This is quite an unusual place...
imagen
I am a recovering psychologist. I suppose I should have been more cautious
before stepping into this...interesting... melange of neurosis and advice.
Good luck to you all. Don't forget to get plenty of fresh air.
Kevin
Like a lot of people reading spp, I'm struck by the extent to which the
group is committed to conflict organized around a few key personalities.
I'm trying to make sense of this, so I set about locating some research.
What I've found supports my intitial thinking, that spp is a microcosm
of an enmeshed, dysfunctional family. Role assignments, attachment
through conflict, the engagement of hostile persons, seems to suggest
that the group is committed to conflict rather than shared professional
discources, which - I think - is what the more disaffected persons here
are trying to say.
I think a mature review of how this group operates may be in order, as
the attention paid to certain key players here is very likely screening
out more productive exchanges, more productive exchangers. IMO, this is
unfortunate.
Irvin D. Yallom, is considered by many prominent scholars in the fields
of sociology, social
psychology, sociocultural anthropolgy, community studies, and
communication
theory to be the leading theorist on group dynamics. This is from an
upcoming piece on internert subcultures in _Sage Reviews of
Communication
Research_ which paraphrases and updates his work in the standard text of
the
field, _The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy_ (Basic
Books/Harper
Collins, 1995, 4th ed.):
Process commentary undermines the arbitrary
authority structure, particularly that found in what
Jo Freeman descibed as "the tyranny of
structurelessness." Industrial organizational development
consultants have long known that a social structure's
open investigation of its own structure and process
leads to (often painful) power equalization--
that is, a flattening of the often hidden or not fully
conscious hierarchical pyramid.
Communicative groupings on the internet dispaly
all of the good and bad points of the small-to-mass
group dynamic. There is a creation and maintenance
aspect of the group. The group seves as a social
microcosm. There is an installation of hope, and
feelings of universality, imparting of information,
demonstrations of altruism, development of socializing
techniques, imitative behavior, and a corrective recapitulation
of the primary family group. There is the comforting a
and perhaps occasionally challenging sense of the
importance of group cohesion.
As much as all of these have positive elements,
they also, without constant guard of process,
can resolve into negative elements of exclusionary
gate-keeping, repressive policing of what those
who feel familial have determined to be normative
group behavior, cohesion taken to a setting of an
agenda of exclusion, greed over content and
relationship, imitation of destructive communication
behavior, silencing of new information that leads to
the development of a denial-based groupthink,
and a clubby atmosphere projected to "outsiders"
as a clique, recapitulating the dysfunctional
primary family group.
The more rigid, hidden, and/or unconscious the
authority structure of an institution, especially one
built on what have come to be considered familial
relationships (even in cybersapce), the more stringent
are the precautions against open commentary about
process. Perhaps the most glaring examples of this
on weightier scale in society are the military and the
Church. Those who wish to maintain positons of arbitrary
authority is wise to inhibit the development of any rules
or procedures or aceptable protests permitting reciprocal
process observation and commentary."
Comments?
Kevin
Beautywalk
Kevin <khur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Message-id: <34B632...@earthlink.net>
Excellent. Hopefully, the beginning of a thoughtful discussion and healthy (and
not defensive) exchange of ideas.
Kym
Cognitee
Amen. In fact discussing topics **WAS** the way ssp was until about a
year and a half ago when certain people demanded "extra respect" and
engaged in ANY tactics to make life miserable for anyone that didn't give
it to them. Do a random selection of a sample of articles (posts to spp)
from 1995- May 1996. You shall see a useful debate (and not talk about
process amounting to demanding acknowlegement for how some are especially
deserving of respect for publications, respect for their "high" or
"special" credentials, etc.).
Ed Anderson
Kevin wrote:
> [....]
> What I've found supports my intitial thinking, that spp is a microcosm
> of an enmeshed, dysfunctional family. Role assignments, attachment
> through conflict, the engagement of hostile persons, seems to suggest
> that the group is committed to conflict rather than shared professional
> discources, which - I think - is what the more disaffected persons here
> are trying to say.
>
> I think a mature review of how this group operates may be in order, as
> the attention paid to certain key players here is very likely screening
> out more productive exchanges, more productive exchangers. IMO, this is
> unfortunate.
I agree with most of what you've said, Kevin, except that I think spp is
not a real group. I applaud your intent but wonder what the solution
is. We've heard these descriptions, in less psychological terms, many
times before. Even after a second group was established, though, we
were drawn like a dog back to its own vomit. Internet addiction? Nay,
Brad addiction! I'm making jokes...and I guess that's where I'm at with
this whole spp thing. I had a friend over last night. I introduced him
to some of spp's noteables, and we laughed our heads off. If I were to
make any process comment at all, it would be this: we all take
ourselves way too seriously.
Ed Anderson
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado
<snip>
> >Irvin D. Yallom, is considered by many prominent scholars in the fields
> >of sociology, social psychology, sociocultural anthropolgy, >community studies,
> and communication
> >theory to be the leading theorist on group dynamics. This is from an
> >upcoming piece on internert subcultures in _Sage Reviews of
> >Communication Research_ which paraphrases and updates his work in the standard
> text of the field, _The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy_ (Basic
> Books/Harper Collins, 1995, 4th ed.):
> >
snip quote to the part I want to discuss:
> As much as all of these have positive elements,
> they also, without constant guard of process,
> > can resolve into negative elements of exclusionary
> > gate-keeping, repressive policing of what those
> > who feel familial have determined to be normative
> > group behavior, cohesion taken to a setting of an
> > agenda of exclusion, greed over content and
> > relationship, imitation of destructive communication
> > behavior, silencing of new information that leads to
> > the development of a denial-based groupthink,
> > and a clubby atmosphere projected to "outsiders"
> > as a clique, recapitulating the dysfunctional
> > primary family group.
> >
> >Comments?
> >
> >Kevin
My take on this is that those who have been decrying the amount of conflict in the
"group" have been ignoring Yalom's discussion of the role of conflict in groups --
successfully resolving conflict is essential to forming cohesion and to reaching
greater levels of intimacy. I believe this has occurred with members of this
"group" to the extent that several of us are now referred to as friends even though
there is no basis for such cohesion other than the process that has occurred here.
I find the attempts to reform the behavior of the group to be as much an example
of the negative process Yalom describes above, as is the behavior these individuals
wish to exclude from the group. If there were a group leader present, that person
would surely comment on why Ed, Kevin, and these others feel the need to assert
this as a problem.
Most groups set rules to "protect process". These do not exclude conflict or even
profanity, but rather exclude hostility and aggression. They also extract a pledge
that individuals will not leave the group when conflict arises but will instead
work through differences by expressing their views and listening to the feedback
they receive.
I resent the use of Yalom's ideas as a club to bludgeon others with. This could be
as good an example of "repressive policing" by those who wish to determine
normative behavior for the group, and "greed over content" as anything else I've
seen here.
I've raised this issue before. What would constitute expulsion from a group where
anyone can lurk and anyone can post? I think ignoring someone's posts is de facto
expulsion. If someone in a face-to-face group were being systematically ignored by
other group members, surely the leader would intervene. Yet this is what several
people have urged here.
My point is that I do not consider the self-righteous complainers to be the best
arbiters of what constitutes good process in an internet group. Labeling those they
disagree with as "dysfunctional" does little to improve communication on the topic
of process or anything else.
Please comment on this.
Nancy
Gene Douglas
If we are to compare spp to a family, it would be a family with the
front door wide open, and a sign over the door reading, "anybody, come
on in." All members would be equal, such that there is no breadwinner,
no rulemaker, no roles other than what the members make for themselves.
And as to whether it is a group, as opposed to a grouping or a
collectivity, it meets the criterea other than face to face contact.
However, we have "virtual" face to face contact, which might make us a
virtual group.
Gene Douglas
Conflict in itself is not always bad. Conflict for the sake of
conflict, conflict which persists forever, disrupts the purpose of the
group. It's equivalent to somebody debating on the Opra show, and
starting to punch one another. Or somebody in the audience arguing with
their spouse over something not related to what's going on for everybody
else. Or somebody in the audience setting off a stink bomb, just to see
the action.
Conflict will end only if the parties involved want it to end. If one
does and the other does not, a reasonable tactic is to withdraw. If he
isn't answering, and somebody posts his name in a header, that indicates
that the somebody wants to draw him back, and wants the conflict to
persist. For some, that will be irresistable, and the bait will give
total control to the baiter.
Fiona Webster
Nancy writes:
> I do not consider the self-righteous complainers to be the
> best arbiters of what constitutes good process in an internet group.
> Labeling those they disagree with as "dysfunctional" does little to
> improve communication on the topic of process or anything else.
I agree with this. Conflict is a part of any group process, and is part
of how a group grows.
However, a Usenet newsgroup has parameters that make it
different from an in-person group. For example, each poster has
the option to read only certain threads and/or set filters (killfiles) to
make whole topics or people "disappear" from their view. So we do
not all witness the same subset of communications in the group.
This means that the group could never have the same level of cohesion
as an in-person group, even in the hypothetical case of no one ever
leaving and no one new ever joining. I say this just to remind people
that comparisons to other types of groups are limited in value.
Another possible take on this issue is to ask whether a given posting
or given thread is on topic. The topic of this newsgroup is psychotherapy.
So psychotherapy, psychotherapists, and even more broadly, all therapeutic
interventions for psychological problems, are on topic. And tangents
from those topics, so long as they don't go too far afield, could also be
viewed as on topic.
Posting about the group itself, or about individual group members,
however, is clearly "meta"--and thus could be viewed as off-topic.
I'm not making a statement one way or the other about whether
the fact that threads like "Brad is a kook" or "this group is strange"
are conceivably off-topic means they should be discouraged. (Obviously,
I'm posting to such a thread.) I'm just pointing out that sometimes that's
a useful distinction.
Taking this back to the issue of conflict, it seems to me there's
a difference between conflict within discussions of the topic of
psychotherapy, and conflict that has little or nothing to do with
that topic. Our arguments with Gene Douglas about the value
of TFT, for example, are different in kind from arguments about
the psychology of Brad or Curio. Although I suppose someone
could argue that every member of this group is either a psychotherapist
or involved in some way in psychotherapy, and thus their psyche
is a legitimate topic. I think that would be stretching it, though.
--Fiona Webster
Kevin
Gene Douglas wrote:
[...]
> Conflict will end only if the parties involved want it to end. If one
> does and the other does not, a reasonable tactic is to withdraw. If he
> isn't answering, and somebody posts his name in a header, that indicates
> that the somebody wants to draw him back, and wants the conflict to
> persist. For some, that will be irresistable, and the bait will give
> total control to the baiter.
