meaningful, often confusing and emotionally intense, relationships with their mental health clinicians. Many find themselves unable to discuss these relationships or issues anywhere else, often not even in the therapy room; in fact, the introduction of new, sensitive material into therapy often follows prior discussion with other Babble members. While the anonymity of Babble facilitates self-disclosure, the emotional safety of the community drives it. A sense of safety is provided by mutual interactions between participants, who have shared very intimate material and provided support and feedback to one another. New members are warmly welcomed and frequently have lurked on the board for some time before actually posting. Thus new members are likely to already know the dynamics and tone of the board before beginning to participate, and they join because of some sense of commonality and shared purpose. This self-screening feature is bypassed by those who join the group from ulterior motives, such as participation in an experiment.
None of the concerns stated on this thread should come as a surprise to anyone familiar with group behavior. A therapeutic community works because it provides safety within a supportive community that encourages productive introspection and interpersonal connections based on a common theme. While an established group can assimilate a few new members at a time, an influx or steady stream of new members destabilizes the group and destroys the existing community altogether. Another group can coalesce from old and new members, but the original community is gone. The loss of the Psych sense of community would be profound for its participants; I am not sure it would be so with most other boards. While the Psych board is not formal group therapy, I believe it shares many of the same group properties and fits the description of a therapeutic community. I believe that a significant subset of Babblers, particularly but not exclusively those with trust issues, will be loath to self-disclose if the intentions of new members are suspect, as they will be in the context of an experimental study. I find it hard to see how the existing community could fail to be significantly impacted by the study conditions, which would indeed seem to defeat its purpose. Not to mention the "do no harm" injunction: although we are not patients and technically not "covered" by this principle, I belive it still should guide responsible actions toward others.
Posted by Wittgensteinz on November 9, 2008, at 13:43:34
In reply to Re: My contention., posted by rskontos on November 9, 2008, at 13:23:47
I just want to apologise for my last message to this thread. I think it was rather insensitive of me and might have played on peoples' anxieties. This wasn't my intention but in retrospect my choice of example of who these 230 participants might be was poorly thought out. I hope I didn't upset anyone.
Already this topic is affecting me - there are things I would like to post about on psychology but I don't feel as comfortable to do so now.
This does all seem rather unsettling.
Take care everyone - for those who are happy about this and comfortable, I'm happy for you, that's great - for those who feel a bit like me or even more alarmed, we'll get through this as a community. Babble has existed for a long time and got through a lot of things. Hopefully Bob will be able to offer some reassurance too.
Witti
Posted by fayeroe on November 9, 2008, at 14:00:51
In reply to Re: Research project, posted by Ricker on November 8, 2008, at 14:01:58
> Look forward to chatting with them, not sure why it's causing soo much concern? Dr. Bob's notice was out of respect for us. These "new" memebers have the right to post, seek support, share experience, and perhaps help "us"!
It causes concern because we've been "research" before and never known exactly what was going on. If Bob was all about "respect" I believe that he would have been open about what the research is for and who the "helpers" will be and where they are from.....I am a long time member here and I've extremely wary of these research projects that Bob does.
>
> I get the feeling some have claimed this site as "theirs"?? Well, it's the internet, so unless this site becomes a closed door, hand-picked members only club, I say welcome.If Bob didn't have the posters that are here, there would be no Babble. Of course we feel concerned when a big change is taking place. I seriously doubt that any one of us feels that the site is "ours". But if you have alot invested here, as many do, then Bob could explain what he is doing with us. There are members here who have been here longer than I..and I've been here since 2002.
Hope this helps explain to you why some posters are less than happy about the research..
Pat
>
>
Posted by fayeroe on November 9, 2008, at 14:31:33
In reply to Re: Research project » Ricker, posted by fayeroe on November 9, 2008, at 14:00:51
I am thinking that the study may have started by Bob posting what he did and our reaction is part of the research. I know that I've certainly considered that in the past. Bob has a history of starting something and then disappearing.
I won't post to this thread again. My response is to be extremely suspicious of "new posters"....and that will affect how much I disclose in my postings. Very little from now on....Pat
Posted by lucie lu on November 9, 2008, at 15:09:17
In reply to When? » fayeroe, posted by fayeroe on November 9, 2008, at 14:31:33
> I am thinking that the study may have started by Bob posting what he did and our reaction is part of the research. I know that I've certainly considered that in the past. Bob has a history of starting something and then disappearing.
I was wondering the same.
Posted by Dinah on November 9, 2008, at 15:13:01
In reply to Re: When? » fayeroe, posted by lucie lu on November 9, 2008, at 15:09:17
This may be just as cynical on the other side, but I don't think Dr. Bob thinks that much about Babble. He probably had it on his to do list to announce it, announced it, and then promptly forgot about it and went about his business.
I think it's more likely he's spending time on Facebook than studying our reaction, and if anyone has any urgent questions for him it's still probably better to email him. Or go to Facebook and ask him. :(
Posted by Dinah on November 9, 2008, at 15:18:33
In reply to Re: When?, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2008, at 15:13:01
Although that may be some personal feelings leaking through... The discussion has been wonderfully polite and respectful overall. I really respect Babblers for that. But either he gives Babblers a lot of credit, or he didn't think things through carefully enough to be on hand after announcing what he announced.
I apologize if I'm not giving Dr. Bob enough credit.
Posted by Dinah on November 9, 2008, at 15:24:53
In reply to Re: When?, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2008, at 15:18:33
Besides, he specifically said that current posters would not be the subject of the research, so he couldn't be studying our reactions.
Not only do I trust Dr. Bob not to actually lie outright, but I'm pretty sure he couldn't use any research he obtained by baldfaced lying.
My experience is him is that yes, he can be less than forthcoming. In fact that's one reason it's so safe to tell him just about anything. But I've known him to go to extreme lengths not to actually lie.
Posted by rskontos on November 9, 2008, at 15:45:52
In reply to Re: When? » fayeroe, posted by lucie lu on November 9, 2008, at 15:09:17
>> I am thinking that the study may have started by Bob posting what he did and our reaction is part of the research. I know that I've certainly considered that in the past. Bob has a history of starting something and then disappearing.>>
I, too, thought something along these lines when I first read his annoucement and all the responses.
rsk
Posted by fayeroe on November 9, 2008, at 15:49:38
In reply to Re: When?, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2008, at 15:24:53
Posted by rskontos on November 9, 2008, at 15:51:06
In reply to Re: When?, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2008, at 15:24:53
Dinah, I appreciate your absolute trust in Dr. Bob, however, I believe you have had more experience in dealing with him directly than most of us. From my somewhat limited experience, he tends to dump and run. So from my point of view actions speak so much louder than words. I will admit my reactions tend to be colored from my skewed view of the world, which is why I am in therapy, and doing not so great at the moment, but that is more to the point of why Babble is so important to me, and its consistency without change is even better. And for a while, it has been more consistency. Alas I suppose I should not thought it was permanent.
I just wished Dr. Bob would not mess with things unless he is more upfront with his disclosure since he knows firsthand how fragile some of us are.
sigh,
rsk
Posted by Dinah on November 9, 2008, at 15:54:23
In reply to I didn't say he was lying. (nm), posted by fayeroe on November 9, 2008, at 15:49:38
I'm just working it through in my head.
If he was studying our reaction, he couldn't be telling us the truth about our not being studied.
Therefore, that can't be a possibility, because my belief in him aside, it wouldn't fly professionally.
Posted by Dinah on November 9, 2008, at 16:00:20
In reply to Re: When? » Dinah, posted by rskontos on November 9, 2008, at 15:51:06
> From my somewhat limited experience, he tends to dump and run.
It would appear so. :( It's just that my interpretation of dumping and running is that it reflects his absence, not his presence.
And while I do trust him to be who I know him to be, it doesn't hurt to trust and verify. The fact that he couldn't use research obtained by lying to us about being research subjects does help me believe my own impressions.