This is exactly the premise I'm operating on. Why, Gene, do you think
there's a vested interest here in sustaining the baiting?
Kevin
Kevin
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado wrote:
> I find the attempts to reform the behavior of the group to be as much an example
> of the negative process Yalom describes above, as is the behavior these individuals
> wish to exclude from the group.
Yallom's piece was introduced to shed light on the group - albeit
electronic group - dynamic that takes place here and is clearly
problematic for a lot of people. Reform? Only individuals can reform
or alter how they mediate this forum. It's this mediation that I find
problematic: the abundance of destructive exchanges here exist in a
reciprocal pattern of interaction: the light needs the dark and vice
versa, that is, which ever hostile, obsessive personalities dominate
this group, they exist only because their cry is answered, in spades.
It's the answerers, the respondants, who concern me most and lead me to
believe that, for them, spp is a 'recapitulation of the dysfuntional
primary family', rather than a correction of that destructive pattern of
interaction.
I agree with you and others, Nancy, in the value of conflict, that
conflict is helpful as the medium for change, but that's not what
happens here. Here, conflict is a game whereby the stakes are increased
through 'noise', gross amounts of invective, hostility, posturing, and
threats. OTOH, a dialectical exchange of information, real content, is
diminished. In the end we have brutish personality rather than new
understanding. My concern is the quality and content of these
conflicts, and where they lead. Don't you think Brad is delighted to
fire-up his computer and see his name everywhere, more responses than he
can handle? Of course he is. But this: it's driving people away,
reasonable, thoughful, informed people. The group is unwittingly
selecting for game players.
If there were a group leader present, that person
> would surely comment on why Ed, Kevin, and these others feel the need to assert
> this as a problem.
Well, there is a hidden power structure here, for better or worse. I'm
sorry to see you get so defensive. Yallom's remarks are observations
about group process that may have implications for better understanding
some of the ways in which this group is stuck. Let's not fear that.
> Most groups set rules to "protect process". These do not exclude conflict or even
> profanity, but rather exclude hostility and aggression.
I appreciate the anarchy of Usenet. You are mistaken, however, if you
believe that hostility and aggression exist in spp because of a lack of
formal structure, rules and controls etc. Aggression exists here, imo,
because it is encouraged and nourished, fed with a diet that sustains
and augments it. The real question, Nancy, is why the aggression is so
lovingly attended to; why, OTOH, dissenters, the 'Good-Bye, You're All
Sick' posters are dismissed out of hand. Yes, it's about group
cohesion, though my point is that this cohesion is founded on unhealthy
and destructive patterns of interaction rather than a shared and mutual
respect for altering points of view.
>They also extract a pledge
> that individuals will not leave the group when conflict arises but will instead
> work through differences by expressing their views and listening to the feedback
> they receive.
Some will, some won't. I have yet to be dismissed as a lying sack of
shit, but if I am, I'll likely throw in the towel; at the very least,
I'll ignore the person who lobes this kind of slur (clue: to respond to
them will encourage further attacks, only at a higher level of
hostility). That's not how I mediate conflict, not here and not in real
life.
> I resent the use of Yalom's ideas as a club to bludgeon others with.
Your response is very consistent with his observations of policing
thought and protecting the hidden normative culture of a group,
resisting examination:
> As much as all of these have positive elements,
they also, without constant guard of process,
can resolve into negative elements of exclusionary
gate-keeping, repressive policing of what those
who feel familial have determined to be normative
group behavior, cohesion taken to a setting of an
agenda of exclusion, greed over content and
relationship, imitation of destructive communication
behavior, silencing of new information that leads to
the development of a denial-based groupthink,
and a clubby atmosphere projected to "outsiders"
as a clique, recapitulating the dysfunctional
primary family group.>
'Bludgeon' is too strong a word. Gate-keeping and silencing of new
information are more appropriate. That said, I do agree that my
interest is discussing process has, as an off shoot, an element of
'policing'. That's always implicit.
[...]
> I've raised this issue before. What would constitute expulsion from a group where
> anyone can lurk and anyone can post?
Thing is, Nancy, it's not that explicit. No one is asked to leave.
They leave because they are disturbed by what they see here, by ridicule
and invective (group behavioral norms, I think), by the lack of a
reasonable response to their legitimate concerns, questions.
> I think ignoring someone's posts is de facto
> expulsion.
I think this is it exactly. Then why is the group dominated by
personalities that are problematic to a lot of people? We don't ignore
invective here, nor personality disturbances. We cater to them, nourish
them, give them tacit permission to up the anty... threats?!, OY.
>If someone in a face-to-face group were being systematically ignored by
> other group members, surely the leader would intervene. Yet this is what several
> people have urged here.
I believe in group facilitation, rather than leadership. In real life,
if a member is being ignored, the group will eventually get to it on
their own. Every group has a unigue shared logic and course of action,
including this one. I accept this though I'm not pleased with it for
the reasons I mention above.
>
> My point is that I do not consider the self-righteous complainers to be the best
> arbiters of what constitutes good process in an internet group.
I'm sorry to see you be the first to introduce name-calling into this
thread. Again, reread Yallom's remarks about protecting destructive
group behavior so that we can recapitulate earlier family dysfuntion. I
think that's a trenchent observation.
Labeling those they
> disagree with as "dysfunctional" does little to improve communication on the topic
> of process or anything else.
>
> Please comment on this.
Clearly, Nancy, you've become comfortable with the group dynamic here.
Why is that? (You're under no obligation to respond, as I'm not trying
to analyse you, really, jst trying to understand how and why this group
is stuck).
Kevin
Whether we fall by ambition, blood, lust, like diamonds we are cut from
our own dust. - Webster
Kevin
Gene Douglas wrote:
>
> If we are to compare spp to a family, it would be a family with the
> front door wide open, and a sign over the door reading, "anybody, come
> on in." All members would be equal, such that there is no breadwinner,
> no rulemaker, no roles other than what the members make for themselves.
It is a group, albeit with permeable or semi-permeable bounderies (you
need a modem). While people can come and go, and do so, there is a core
system, phosors on the screen representing personalities, real people,
who interact over time with a fair degree of regularity. That system
can be observed and commented on.
A family systems view has severe limitations; in some respects, though,
it can be instructive. Where is the power hierarchy, the authority,
implicit, hidden, or unconscious? Who are the designated patients?, and
what function do they serve within spp, to the - presumably - well
members? Is this system closed or open? Alliances and alliance
protection? And my favorite question: how is conflict handled?
Whether or not this system functions well is subject to debate and the
reason I invoked Yallom's work on internet subculture.
Kevin
John M Price
In article <34B7B1...@earthlink.net> Kevin <khur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado wrote:
: [...]
: > I find the attempts to reform the behavior of the group to be as much an example
: > of the negative process Yalom describes above, as is the behavior these individuals
: > wish to exclude from the group.
: Yallom's piece was introduced to shed light on the group - albeit
: electronic group - dynamic that takes place here and is clearly
: problematic for a lot of people.
Go read, say, sci.skeptic. Come back and let us know what goes on there
too.
[snip]
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
Therapist to patient:
"First, we'll look for repressed memories of malpractice suits."
- Frank Cotham, p 77, Dec 1, The New Yorker
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.
I have the sense that Ed, Kevin and the others are not talking only about
Brad. If so, then the analogy to punching people out (etc.) is
inappropriate. To use a different analogy, I think the situation here is
similar to an argument in which one person ceases participating and
instead complains "I won't talk to you as long as you raise your voice."
This is a power move and has the effect of frustrating the other person,
usually escalating their emotion and resulting in higher volume -- the
payoff to the complainer.
Some people seem to believe that passive aggressiveness and other indirect
ways of expressing disagreement are morally superior to argument.
The problem isn't the fact of argument regardless of how it is conducted,
but that some argument leads to no better understanding or tolerance of
each other's views. The contrast between rumination and problem solving is
a good analogy. The problem isn't the amount of time spent dwelling on
one's problems, but that the thinking leads nowhere. The same can be said
of internet arguments. If the talk goes someplace then I don't think it
matters what the level of volume or heat involved.
I think you address that a little when you talk about conflict that
persists forever etc. But I don't think the people who are best suited to
judge whether conflict is serving any purpose are necessarily those
sitting on the sidelines who don't care about the issues involved.
Oprah is entertainment, not discussion and certainly not argument. Have
you overlooked the point that a goodly portion of the conflict here might
also be regarded as entertainment for both the participants and observers?
If so, it seems a harmless form of it, since no real violence is possible
as long as participants stick to cyberspace and do not invade each other's
real lives.
Nancy
On Sat, 10 Jan 1998, Gene Douglas wrote:
> Conflict in itself is not always bad. Conflict for the sake of
> conflict, conflict which persists forever, disrupts the purpose of the
> group. It's equivalent to somebody debating on the Opra show, and
> starting to punch one another. Or somebody in the audience arguing with
> their spouse over something not related to what's going on for everybody
> else. Or somebody in the audience setting off a stink bomb, just to see
> the action.
>
> Conflict will end only if the parties involved want it to end. If one
> does and the other does not, a reasonable tactic is to withdraw. If he
> isn't answering, and somebody posts his name in a header, that indicates
> that the somebody wants to draw him back, and wants the conflict to
> persist. For some, that will be irresistable, and the bait will give
> total control to the baiter.
x
Ed Anderson
Fiona Webster wrote:
>
> Nancy writes:
> > I do not consider the self-righteous complainers to be the
> > best arbiters of what constitutes good process in an internet group.
> > improve communication on the topic of process or anything else.
>
Conflict only works to assist a group process when it moves toward
resolution. For instance, does this conflict appear to be moving
toward resolution? Nonstop attack and defense is not a productive
process. If it were, the Jerry Springer show would result in increased
intimacy.
Ed Anderson
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado
Kevin wrote:
> A family systems view has severe limitations; in some respects, though,
> it can be instructive. Where is the power hierarchy, the authority,
> implicit, hidden, or unconscious? Who are the designated patients?, and
> what function do they serve within spp, to the - presumably - well
> members? Is this system closed or open? Alliances and alliance
> protection? And my favorite question: how is conflict handled?
>
It is one thing to apply a family systems approach to an individual or group
who has approached you for therapy. It is another matter entirely to impose
your psychological interpretations on individuals who are attempting to
discuss various subjects in an internet group. To do so fits the definition
of psychologizing and is at the very least rude. I consider it an aggressive
act because it asserts a power relationship based upon knowledge and
discounts the content of people's communications in terms of
meta-communication, some of which may be unconscious and thus not visible to
the individual. This use of power is acceptable in the context of therapy
because it is applied for the individual's own good. In this context it is
applied to win an argument or to make a point, and is not done for the good
of the individual(s) at whose expense that point is made.