> I just wished Dr. Bob would not mess with things unless he is more upfront with his disclosure since he knows firsthand how fragile some of us are.
Me too.
Posted by BayLeaf on November 9, 2008, at 16:33:18
In reply to Research project, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2008, at 2:22:01
Given more time to think, maybe I am over-reacting. Perhaps this is the only way Bob can get 230 new posters? He is forcing the poor kids to come here by creating a research requirement! :-)
Maybe he hopes some will stay and boost the population here.
We have a choice. We can boycott, protest by leaving, or we can accept it. Those die hard Babblers who are remaining after all the chaos over the years have shown by past behavior that they will likely accept whatever Bob throws their way. They have apparently found that the pro's (supportive friends) outweigh the con's - or found change just too hard.
I think the Psychotherapy board on PsychCentral has really improved over the years. That's where I feel safest. And it's a research-free zone.
Bay
Posted by Dinah on November 9, 2008, at 16:52:20
In reply to Re: Research project, posted by BayLeaf on November 9, 2008, at 16:33:18
> Given more time to think, maybe I am over-reacting. Perhaps this is the only way Bob can get 230 new posters? He is forcing the poor kids to come here by creating a research requirement! :-)
>
> Maybe he hopes some will stay and boost the population here.:-)
That did come to my mind. I've been fussing forever about the declining posting rates on Babble (though Psychology has picked up lately). I guess I should be more careful about how I word my complaints. The fates are always listening.
lol. No, I'm not quite delusional. But it sure does seem like the fates like to trick me into being sorry I ever complained about anything.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 9, 2008, at 16:58:06
In reply to Re: Research project, posted by BayLeaf on November 9, 2008, at 16:33:18
> Given more time to think, maybe I am over-reacting. Perhaps this is the only way Bob can get 230 new posters? He is forcing the poor kids to come here by creating a research requirement! :-)
>
> Maybe he hopes some will stay and boost the population here.
>
> We have a choice. We can boycott, protest by leaving, or we can accept it. Those die hard Babblers who are remaining after all the chaos over the years have shown by past behavior that they will likely accept whatever Bob throws their way. They have apparently found that the pro's (supportive friends) outweigh the con's - or found change just too hard.
>
> I think the Psychotherapy board on PsychCentral has really improved over the years. That's where I feel safest. And it's a research-free zone.
>
> BayBay,
You wrote,[...He is forcing the (deleted by respondent) to come here by creating a research requierment...].
I would like to kmow if there is an authority that you used to make that statement. If there is, could you post it here? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
You wrote,[...we have a choice...](you gave two choices)
Could there be more than 2 choices?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on November 9, 2008, at 18:28:36
In reply to Lou's request for an authority-rhlvntfal? » BayLeaf, posted by Lou Pilder on November 9, 2008, at 16:58:06
Only comment is that if you choose to stay keep posting names the same that will avoid more confusion. And yes it was just getting back to normal from what I've seen. Not always here now as busy with online business. Phillipa
Posted by Racer on November 9, 2008, at 19:54:53
In reply to Re: Research project » Racer, posted by twinleaf on November 9, 2008, at 12:40:59
Posted by twinleaf on November 9, 2008, at 19:59:31
In reply to Re: Research project, posted by lucie lu on November 9, 2008, at 13:31:34
When I read your post, I realized that you had put into such clear words exactly what I was feeling about the changes in individual and group dynamics which I was afraid might happen with an influx of research study posters. I just wasn't able to express it as clearly as you did- but thank you for writing about it with so much clarity!
The concerns you expressed are exactly the ones I have also.
Posted by 10derHeart on November 9, 2008, at 20:38:20
In reply to Re: Lou's request for an authority-rhlvntfal?, posted by Phillipa on November 9, 2008, at 18:28:36
Hi Phillipa,
Just a friendly reminder, and I am *not* posting in my deputy role as you can see.....but I'm concerned about the appearance of pressuring regarding the topic of not changing names
This is (I think?) the second time you've strongly asked folks not to change their names. Sometimes, if you suggest anything too often and/or word your post in a certain tone, it *might* cause others to feel pressured. I'm not saying I feel pressured - I don't. And I'm not saying or implying anyone has complained.