That's why this whole approach to analyzing spp leaves a bad taste in my
mouth. This is not about the group -- it is about criticizing the behavior
of some individuals in that group. Instead of making direct statements such
as "I really dislike reading this crap" or "I get depressed when you guys
start engaging in your hostile remarks" or "I feel like no one listens to
what I say in my posts", this approach is indirect. It uses appeals to
authority (e.g., Yalom and family systems theory) to support an individual
desire to control the behavior of others. If this were a therapy group, the
leader would encourage the individuals to rephrase their criticisms as direct
personal remarks that they have ownership of and take responsibility for, not
permit this kind of professionalized third-person criticism aimed at no one
specific. That would permit the persons complaining to explore why they feel
upset when they witness others arguing and it would permit those arguing to
explore how their mode of expressing themselves affects others and whether it
really accomplishes their goal of being understood.
Nancy
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado
Kevin wrote:
> Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado wrote:
> [...]
> > I find the attempts to reform the behavior of the group to be as much an example
> > of the negative process Yalom describes above, as is the behavior these individuals
> > wish to exclude from the group.
>
> Yallom's piece was introduced to shed light on the group - albeit
> electronic group - dynamic that takes place here and is clearly
> problematic for a lot of people. Reform? Only individuals can reform
> or alter how they mediate this forum. It's this mediation that I find
> problematic: the abundance of destructive exchanges here exist in a
> reciprocal pattern of interaction: the light needs the dark and vice
> versa, that is, which ever hostile, obsessive personalities dominate
> this group, they exist only because their cry is answered, in spades.
> It's the answerers, the respondants, who concern me most and lead me to
> believe that, for them, spp is a 'recapitulation of the dysfuntional
> primary family', rather than a correction of that destructive pattern of
> interaction.
>
This is namecalling. Nothing more.
> I agree with you and others, Nancy, in the value of conflict, that
> conflict is helpful as the medium for change, but that's not what
> happens here. Here, conflict is a game whereby the stakes are increased
> through 'noise', gross amounts of invective, hostility, posturing, and
> threats. OTOH, a dialectical exchange of information, real content, is
> diminished. In the end we have brutish personality rather than new
> understanding. My concern is the quality and content of these
> conflicts, and where they lead. Don't you think Brad is delighted to
> fire-up his computer and see his name everywhere, more responses than he
> can handle? Of course he is. But this: it's driving people away,
> reasonable, thoughful, informed people. The group is unwittingly
> selecting for game players.
>
I think a content analysis over the past year would show that content increases along
with the noise, not that content diminishes as noise increases. Ed said that no one was
interested in the debate over learning theory. He was shown to be wrong (several people
besides me objected to his comment), as that debate not only contained a lot of content
but brought several knowledgeable new posters out of lurking (including Frick and
Musselgrove). I learned some things from it. Brad started it. If it didn't interest
you or Ed, so what? I have also learned from the Curio/Price debates and the NLP/TFT
debates. I didn't know what either of those therapies were before their proponents
starting discussing them. The controversy brought out new information through the
dialectic of argument. Your idea that interactions with these people should be
discouraged because it also leads to hostile interactions would make this group a lot
less interesting, in my opinion. I did find the group more pleasant when Brad was gone,
but I also think the number of substantive posts decreased as well.
> If there were a group leader present, that person
> > would surely comment on why Ed, Kevin, and these others feel the need to assert
> > this as a problem.
>
> Well, there is a hidden power structure here, for better or worse. I'm
> sorry to see you get so defensive. Yallom's remarks are observations
> about group process that may have implications for better understanding
> some of the ways in which this group is stuck. Let's not fear that.
>
Labeling me defensive is another example of namecalling. Can't you just deal with what
I say without inflicting your dubious psychological interpretation on my motivations? I
do not consider this group to be stuck. You seem to accept that as a self-evident fact.
How about presenting some evidence to support your assertion. Your remark about fear is
more mind-reading.
>
>
> > Most groups set rules to "protect process". These do not exclude conflict or even
> > profanity, but rather exclude hostility and aggression.
>
> I appreciate the anarchy of Usenet. You are mistaken, however, if you
> believe that hostility and aggression exist in spp because of a lack of
> formal structure, rules and controls etc. Aggression exists here, imo,
> because it is encouraged and nourished, fed with a diet that sustains
> and augments it. The real question, Nancy, is why the aggression is so
> lovingly attended to; why, OTOH, dissenters, the 'Good-Bye, You're All
> Sick' posters are dismissed out of hand. Yes, it's about group
> cohesion, though my point is that this cohesion is founded on unhealthy
> and destructive patterns of interaction rather than a shared and mutual
> respect for altering points of view.
>
There are a certain number of people who visit this newsgroup specifically for the
purpose of trashing psychologists, psychiatrists and other psychotherapists. Their
motivation doubtless comes from some experience in real life. They are typically people
who have never posted here before and don't know the regular posters. They use the noise
level as an excuse to unload a litany of complaints, largely focused on the inability of
therapists to help anyone because they are all crazy themselves. It doesn't matter to
them whether there is any justification for this in the group's behavior. These
individuals don't even realize that many of the posters here are not psychotherapists.
They don't care. They just want to unload a diatribe. I cannot understand why you are
so readily taking these posts as accurate comment on what occurs in the group.
> >They also extract a pledge
> > that individuals will not leave the group when conflict arises but will instead
> > work through differences by expressing their views and listening to the feedback
> > they receive.
>
> Some will, some won't. I have yet to be dismissed as a lying sack of
> shit, but if I am, I'll likely throw in the towel; at the very least,
> I'll ignore the person who lobes this kind of slur (clue: to respond to
> them will encourage further attacks, only at a higher level of
> hostility). That's not how I mediate conflict, not here and not in real
> life.
>
>
Are you really judging this group by the actions of one individual (Brad)? No one else
here does what you have just accused this group of doing.
> > I resent the use of Yalom's ideas as a club to bludgeon others with.
>
> Your response is very consistent with his observations of policing
> thought and protecting the hidden normative culture of a group,
> resisting examination:
>
As I said, I resent your using Yalom as a club to bludgeon others with, especially me.
Do you consider honest disagreement to be "policing thought"? Further, there is nothing
hidden about my posts, nor am I representative of the normative structure of this group.
Above you seemed to be saying that Brad was. Further, my disagreement seems to be
focused upon examining the process, not avoiding that examination. If I wished to avoid
this topic it would have served me better to just kill-file you, but I have engaged you
instead. Why is that, if I don't want to talk about it?
> > As much as all of these have positive elements,
> they also, without constant guard of process,
> can resolve into negative elements of exclusionary
> gate-keeping, repressive policing of what those
> who feel familial have determined to be normative
> group behavior, cohesion taken to a setting of an
> agenda of exclusion, greed over content and
> relationship, imitation of destructive communication
> behavior, silencing of new information that leads to
> the development of a denial-based groupthink,
> and a clubby atmosphere projected to "outsiders"
> as a clique, recapitulating the dysfunctional
> primary family group.>
>
> 'Bludgeon' is too strong a word. Gate-keeping and silencing of new
> information are more appropriate. That said, I do agree that my
> interest is discussing process has, as an off shoot, an element of
> 'policing'. That's always implicit.
>
>
Then, why is your attempt at policing OK by your own standards? Why doesn't it lead to
the negative effects Yalom cites?
>
>
> > I've raised this issue before. What would constitute expulsion from a group where
> > anyone can lurk and anyone can post?
>
> Thing is, Nancy, it's not that explicit. No one is asked to leave.
> They leave because they are disturbed by what they see here, by ridicule
> and invective (group behavioral norms, I think), by the lack of a
> reasonable response to their legitimate concerns, questions.
>
You know what? I am disturbed by what I see in the various self-help/support groups. I
don't lurk or post there because it upsets me. It would be masochistic of me to
persist. I also don't lurk or participate in rec.org.mensa though I enjoy real-life
mensa. The atmosphere and content of that group is a waste of my time. I do not hang
around and try to impose my idea of what their group ought to be on them. In that sense,
I agree that each group forms its own atmosphere, but why should a group be all things to
all people? I have wanted a group that discusses scientific psychology. It doesn't
exist in Usenet. This group has strongly resisted my attempts to steer it in that
direction, but it has not prevented me from posting whatever interests me personally. In
that sense, I doubt that normative cliques in groups have as much power as you ascribe to
them.
You refer to ridicule and invective. I have only seen invective come from or be directed
at Brad. It is not the norm in this group except for Brad. Most ridicule is also
directed at Brad and is a reaction to his inflated self-assertions. I have ridiculed
Gene but more often I have directly complained about his behavior and especially his lack
of understanding of psychological science to his face. I feel no compunctions about
ridiculing TFT and Callahan, Mike Rael, and other charlatans and quacks. It is our duty
as professionals to make the general public aware of pseudo-science and potentially
harmful cons masquerading as psychology. You may have missed the discussions preceding
and justifying such "ridicule." The ridicule has become shorthand for repeating the
content of those lengthy discussions. Gene has a thick skin and he is perfectly capable
of complaining about his treatment here himself. Further, you may not be aware but he
came into this group himself ridiculing individuals who were posting, for example calling
John Price an audiologist. He has amended his behavior lately and the ridicule of him
has largely died down. Other "ridicule" is just humor. I have never seen someone with a
serious psychological problem ridiculed in this group (except by Brad). I have seen the
individuals posting requests for help with their homework ridiculed. These deserve to be
ridiculed, in my opinion (though I have never done so). Students should not be using the
internet as a substitute for going to the library, nor should they be encouraged to treat
anything they learn here as substantiated fact.
> > I think ignoring someone's posts is de facto
> > expulsion.
>
> I think this is it exactly. Then why is the group dominated by
> personalities that are problematic to a lot of people? We don't ignore
> invective here, nor personality disturbances. We cater to them, nourish
> them, give them tacit permission to up the anty... threats?!, OY.
>
Whose personality do you find problematic other than Brad's? I don't find this group
dominated by problematic individuals at all. Obviously you consider yourself qualified
to diagnose personality disturbance via internet and have found many of us wanting. I am
not as sanguine about the possibility of doing that. Note how many people have taken
Lorne to task for doing the same thing (calling Curio mentally ill). Your assumption
that the personalities of individuals posting here (except Brad) are troubling to many
people here I think may be incorrect.
Several of the people who lurk and occasionally or even frequently post are themselves
diagnosed and under treatment. A while back there was a lengthy discussion about whether
clients should be included in a psychotherapy discussion group and whether what they had
to say on technical/professional issues was valuable to this newsgroup. I felt they were
a distraction, but I was strongly overruled and the consensus was that they are welcome
participants. That means that there will be people posting whose behavior is deviant,
for a variety of reasons. You sound as if you would like to exclude those with
personality disorders because they interfere with group process and somehow damage the
quality of life in the newsgroup. If we are willing to admit people with schizophrenia
and multiple personality, on what basis can we exclude those with personality disorders?