But, just in case, better safe than sorry?
As I know you know, posters are free to change their names for any reason, and as often as they like here, as long as they follow the guidelines and post on this board that they used to be someone else.
I hope you understand the spirit in which I'm saying this....to avoid problems before they happen.
-- 10der
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 9, 2008, at 20:42:57
In reply to Re: Research project, posted by lucie lu on November 9, 2008, at 13:31:34
> To me, the analogy of the blood samples falls short because the samples exert no effect on one another. The Psych board, in particular, has psychosocial elements that distinguish not only from the blood sample model but also from other boards as well. While not all Psych Babblers share some degree of trauma history and associated interpersonal trust and attachment issues, a significant number have. Many or most are in long-term therapy and have deeply meaningful, often confusing and emotionally intense, relationships with their mental health clinicians. Many find themselves unable to discuss these relationships or issues anywhere else, often not even in the therapy room; in fact, the introduction of new, sensitive material into therapy often follows prior discussion with other Babble members. While the anonymity of Babble facilitates self-disclosure, the emotional safety of the community drives it. A sense of safety is provided by mutual interactions between participants, who have shared very intimate material and provided support and feedback to one another. New members are warmly welcomed and frequently have lurked on the board for some time before actually posting. Thus new members are likely to already know the dynamics and tone of the board before beginning to participate, and they join because of some sense of commonality and shared purpose. This self-screening feature is bypassed by those who join the group from ulterior motives, such as participation in an experiment.
>
> None of the concerns stated on this thread should come as a surprise to anyone familiar with group behavior. A therapeutic community works because it provides safety within a supportive community that encourages productive introspection and interpersonal connections based on a common theme. While an established group can assimilate a few new members at a time, an influx or steady stream of new members destabilizes the group and destroys the existing community altogether. Another group can coalesce from old and new members, but the original community is gone. The loss of the Psych sense of community would be profound for its participants; I am not sure it would be so with most other boards. While the Psych board is not formal group therapy, I believe it shares many of the same group properties and fits the description of a therapeutic community. I believe that a significant subset of Babblers, particularly but not exclusively those with trust issues, will be loath to self-disclose if the intentions of new members are suspect, as they will be in the context of an experimental study. I find it hard to see how the existing community could fail to be significantly impacted by the study conditions, which would indeed seem to defeat its purpose. Not to mention the "do no harm" injunction: although we are not patients and technically not "covered" by this principle, I belive it still should guide responsible actions toward others.lucie lu.
You wrote,[...an influx ..of new members destabilizes the group and destroys the existing community altogether...].
Could you cite an authority that states that? If you could, then I could research that authority and see what else is concluded by that authority and respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Geegee on November 9, 2008, at 21:38:36
In reply to Re: Research project » lucie lu, posted by twinleaf on November 9, 2008, at 19:59:31
I think the group dynamics will be affected by any large influx of new posters. It would be out of the normal day to day happenings here for that many folks to suddenly show and start participating, research participants or not. That's bound to have some kind of effect on the group dynamics, though I don't know whether it would be positive or negative or both.
gg
Posted by no_rose_garden on November 9, 2008, at 21:42:36
In reply to Research project, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2008, at 2:22:01
After chatting w/ some people, I decided that's it's ok. I'm still a little nervous and wondering who the people are, but I guess I'll learn soon enough.
Hopefully it will be ok.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2008, at 23:24:40
In reply to Re: I just don't get all the upset. » seldomseen, posted by Questionmark on November 8, 2008, at 19:46:15
> It's the same day as Dr. Bob's original post. You haven't even waited to give him a chance to try to respond to your questions
I've wanted to respond, but haven't had a chance, sorry. And I'm still reading this thread. I'll post more when I get to the end. Thanks for your patience,
Bob
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.