> >If someone in a face-to-face group were being systematically ignored by
> > other group members, surely the leader would intervene. Yet this is what several
> > people have urged here.
>
> I believe in group facilitation, rather than leadership. In real life,
> if a member is being ignored, the group will eventually get to it on
> their own. Every group has a unigue shared logic and course of action,
> including this one. I accept this though I'm not pleased with it for
> the reasons I mention above.
>
You apparently lean toward the laissez faire approach to group leadership in real life,
but not here. Why have a different standard for how this group works? If a person were
being deliberately ignored I hope the group leader would not wait for the group to get
around to discussing it. I've seen some pretty destructive things happen in groups
where the leaders prefer to sit back and let the group work things out.
> >
> > My point is that I do not consider the self-righteous complainers to be the best
> > arbiters of what constitutes good process in an internet group.
>
> I'm sorry to see you be the first to introduce name-calling into this
> thread. Again, reread Yallom's remarks about protecting destructive
> group behavior so that we can recapitulate earlier family dysfuntion. I
> think that's a trenchent observation.
>
I'm hardly the first. Did you really miss the point of what I said? Your whole post was
name-calling, disguised by displacing the blame for what you said onto Yalom. In one
place you refer to the detrimental effect of certain posters as encouraging others to
behave in a similar manner -- a kind of group infection when negative behavior is
tolerated. Later you ascribe it to a recapitulation of family dysfunction. You know
nothing about anyone's family here. Surely you aren't assuming that anyone who acts like
a dysfunctional family member must have come from one?
> Labeling those they
> > disagree with as "dysfunctional" does little to improve communication on the topic
> > of process or anything else.
> >
> > Please comment on this.
>
> Clearly, Nancy, you've become comfortable with the group dynamic here.
> Why is that? (You're under no obligation to respond, as I'm not trying
> to analyse you, really, jst trying to understand how and why this group
> is stuck).
>
First, listen carefully. I do not consider this group to be stuck.
Second, I have read several books by Yalom and others and have been trained in group
therapy, but I do not apply the ideas the same way you do. There is room for reasonable
people to disagree without one implying that the other is from a dysfunctional family.
Third, I have noticed in my life that everyone strives for the same things but people use
very different ways of attaining their goals. You appear to want to privilege some of
those methods at the expense of others. I see no superiority in passive-aggressive vs
aggressive approaches. You do. I perhaps hold this view because, as a researcher of
emotional expressivity, I tend to think of it as serving social ends as well as
expressive ones. You seem to accept emotional response at face value, an inevitable
consequence of events in the world. I assume this because you seem to take it as
self-evident that others share your reaction to the emotion displayed by various posters
here. I take a more cognitive view of emotion, believing that it follows from cognitive
appraisals. If you change the appraisal you change the emotional response. If you look
at Brad differently, you will not be as upset about his "invective," for example. It
isn't that I like what he does, but I do not take it personally (usually) and do not
often feel strong emotion about him any more. It used to bother me that thousands of
people would read his lies about me, but I now realize that people recognize him for what
he is and don't take what he says seriously. Having him voted net-kook takes some of the
sting out of his remarks for those he targets (though you probably just regard that as an
act of cruelty -- more ridicule).
Because of the moderation vote recently taken to form sppm, there is an empirical measure
of the attitude of most regular posters toward various group members. While I wouldn't
take the moderation vote as a referendum on posting style, I think it does say something
about who is not regarded positively. Brad received next to no votes. I received the
most votes coming from the most individual posters. Several of the people you probably
consider problematic personalities here received high numbers of votes.
By your theory described earlier, this probably only confirms that there is a sick
normative clique forcing everyone to vote for dysfunctional posters. I have trouble
distinguishing such a sick normative process from a positive one in which all lurkers and
posters had a chance to vote. I know that your tastes run to a nice group in which
everyone takes extra care not to hurt anyone's feelings and criticisms are carefully
balanced by reassurances that all are highly respected, but short of that, what would a
"normal" group look like? I haven't found that kind of environment anywhere in this
world, not even among real-life psychologists.
Nancy
Fiona Webster
Kevin writes:
> Then why is the group dominated by
> personalities that are problematic to a lot of people? We don't ignore
> invective here, nor personality disturbances. We cater to them, nourish
> them, give them tacit permission to up the anty... threats?!, OY.
Nancy replies:
> Whose personality do you find problematic other than Brad's? I don't find this
> group dominated by problematic individuals at all. [...]
> Several of the people who lurk and occasionally or even frequently post are
> themselves diagnosed and under treatment. [...]
> That means that there will be people posting whose behavior is
> deviant, for a variety of reasons. You sound as if you would like to exclude those
> with personality disorders because they interfere with group process and
> somehow damage the quality of life in the newsgroup. If we are willing to
> admit people with schizophrenia and multiple personality, on what basis can
> we exclude those with personality disorders?
I don't see the group as being dominated by "problematic" individuals, either,
but if it were, it would only be natural.
Here's why: people with personality disorders are often treated poorly by
mental health professionals (I admit this, even though I am a psychiatrist),
and such people may well come into this newsgroup with an ax to grind. If
they then make a fuss and generate invective, etc., they are simply being
themselves. Personality-disordered people are famous for generating uproar
in group settings. Everyone knows that.
So what's all the fuss about? You can ignore the people who bug you,
Kevin. You can set up a killfile so you'll never even see their postings.
In the meantime, there are other, more useful threads going on here,
and there will continue to be such threads.
I think the most helpful thing, group dynamic-wise, that anyone can
do in a Usenet newsgroup, is to be proactive rather than reactive. If
you don't like what you see, Kevin, instead of complaining about it
or preaching at others, start a new thread, on a subject that will engage
us in a positive way. What is your interest in the topic of psychotherapy?
What would you like to see us discussing? Throw out some ideas, get
the ball rolling...you may be surprised to find this group can carry on
just fine. :-)
--Fiona
cc...@shaw.wave.ca
Fiona Webster wrote:
(snip)
> Here's why: people with personality disorders are often treated poorly by
> mental health professionals (I admit this, even though I am a psychiatrist),
> and such people may well come into this newsgroup with an ax to grind. If
> they then make a fuss and generate invective, etc., they are simply being
> themselves. Personality-disordered people are famous for generating uproar
> in group settings. Everyone knows that.
>
(snip)
I didn't know that. Do you mean that personality-disordered people who
feel they have been mistreated, or abused, or have been the recipient of
an injustice will cause dissent in a group setting or cause uproar
moreso than someone not classified as having a personality disorder but
who also has been mistreated, abused, etc.? Or do you mean that all
personality-disordered people, regardless of how they have been treated
will cause problems moreso than someone who isn't classified as having a
personality disorder? If so, could you please site your sources
(studies, papers, etc.) which confirm this?
Cheryl
Cognitee
Dear Cheryl,
It is my view that practitioners themselves are often personality
disordered (often dependent personalities, if female -- some other
variation of personality disorder being more prevalent in male
"therapists", but just as common). Unfortunately **IN THAT PROFESSION**
it gets in the way of needed empathy. This makes them real a**holes when
they have to deal with people who do not conform to their expectations
(personal requirements). Unfortunately it biases their empathy even when
dealing with cooperative clients. This is my view anyway, with some
indirect support.: (For one thing, unlike those successful in other
professions, "therapists" do no show the degree of internal locus of
control typical of well-adapted people !!) Most practitioners may be
simply no good. On more than one occassion I have heard licensed people
say they believe only 10% are any good. Also, there is evidence they are
sick themselves still (even *as they treat* their clients). Many
"therapists" (even likely the average "therapist") receives 10 times as
much therapy as any client will (and this is comparing them ONLY to people
who seek therapy and not using "all people" in the comparison). From data
I've seen, the average practioner surely receives 5 times the "therapy" as
any clients seeking it ever get.
Att'n: Peter Hood (and the pretend practitioner, Leslie Packer)
Cognitee
P.S. I am so sick of the sicko "therapists" pretending to be more than
they are (and being so irrational they come to BELIEVE it themselves).
They are so pompous and pretensious, it speaks volumes for their
insecurities. They believe they are "special" NOT because it is
well-founded (FOR *THAT* IS *NOT* THE CASE -- in fact, quite the
opposite). They believe they are "special" because they want to and
"need" to and are irrational (and VERY self-accepting of all their
weaknesses, even needless weaknesses and immoralities). They are also
supported by popular myths (and irrationally and unscientifically take
full advantage of this plus any political power they can get). Needless
to say they are typically not science people in ANY reasonable sense.
My opinion of so-called "therapists" (i.e. counselors and the occassional
psychotherapist) has done nothing but go down, down, down in the three
years I have been on the internet. And, it is not only newsgroups. Their
behavior stinks just as much on mailings lists !!!! One mailing list
actually disbanded seemingly essentially because they could cope with
their own rage and embarrassments, seeming from a debate withe me.
In article <good_brad-110...@ts010d05.min-mn.concentric.net>,
John Clark
Ed Anderson wrote:
> Fiona Webster wrote:
> >
> > Nancy writes:
> > > I do not consider the self-righteous complainers to be the
> > > best arbiters of what constitutes good process in an internet
> group.
> > > Labeling those they disagree with as "dysfunctional" does little
> to
> > > improve communication on the topic of process or anything else.
> >
> > I agree with this. Conflict is a part of any group process, and is
> part
> > of how a group grows. [...]
>
> Conflict only works to assist a group process when it moves toward
> resolution. For instance, does this conflict appear to be moving
> toward resolution? Nonstop attack and defense is not a productive
> process. If it were, the Jerry Springer show would result in
> increased
> intimacy.
No, conflict denotes differences, and hence, may never be 'resolved'.
Tonot contest some statement, while 'resolving' the conflict, would not
lead to a more stable group necessarily, just one that never stated
difference,
and in some sense, tended to 'central thinking', ie only uncontested
statement.
I consider such a process as lending to conservativism, and well, we
all know how I feel on conservativism...
To analyse your entertainment analogy a bit further, recall that talk TV
is a 'for profit' enterprize. Hence, I could see the producers
artifically
inflating conflict, as conflict sells. In the christmas period I was on
vacation and had occasion to watch some of the Springer type shows.
My view is that the producers picked topics and guests in such a way
to orchestrate conflict, and also, encouraged audiences to applauded
when
the 'dominant value' was stated. In particular, I watched some talk show
on the issue of 'children's beauty contests'. Apparently a topical
subject
given the heneious crime commited a year ago involving a girl who was
such a contestant.
As the mothers who involved their children stated that 'the child's
involvement
in the beauty contest did no harm'(sound familiar...*), the audience
would audible
'contest' that statement. When a beauty contest detractor or critic may
some 'sharp
point', applause would break out. My cynical observation is that the
audience could
at least read one word in the english language...
But back to this group, the TV show was orchestrated to give the
appearence of
conflict, and the audience was orchestrated to be the reenforcing
element, ie
the element that the 'ordinary person' would identify with.
(* The children themselves also stated that they enjoyed their
involvement in the
activity. The audience would audibly indicate 'disbelief', and of course
members of the audience would stand up and question whether the child
had
the ability to determine whether they should engage in such activites,
give the
ages involved... it all had such a familiar ring to the line of
reasoning that
another topic that is often holtly contested here, that I was almost
'stunned'...)
Ed Anderson
John Clark wrote:
> Ed Anderson wrote:
> > Conflict only works to assist a group process when it moves toward
> No, conflict denotes differences, and hence, may never be 'resolved'.
I meant "resolved" in the sense that the individuals come to some
understanding and appreciation of each others' viewpoints, the
communication deepens, and the dynamic becomes less hostile and
accusatory. Submergence of differences is not a true resolution. I
like the term "pseudomutuality" to describe that outcome. Psychologists
tend to choose very dull book titles, but one of my favorites is
Pseudomutuality and the Rubber Fence. I haven't read the book; I just
like the title...
> To not contest some statement, while 'resolving' the conflict, would not
> lead to a more stable group necessarily, just one that never stated
> difference,
> and in some sense, tended to 'central thinking', ie only uncontested
> statement. [....]
See above. In my experience, even the most intense conflict can be
resolved if the parties are able to relinquish their "powerful"
positions, to drop the defense/attack mode, to stop trying to justify
their positions, to truly listen and try to understand the other -- to
be vulnerable, in other words. I won't hold my breath for that to
happen, not least because I realize we've got some personality
disordered individuals on board, who aren't known for their ability to
do the things I mentioned.
Ed Anderson
Gene Douglas
The IP is generally determined by whoever has the power and whoever pays
the bill. In this case, each combatant defines the other as the IP.
Kevin wrote:
>
> Gene Douglas wrote:
> >
> > If we are to compare spp to a family, it would be a family with the
> > front door wide open, and a sign over the door reading, "anybody,
come
> > on in." All members would be equal, such that there is no
breadwinner,
> > no rulemaker, no roles other than what the members make for
themselves.
>
> It is a group, albeit with permeable or semi-permeable bounderies
(you
> need a modem). While people can come and go, and do so, there is a
core
> system, phosors on the screen representing personalities, real
people,
> who interact over time with a fair degree of regularity. That system
> can be observed and commented on.
>
> A family systems view has severe limitations; in some respects,
though,
> it can be instructive. Where is the power hierarchy, the authority,
> implicit, hidden, or unconscious? Who are the designated patients?,
and
> what function do they serve within spp, to the - presumably - well
> members? Is this system closed or open? Alliances and alliance
> protection? And my favorite question: how is conflict handled?
>
Gene Douglas
Kevin wrote:
>
> Gene Douglas wrote:
> > Conflict will end only if the parties involved want it to end. If
one
> > does and the other does not, a reasonable tactic is to withdraw.
If he
> > isn't answering, and somebody posts his name in a header, that
indicates
> > that the somebody wants to draw him back, and wants the conflict to
> > persist. For some, that will be irresistable, and the bait will
give
> > total control to the baiter.
>
think
> there's a vested interest here in sustaining the baiting?
>
> Kevin
Why are there trolls? Some people get a kick out of watching other
people get excited. And when there is conflict, some people are not
satisfied when the other one cries Uncle. Quitting is viewed as a
cop-out, until one is thoroughly trounced and humiliated.
I suspect that a person who feeds on conflict has an ancient quarrel
with somebody in his past, which has never been resolved. He attempts
to resolve it again and again with people he meets in his environment,
in attempts to gain a momentary sense of self-esteem, but only in
comparison with someone else. He can't give up the desire to humiliate
someone else, so long as his memories tend to humiliate himself. And
with an exposed raw nerve, the slightest event in which someone appears
to have humiliated him in the least, is amplified and provokes a need to
respond in kind to an exaggerated degree.
Gene Douglas
Fiona Webster wrote:
skip
> So what's all the fuss about? You can ignore the people who bug you,
> Kevin. You can set up a killfile so you'll never even see their postings.
> In the meantime, there are other, more useful threads going on here,
> and there will continue to be such threads.
>
skip
--Fiona
As far as I know, my Netscape 3.0 doesn't permit a killfile. If it
does, I'd like to know how to find it.
Gene Douglas
Somebody said that even paranoids have real enemies. Problem is, the
little boy who cried wolf.
And people with personality disorders tend to create others who will
mistreat and abuse them. Paranoids provoke people and make enemies, and
timid people invite aggressive people to walk over them, unknowing that
they do, and not knowing what to do about it.
And quite often people with personality disorders will stir up problems
when they haven't been mistreated or abused at all, or imagine that a
small matter is much larger than it really is.
Kevin
Fiona Webster wrote:
> I used the term "personality disorder" because Kevin used it, and
> I was responding to his posting.
This is what I wrote:
>Then why is the group dominated by
personalities that are problematic to a lot of people? We don't ignore
invective here, nor personality disturbances. We cater to them, nourish
them, give them tacit permission to up the anty... threats?!, OY.<
You'll never find me diagnosing people here, as I don't believe in
on-line therapy (and considering the danger of silencing people with
pathology because we disagree with them) and I believe it's really poor
professional judgement to throw the DSM around here. Everyone has at
least some personality disturbance, I think, so the distinction is
important.
In this thread, I've tried to focus on process, group interaction, and
not personalities or personal comment.
For the record, Fiona, you may observe what I proposed at first, that
the 'obviously' disordered persons in spp are simply touchstones for the
group's larger derangement, its inability to function without
moderate-severe hostility. The system is ill because of a disturbance
in the quality of the interactions as evidenced by the massive amount of
mud flinging; no one is culpable and everyone is culpable, at the same
time. I know it's the norm to assign the blame to Brad/Curio, but
that's missing the mark, imo. Brad/Curio flourish here because they're
needed here, on some level, wanted here. It's the sequence and quality
of interaction that's broken. You decide why that is; I've offered my
own explanation.
Briefly, I'd like to address something you wrote in another post, that
is, and after issuing a list of what you regarded as on or off topic
subjects, you concluded that discussion of group process about ssp was
off topic because it wasn't about psychotherapy, forgetting the umbrella
term ' psychology'. What group processes do you observe if they aren't
the ones you participate in? Remember, process can be discussed without
personality asassination. I was trained to believe that this is
healthy. Honestly, I'm quite suspiscious of any group that can't
discuss itself as it draws my attention to hidden agendas that are about
control and a less-than-productive comfort level with destructive
communication patterns. I'm not making this up, Yallom says this too.
Why am I bringing this up? Well, not because I'm 'reactive' (your term)
(and remember that I started this discussion) or because I'm a
'self-righteous complainer' (Nancy's term), but because I'm intrigued by
process, especially the processes I'm a part of. That and this (which I
think is really important): the presumptions of authority, the hidden
systems of control, the tendency for conflict to degrade into invective
(which has other consequences, like inviting the greater participation
of certain key personalities here), all has a larger consequence which
disturbs me: the group discourages reasonable exchangers of information
while it encourages unreasonable ones, thus, the mess you see when you
download 100 messages on spp.
I accept that this group is organized around a few key personalities,
but I don't like it. Do you? (and for me, the discussion of killfiles
is irrelevant: I'm trying to address what exists, not what I can - and
do - erase.)
For me, it's a problem. Who knows how many years of experience, how
many minds filled with information, how many articulate, reasonable
communicators, this group looses on a daily basis because lurkers are
appalled by what they see in a random sampling of posts.
That's why I endeavored to begin a discussion of group process on spp.
I expect no reform and I have no ambition. I did, however, expect a
more open, if only slightly more open, discussion.
Kevin
TribalNation
Question: Is a poster's style of posting a clear indication of a
personality disorder? Is it even possible to make such a
determination? Sierra
Fiona Webster
I wrote:
> Here's why: people with personality disorders are often treated poorly by
> mental health professionals (I admit this, even though I am a psychiatrist),
> and such people may well come into this newsgroup with an ax to grind. If
> they then make a fuss and generate invective, etc., they are simply being
> themselves. Personality-disordered people are famous for generating uproar
> in group settings. Everyone knows that.
Cheryl replied:
>I didn't know that. Do you mean that personality-disordered people who
>feel they have been mistreated, or abused, or have been the recipient of
>an injustice will cause dissent in a group setting or cause uproar
>moreso than someone not classified as having a personality disorder but
>who also has been mistreated, abused, etc.?
Yes, as a general observation, that's what I meant.
>Or do you mean that all
>personality-disordered people, regardless of how they have been treated
>will cause problems moreso than someone who isn't classified as having a
>personality disorder?
Yes, as a general observation, I meant that, too.
I used the term "personality disorder" because Kevin used it, and
I was responding to his posting. Perhaps what I said would make
more sense if I'd said "borderline"--or some other signifier that
would point to those people whose personality disorders manifest
partly in the form of flamboyant and combative behavior.
>If so, could you please site your sources
>(studies, papers, etc.) which confirm this?
I know I'm going to sound like Dr. McCoy on "Star Trek" ("I'm a doctor,
not a..."), but here goes: I'm a psychiatrist, not a researcher, so I say
things on the basis of clinical experience and general reading in the field.
I can't cite chapter and verse. But the observation that "borderlines" (I put
that in quotes because I don't want my casual remarks here to send us
off on a tangent about labels) tend, inadvertently, to agitate and polarize
the people around them, is hardly controversial. It's well-known among
mental health professionals.
Don't get me wrong: I'm very sympathetic toward "borderlines" who've been
misunderstood and mishandled by therapists (of any stripe). I think it's
egregious that many therapists (and non-therapist doctors) are not
well-trained in how to deal with them. So I'm just saying, in response
to Kevin's posting, that if they show up here, and make a fuss, and
agitate other people, that's hardly big news. It's par for the course.
Instead of complaining about it or saying it's evidence of a
"dysfunctional" group, let's just live with it, deal with it, and above all,
be as positive and compassionate as we can be.
--Fiona Webster
Kevin
[...]
> I think a content analysis over the past year would show that content increases along
> with the noise, not that content diminishes as noise increases.
I think this assessment is very dependant upon temperment. Would it
surprise you that many others are getting less out of it than yourself?
Not to mention the many we loose because they darn't post? I don't come
from a large shouting family. I do however come from a family that
tolerates anger and even ridicule, as long as there's some regard, some
compassion, for feelings.
Listen, I'm not expecting the Waltons here. For me, mutual respect
doesn't stand apart from disagreement, argument, and conflict.
[...]
I learned some things from it. Brad started it. If it didn't interest
> you or Ed, so what? I have also learned from the Curio/Price debates and the NLP/TFT
> debates. I didn't know what either of those therapies were before their proponents
> starting discussing them. The controversy brought out new information through the
> dialectic of argument.
This, Nancy, is where I think we cross wires. A dialectical mode of
interaction is marked by mutual respect, careful listening, and
ultimately a shared understanding, leaving the rest to 'agree to
disagree'. Is this what you think happens here? No, not often.
Your idea that interactions with these people should be
> discouraged because it also leads to hostile interactions would make this group a lot
> less interesting, in my opinion.
I think it's revealing that you disclose that you enjoy the
entertainment value of the mud fests that occur here. That's your
perogative and one explanation as to why you contribute to it. Again,
there's a cost to the group for this in lost expertise, readers who
leave in disgust because 2 out of 3 posts are along the lines, 'You
lying sack of shit!'
That this mode of interaction - as evidenced by the sheer volume of
these posts - is so persistent and pervasive reflects, for me, that Brad
is not only tolerated but welcomed. That's entertainment.
> I did find the group more pleasant when Brad was gone,
I don't believe you.
> but I also think the number of substantive posts decreased as well.
In time, Brad's post would be supplanted by newcomers with lots of great
things to say, if only we'd give them the opportunity by first
addressing why this ng is a potty, much of the time.
> Labeling me defensive is another example of namecalling.
If we want to discuss how conflict evolves here, this would be as good a
point to start as any. Let's follow a simple sequence of events: I
posted about group process in general and infered that it shows ssp to
be stuck (like an enmeshed, dysfunctional family); You responded by
both questioning my motives and calling me a 'self-righteous
complainer'. Not once did I connect you to the dysfuntion until you -
apparantly feeling accused - inserted yourself then lobbed a slur. So
here we are... what do we do? Well, if I were someone other than who I
am, I'd question your credentials, change the subject header, call you
names.
This, I think, is where the exchanges get bogged down. Problem is, I
like you and I have no ill will toward you, so let me just get on with
the substantive remarks you make below.
>I
> do not consider this group to be stuck. You seem to accept that as a self-evident fact.
> How about presenting some evidence to support your assertion. Your remark about fear is
> more mind-reading.
I can't speak for others. It's stuck for me. Can you see how some
people are put off by the normative pattern of exchange on this ng? Do
you think the person who wrote the goodbye letter that started this
thread is just a 'complainer'? I think we can salvage a kernel of truth
from what he and others say and attempt to respond appropriately to it.
Isn't that was mental health folk do?
[...]
> There are a certain number of people who visit this newsgroup specifically for the
> purpose of trashing psychologists, psychiatrists and other psychotherapists. Their
> motivation doubtless comes from some experience in real life. They are typically people
> who have never posted here before and don't know the regular posters.
I know what your saying and have been surprised by the extent to which
this group is used for venbting, which I think is one purpose of the
group, so I believe these people should be ignored or responded to with
compassion, especially as they don't seem to hang around long. How we
respond to these folks might be instructive: my quess is that telling
them to get over it will increase the length of their stay here, turning
a grudge into an obsessive mania.
I'm also amazed by crosspossting to some of the wildest groups on the
net and was alarmed to see that I now have a post in alt.satanism, as a
consequence of my participation on spp. Anyway, these aren't the people
I'm talking about. It's the 'regulars' act and are, for me, more
problematic than any disgruntled interloper.
As regards the 'regulars', I have just this to add, and I hope you'll
hear me out and indulge one last bit of theory, as I'm truly about done
with this thread. This: Brad does not exist in a vacuum; his use,
overuse, and misuse of this group is a consequence of how he and others
interact, its the interaction that is the focal point of attention, not
the persons. You avoided this point the first time I mentioned it;
please try to cover it in your response.
I'm not asking anyone to ignore him. If people agree that his presence
here, as it is, is problematic, then I'm suggesting they take stock in
how they interact with him so that the 'noise' level that now runs the
group can be reduced, not to a whisper but to a regular speaking voice.
>They [disgruntled interlopers] use the noise
> level as an excuse to unload a litany of complaints,
Yet another reason to try to reduce the noise level here. Don't you
think?
[...]
>These
> individuals don't even realize that many of the posters here are not psychotherapists.
> They don't care. They just want to unload a diatribe.
I can't presume to know what they or anyone else here has been through.
That said, better they unload there diatribe here where they can be met
with compassion and directed toward on-line self-help groups, rather
than what I've seen once already, what amounts to nothing less than an
electronic retraumatization. That's not an appropriate response to a
real angry, hurt ex-patient.
I cannot understand why you are
> so readily taking these posts as accurate comment on what occurs in the group.
Nancy! These aren't the people I was referring to. I don't have an axe
to grind, I'm not angry or bitter. With all their quirks and
differences, I really appreciate mental health folk. My complaints, in
short, are observations, a benign attempt to peal back spp and take a
look (for the reasons I mentioned).
[...]
>
> Are you really judging this group by the actions of one individual (Brad)?
No. See above.
> As I said, I resent your using Yalom as a club to bludgeon others with, especially me.
Your name never came up until you inserted it, apparently percieving you
were being accused. It's for you to decide where you stand, my
interpretation of the *group* dynamic nonwithstanding.
> Do you consider honest disagreement to be "policing thought"?
Of course not.
[...]
> Further, my disagreement seems to be
> focused upon examining the process, not avoiding that examination.
This may be true, Nancy, but it was a bit of a challenge for me to
overcome being lumped in with the disgruntled interlopers and, early on,
being called a self righteous complainer. We're all humans here.
[...]
> > 'Bludgeon' is too strong a word. Gate-keeping and silencing of new
> > information are more appropriate. That said, I do agree that my
> > interest is discussing process has, as an off shoot, an element of
> > 'policing'. That's always implicit.
> >
> >
>
> Then, why is your attempt at policing OK by your own standards? Why doesn't it lead to
> the negative effects Yalom cites?
Any discussion of process screws with the power hierarchy, concealed or
revealed. It wasn't my intention, but it happens anyway.
[...]
> I agree that each group forms its own atmosphere, but why should a group be all things to
> all people? I have wanted a group that discusses scientific psychology. It doesn't
> exist in Usenet. This group has strongly resisted my attempts to steer it in that
> direction, but it has not prevented me from posting whatever interests me personally.
I'm here just two months. If I stay, I predict I'll go the way of Ed
Anderson: contribute where you can, laugh at the rest. Still makes me
sad to think of how the group is driving away valuable contributors, the
way the group is organized around disruptive personalities. And yes, I
think much of what occurs here is really bad PR for the profession.
> You refer to ridicule and invective. I have only seen invective come from or be directed
> at Brad. It is not the norm in this group except for Brad.
Only whatever drives him here is nourished by the regulars, causing the
group, in the larger sense, to be about him, and thus scaring away
newcomers.
> You sound as if you would like to exclude those with
> personality disorders because they interfere with group process and somehow damage the
> quality of life in the newsgroup.
Not at all, and not that I can tell who here has a PD. I've attempted
to throw out a framewark for understand ways in which this group is
stuck. This has included gently encourage people to stop focusing on
Brad and start focusing on what purpose his deviance serves them.
>If we are willing to admit people with schizophrenia
> and multiple personality, on what basis can we exclude those with personality disorders?
Everyone should be included, I guess. It's how they, us, we, all
interact together that is my issue, especially when there are
professionals aboard. I rarely think of the behavior here in relation
to DSM criteria, so I wonder where this is coming from on your part.
Without naming names, I mentioned disruptive, dysfunctional, destructive
behavior; further, personality disturbances. This isn't Dx or an
attempt to include/exclude, though it's interesting that you go on about
it. This is Usenet: anarchy rules and I accept that.
[...]
> a kind of group infection when negative behavior is
> tolerated. Later you ascribe it to a recapitulation of family dysfunction.
Yallom describes that, I advance that same idea here, as one possible
explanation why the group - to coin Ed's term - is drawn like a dog to
its own vomit. You name was never mentioned in that or subsequent posts
until you put it there. I can't take responsibility that you feel
accused.
You know
> nothing about anyone's family here. Surely you aren't assuming that anyone who acts like
> a dysfunctional family member must have come from one?
This is a very interesting tangent... do you believe that on-line
behavior parallels real life behavior? I do.
That said, I presume to know northing about your or anyone elses family
life, past hx, etc That said, I can't help but notice how your trying
to fashion my remarks as an attack on the group, others, your friends.
That's not accurate, productive, or honest.
> If you look
> at Brad differently, you will not be as upset about his "invective," for example.
I look at Brad, I look at Brad. 100 or so posts and responses every
time I sign-on. Otherwise, I have no axe to grind with him. I think he
should be responded to when he's reasonable and ignored when he's not,
just like anyone here.
> I received the
> most votes coming from the most individual posters.
What was that about hidden leadership? ;)
Man, I'm exhausted...
Yours,
Kevin
Kevin
Gene Douglas wrote:
>
> The IP is generally determined by whoever has the power and whoever pays
> the bill. In this case, each combatant defines the other as the IP.
Gene, Gene, Gene. In the context of the preceeding discussion, the
identified patient(s) are pretty discernable. Need to buy a few vowels?
Kevin... a....u....
Kevin
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado wrote:
[...]
> If this were a therapy group,
But it ain't. Thank Goddess.
>the
> leader would encourage the individuals to rephrase their criticisms as direct
> personal remarks that they have ownership of and take responsibility for, not
> permit this kind of professionalized third-person criticism aimed at no one
> specific.
[..]
'Permit'? What an odd word, in this context. Listen, Nancy, the more I
read from you, the more it appears that you're angered because I'm not
namecalling and dragging specific people through the mud. The ambiguity
is driving you crazy, feeling accused but not sure why. Process isn't
about personality, it's about interaction. I've very deliberately tried
to avoid the 'I said, you said' declension.
This is gonna kill you, but... here goes, I LIKE YOU!
Kevin XOXO
cc...@shaw.wave.ca
Gene Douglas wrote:
(snip)>
> And quite often people with personality disorders will stir up problems
> when they haven't been mistreated or abused at all, or imagine that a
> small matter is much larger than it really is.
Okay, but are you saying that "normal" people also don't do this???
Cheryl
Gene Douglas
As I said, the IP depends on whom you ask. If I named names, I would be
defined as the IP by one of them.
Gene Douglas
I am saying that on the average, they are not as likely to do so.
"Tunnel vision," "hot buttons," or "exposed nerves" don't come out of
nowhere. If a non-disordered person displays such a characteristic, it
may be in response to a badly written or badly read communication, taken
to mean something else, or in response to having a bad day or a bad
episode in their lives (axis I in that case.)
Gene
Fiona Webster
Sierra writes:
>Question: Is a poster's style of posting a clear
>indication of a personality disorder?
No. The way a person communicates over the Net
can suggest the possibility of a personality disorder,
but of course a diagnosis cannot be made without
a face-to-face interview and other information.
>Is it even possible to make such a determination?
In person, yes. Over the Net, no.
--Fiona
Fiona Webster
Gene writes;
>As far as I know, my Netscape 3.0 doesn't permit a killfile. If it
>does, I'd like to know how to find it.
There are a few different freeware programs that do a much
better job of managing Usenet news than Netscape, and include
the capacity for killfiles--also known as filters.
The one I use is News Xpress, at
http://www.duke.edu/~dl1/nx.html
--Fiona
Fiona Webster
Kevin writes:
>You'll never find me diagnosing people here, as I don't believe in
>on-line therapy (and considering the danger of silencing people with
>pathology because we disagree with them) and I believe it's really poor
>professional judgement to throw the DSM around here. Everyone has at
>least some personality disturbance, I think, so the distinction is
>important.
Point taken. You did say "disturbance," not "disorder." I apologize
for misquoting you.
>Briefly, I'd like to address something you wrote in another post, that
>is, and after issuing a list of what you regarded as on or off topic
>subjects, you concluded that discussion of group process about ssp was
>off topic because it wasn't about psychotherapy, forgetting the umbrella
>term ' psychology'.
The word "psychology" in the newsgroup title is not an umbrella term.
It designates a lower level in a branching tree, the final terms/branches
of which define the newsgroup topic. For example: rec.sports.basketball,
rec.arts.poetry, alt.books.stephen.king. Try convincing the folks on
rec.sports.basketball that "sports" is an umbrella term, so you can
talk about golf there. :-)
As for what I said, I made a special effort *not* to conclude that
any discussion was on- or off-topic:
Posting about the group itself, or about individual group members,
however, is clearly "meta"--and thus could be viewed as off-topic.
I'm not making a statement one way or the other about whether
the fact that threads like "Brad is a kook" or "this group is strange"
are conceivably off-topic means they should be discouraged. (Obviously,
I'm posting to such a thread.) I'm just pointing out that sometimes that's
a useful distinction.
>I accept that this group is organized around a few key personalities,
>but I don't like it. Do you?
I'm not as disturbed by it as you appear to be. But then, I've been hanging
out on this nutty place called Usenet for over 8 years, so maybe I'm just
complacent. :-) (Does anyone else remember the Piscean Controversy of
1989-90?)
>For me, it's a problem. Who knows how many years of experience, how
>many minds filled with information, how many articulate, reasonable
>communicators, this group loses on a daily basis because lurkers are
>appalled by what they see in a random sampling of posts.
OK. I just think that lurkers might find postings about psychotherapy more
encouraging than postings about problems in the newsgroup. After all, they
came here because the newsgroup is supposed to focus on psychotherapy,
not on peculiar Usenet forms of group process.
>That's why I endeavored to begin a discussion of group process on spp.
>I expect no reform and I have no ambition. I did, however, expect a
>more open, if only slightly more open, discussion.
'Seems open enough to me. I'm listening.
--Fiona
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Kevin wrote:
>
> This is what I wrote:
>
> >Then why is the group dominated by
> personalities that are problematic to a lot of people? We don't ignore
> invective here, nor personality disturbances. We cater to them, nourish
> them, give them tacit permission to up the anty... threats?!, OY.<
>
> You'll never find me diagnosing people here, as I don't believe in
> on-line therapy (and considering the danger of silencing people with
> pathology because we disagree with them) and I believe it's really poor
> professional judgement to throw the DSM around here. Everyone has at
> least some personality disturbance, I think, so the distinction is
> important.
I see a direct contradiction between your first paragraph and the second
one. In the first you claim that people with personality disturbances are
disrupting the group. In the second you claim that you do not diagnose
anyone online. On what basis do you then claim that the people in this
group have personality disturbances, if not through your own diagnosis? I
have not seen Brad or Curio admit to having such a disturbance. Your
quibble about everyone being disturbed to some extent does not get you out
of this one.
> For the record, Fiona, you may observe what I proposed at first, that
> the 'obviously' disordered persons in spp are simply touchstones for the
> group's larger derangement, its inability to function without
Again, the phrase "obviously disordered". This doesn't refer to the quirks
of normal individuals.
> healthy. Honestly, I'm quite suspiscious of any group that can't
> discuss itself as it draws my attention to hidden agendas that are about
> control and a less-than-productive comfort level with destructive
> communication patterns. I'm not making this up, Yallom says this too.
You keep saying that this sort of discussion is not permitted, but we have
been engaging in it. Fiona is another of the few people interested in
talking about this with you -- not someone trying to suppress you. If I
were to use your mode of reasoning I would begin asking now why you are so
paranoid about suppression of your ideas in group contexts.
> 'self-righteous complainer' (Nancy's term), but because I'm intrigued by
> process, especially the processes I'm a part of. That and this (which I
Pity you aren't a better observer of them. Projecting your own
interpretations obscures the view.
> think is really important): the presumptions of authority, the hidden
> systems of control, the tendency for conflict to degrade into invective
> (which has other consequences, like inviting the greater participation
> of certain key personalities here), all has a larger consequence which
> disturbs me: the group discourages reasonable exchangers of information
> while it encourages unreasonable ones, thus, the mess you see when you
> download 100 messages on spp.
There has been an ongoing assumption, frequently expressed during the
moderation debates, that if Brad and those who respond to him were to go
away, then the conversation would shift to more worthwhile topics and
there would be interesting conversations on things such as practice issues
(to name one topic requested by lurkers). I think this assumption has now
been tested in sppm and during lulls here, and no such worthwhile
conversation emerges. I believe that the people who wish to read such
conversation do not have the time or energy to generate it themselves.
They wait for others to do so. However, the others are not capable of or
interested in talking about the substantive issues desired by the lurkers.
I have frequently seen someone attempt to start a thread, only to have it
die within one or two posts. Either there is no controversy involved or
solid individuals are unwilling to state their professional opinions in
public, or they don't have any interest in educating others and would bore
themselves by repeating what they already know. You tell me why they don't
post -- but they don't. Maybe there isn't enough human engagement in such
threads. I no longer believe that Brad's diatribes are suppressing
anything worthwhile. I think the worthwhile conversations are suppressed
by the mechanics of internet correspondence and human nature. Just as
people at conferences tend to gossip rather than talk about their fields
(unless asked a direct and specific question about some point raised by a
seminar -- but that fades pretty quickly too).
>
> I accept that this group is organized around a few key personalities,
> but I don't like it. Do you? (and for me, the discussion of killfiles
> is irrelevant: I'm trying to address what exists, not what I can - and
> do - erase.)
Isn't this the way things work in real life too?
>
> For me, it's a problem. Who knows how many years of experience, how
> many minds filled with information, how many articulate, reasonable
> communicators, this group looses on a daily basis because lurkers are
> appalled by what they see in a random sampling of posts.
>
That's right. Who knows. Maybe none. In fact, who knows how many
articulate reasonable communicators exist at all, and who knows what
percentage of them stay and lurk, and who knows whether such people find
anything of value anywhere on the internet, and who knows whether such
people would even have anything to say to us if they did more than lurk?
> That's why I endeavored to begin a discussion of group process on spp.
> I expect no reform and I have no ambition. I did, however, expect a
> more open, if only slightly more open, discussion.
Who has been suppressing you, Kevin? Again I ask -- do you equate
disagreement with suppression? If so, why? What dysfunctional element of
your past are you replaying here? (Hate doing that but you should have the
chance to see how such an accusation feels.)
Nancy
John Clark
Kevin wrote:
> time. I know it's the norm to assign the blame to Brad/Curio, but
> that's missing the mark, imo. Brad/Curio flourish here because they're
> needed here, on some level, wanted here. It's the sequence and quality
> of interaction that's broken. You decide why that is; I've offered my
> own explanation.
No, Brad and Curio have many groups to post in where their diatribes can
be well received. Posters here who are skeptical about various 'truths' such
as the 'fact' of Satanic Abuse, or the like, or 'Evils of Psychotherapy
Fundamentalism',
and similar, do post. These posters would be similarly received on some of
the 'survivor' groups as are Curio and Brad here.
I think clinical psychology is far closer to religious belief and practice than
many of the 'practicing' clinicians have admitted. So what. I state my opinion,
sometimes pointedly, forcefully, or even wrongly, but that really is no excuse
for calling up some person's employer, school, or whatever and given who
ever answers the phone a piece of my mind.
In the case of Curio and in general sexual conduct involving children and
adults, I've also taken the position that sex is perhaps not the dominant
'cause' of later difficults, it is essentially along for the ride. Other
professionals
have criticized, chastized, or whatever such a position. But again, some one
criticizing me does not mean I should find all news groups that they post to
and begin some compaign to paint them as some sort of conspiratorial
intellectual facists. I may think that but again so what.
I think it is one thing to take a controversial stance, and another to attempt
to inflict 'pain' based on one's preception of being 'unlistened to', or
'disagreed
with', or 'not hearing the absolute truth of the message'.
In essences, I've state this before, in the case of Brad, he says nothing
'controversial'
but his delivery is the objectionable aspect of his posts. In the case of Curio,
again
at some level she says nothing that many people disagree with, even perhaps
including
the concern in regard to 'ritual abuse', satanic or otherwise. But again the
delivery, and
the insistence that unless there is absolute concurrence not only on the
material
facts, but also the remedies, she cast the poster as a perp, or supporter of
perps.
Since one can not take a middle ground with her, therefore, I'd rather 'support'
perps
than be silent with her ravings, if that is the only choice she permits, or
would believe
inspite of any counter arguement.
To that point, I think in a 'free' society, people can review, or argue that
laws be changed,
whether the people would directly benefit, indirectly benefit, or receive no
preceived benefit
at all. I also believe, and perhaps this is more fundamental, that people can
advocate changes
in law that others find wrong headed, perhaps even repulsive. The fact that the
laws do
not change suggest that for the majority 'democracy' works, but to eliminate the
voice of
wrong headedness, is to eliminate the democratic process.
That is also why I would never call for Curio or Brad to be 'removed' from the
discussion,
although I would call for people who disagree with them to be vocal about it.
I was against the change of this forum to be a moderated forum when the choice
was
either no group or a moderated group. The above should clearly indicate that I
would
rather have disagreement than either silence, or jasayers.
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.
On 12 Jan 1998, Gene Douglas wrote:
>
> However, it is not an inappropriate power move. The rights of the other
> person are not violated, in that the other person never had a right to
> be abusive in the first place. And the other person still has the right
> to express his view, if he will do so in a considerate way.
This is arguable. Internet anarchy says that people do have the right to
be abusive here. This is jealously guarded, by people with "personality
disturbances" (to use kevin's term) no doubt.
>
> Whether it frustrates the person is irrelevant, considering that the
> person is being frustrated in an inappropriate activity to begin with.
> There was a threat of frustration when the moderated group was formed.
> However, most did not abandon this one, so there was no frustration. (I
> just changed the address above, in an attempt to do so, however.)
The frustration is relevant because Kevin seems to suggest that those who
respond play into and feed the volume level. Frustration also increases
the volume level, except the responsibility for doing so is hidden rather
than open.
>
> As to whether it increases the volume: only at first. When
> extinguishing a response, the first behavior is to increase the earlier
> responses. This may have the result of provoking the earlier reactions
> of the other person, and to continue the game. If one can resist
> reacting as requested, then the responder may give up for a while.
> There is later a feeble second attempt to provoke reactions, and if that
> is unsuccessful, then the behavior is extinguished forever.
I have argued before and do again that learning theory terms are not an
appropriate analysis for Brad's behavior. He is not motivated by the
responses, but has other internal motivations that are satisfied by the
act of posting and seeing his words on screen. It matters less what
reinforcer occurs when the strength of internal motivation is
self-sustained. If you have a rat and you increase its hunger (e.g., do
not hold the motivational state constant), you will see increased
behavior, even if you have decreased the amount of food used to reward it.
Brad's posting varies more as a result of his own internal mood states,
than as a result of the provocation and reward.
> >
> > Some people seem to believe that passive aggressiveness and other
> indirect
> > ways of expressing disagreement are morally superior to argument.
> >
> And argument is in some way morally superior? Consider that there is a
> difference between argument and contradiction, and between argument and
> conflict. When argument moves to name calling, accusations and personal
> insults, it is no longer argument, it is quarreling. And what is
> morally inferior about withdrawing from that?
The problem with passive aggressive approaches is not the approach itself,
but the denial of responsibility and the lack of directness or openness of
the person using such approaches. It is difficult to deal with someone who
denies they are doing anything. A person who says directly "I don't like
being talked to in this manner so I am not going to participate any more"
is being direct. A person who simply ignores another is not. A person who
makes a series of arguments then leaves the field saying "I'm not going to
talk any more" may be pretending to respond to the manner of another, but
in fact leaves because he or she doesn't want to admit that they cannot
address the issues brought up by the other person. That isn't direct. It
disguises one motive by pretending another.
>
> > The problem isn't the fact of argument regardless of how it is
> conducted,
> > but that some argument leads to no better understanding or tolerance
> of
> > each other's views.
>
> The problem is how it is conducted.
Well I strongly disagree with this. But let me ask you how you decide what
rules for argument should prevail in an environment where each individual
enters with a different previous experience? Why should yours or Kevin's
rules for argument be inflicted on everyone else in this group simply
because you or he decide the others are not behaving properly? I have yet
to see anyone put forth evidence that this group is "stuck" as he calls it
or that substantive discussion would increase if their rules were enacted.
> When the heat involves name calling, accusations and personal insults,
> the subject has been changed. Once the subject is changed, the original
> topic doesn't go someplace. And the new topic will also never achieve
> resolution.
I do not like name-calling, accusations or personal insults, but I do not
agree that once that happens the topic goes no place. It happened early
in the discussion with Brad on learning theory. We ignored the
name-calling and focused on the issue at hand and the discussion moved on.
The topic did achieve resolution, largely because resolution did not
depend on convincing Brad of anything. The subject need not change to the
namecalling unless those who are called names permit it to.
Maybe what we need is a rule against meta-communication rather than a rule
against name-calling.
>
> > I think you address that a little when you talk about conflict that
> > persists forever etc. But I don't think the people who are best
> suited to
> > judge whether conflict is serving any purpose are necessarily those
> > sitting on the sidelines who don't care about the issues involved.
> >
> I have to confess to deleting half the ng posts before I begin reading.
> But when the headers themselves are insults, it isn't too hard to guess
> that the content of the posts is just junk anyway.
That must be why I get the sense that I am talking to a blank wall with
you. I must repeat half the things I say to you because you don't seem to
hear them the first time -- such as the entire conversation about babies
and depth perception. In what way does kill-filing people improve
conversation?
I have found that after a few posts the headers no longer reflect the
content of the thread. To killfile on that basis is too broad a filter for
me. But then I do not killfile anybody.
>
> > Oprah is entertainment, not discussion and certainly not argument.
> Have
> > you overlooked the point that a goodly portion of the conflict here
> might
> > also be regarded as entertainment for both the participants and
> observers?
>
> Participants yes, observers no. Though some of the participants may
> consciously be having fun in insulting others just to watch them fume, I
> think some of them are getting their tempers hooked into the process,
> and are not thinking of the fight as a way to have a good time.
That happens to everyone from time to time, in real-life too. It's no
reason to stop talking to people.
It troubles me that you and Kevin feel that whatever your opinion is must
also be the opinion of the lurkers. They are capable of speaking for
themselves. Until they do, I don't think we can assume anything about what
they are thinking or feeling. Note that my sentence above has a question
mark at the end.
> >
> Of course, real violence is possible. Occasionally, somebody posts
> another poster's name, address, phone number, employer, etc. (maybe not
> recently on this group) and advocates that others do them some harm.
> And occasionally, somebody posts (at least elsewhere) that they are a
> paranoid schizophrenic, and since getting back on meds they are now
> feeling much better. Considering the many people and types of people
> who are reading, how does one know who might do what?
It is a serious breach of netiquette to post real-life information like
that. Since there is little way of telling via the internet who may or may
not be dangerous in real life (schizophrenics are not the ones most likely
to harm others anyway), I can see little basis for discriminating who to
avoid in conversation. I am more likely to be harmed by a self-righteous
individual who dislikes my posting style and happens to sit on the search
committee of a university where I apply for a job, than I am to be harmed
by Brad or Curio. Shall I inhibit expressing my opinions, even to Brad, on
the off-chance that someone watching will dislike me because of them? I
think not a few lurkers (the reasonable, knowledgeable type) refrain from
posting anything because this is a very real worry for them. I've decided
that the potential harm is outweighed by the benefits and my fears about
the increased visibility must be set aside if the internet is to be a
place where any reasonable people participate.
I don't think Kevin is advocating that deviant posters be ostracized
because he is afraid they will harm others in real life. The bickering
bothers him. I think it would be useful for him to examine why that is
rather than hiding behind quotes from Yallom about group process. He
certainly does not have to post his reasons in public, but unless he can
demonstrate that group process has been harmed, I think this remains a
personal matter for him.
Nancy
TribalNation
Whew! I was beginning to wonder if I needed to go back to grad school
and take a course on diagnostics over the Net! Sierra
Gene Douglas
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> On 12 Jan 1998, Gene Douglas wrote:
>
> >
> > However, it is not an inappropriate power move. The rights of the
other
> > person are not violated, in that the other person never had a right
to
> > be abusive in the first place. And the other person still has the
right
> > to express his view, if he will do so in a considerate way.
>
> This is arguable. Internet anarchy says that people do have the right
to
> be abusive here. This is jealously guarded, by people with
"personality
> disturbances" (to use kevin's term) no doubt.
>
don't object to the abusiveness of the verbally violent person, then why
should you object to the silence of the one who withdraws?
Silke says she has killfiled me, and I don't feel abused. In fact, I
feel relieved. And if my own program had a killfile, I'd grant her the
same favor.
> >
> > Whether it frustrates the person is irrelevant, considering that
the
> > person is being frustrated in an inappropriate activity to begin
with.
> > There was a threat of frustration when the moderated group was
formed.
> > However, most did not abandon this one, so there was no
frustration. (I
> > just changed the address above, in an attempt to do so, however.)
>
Somehow that didn't work, as it showed up here instead.
> The frustration is relevant because Kevin seems to suggest that those
who
> respond play into and feed the volume level. Frustration also
increases
> the volume level, except the responsibility for doing so is hidden
rather
> than open.
We're speaking of two different frustrations. Some people feared that
sppm would totally replace spp, and they would be unhappy that they
couldn't throw mud any more. They must have been relieved to know that
they could continue.
>
> >
> > As to whether it increases the volume: only at first. When
> > extinguishing a response, the first behavior is to increase the
earlier
> > responses. This may have the result of provoking the earlier
reactions
> > of the other person, and to continue the game. If one can resist
> > reacting as requested, then the responder may give up for a while.
> > There is later a feeble second attempt to provoke reactions, and if
that
> > is unsuccessful, then the behavior is extinguished forever.
>
> I have argued before and do again that learning theory terms are not
an
> appropriate analysis for Brad's behavior. He is not motivated by the
> responses, but has other internal motivations that are satisfied by
the
> act of posting and seeing his words on screen.
Now who's psychologizing?
It matters less what
> reinforcer occurs when the strength of internal motivation is
> self-sustained. If you have a rat and you increase its hunger (e.g.,
do
> not hold the motivational state constant), you will see increased
> behavior, even if you have decreased the amount of food used to
reward it.
> Brad's posting varies more as a result of his own internal mood
states,
> than as a result of the provocation and reward.
>
People are people, organisms are organisms, and pschology is
psychology. Brad does not get an exception. If you cut off the food
from a rat in a skinner box, he will press the lever harder and faster,
and then quit. He will come back later, feebly try again, and then
forget about it.
If you have a husband who leaves his socks on the floor, and if the
resulting attention is what motivates him, then when you quit nagging
him, (or picking up his socks) he will stop doing that.
> > >
> > > Some people seem to believe that passive aggressiveness and
other
> > indirect
> > > ways of expressing disagreement are morally superior to
argument.
> > >
> > And argument is in some way morally superior? Consider that there
is a
> > difference between argument and contradiction, and between argument
and
> > conflict. When argument moves to name calling, accusations and
personal
> > insults, it is no longer argument, it is quarreling. And what is
> > morally inferior about withdrawing from that?
>
> The problem with passive aggressive approaches is not the approach
itself,
> but the denial of responsibility and the lack of directness or
openness of
> the person using such approaches. It is difficult to deal with
someone who
> denies they are doing anything. A person who says directly "I don't
like
> being talked to in this manner so I am not going to participate any
more"
> is being direct. A person who simply ignores another is not.
However, he may get the same result. And so may the rest of us.
A person who
> makes a series of arguments then leaves the field saying "I'm not
going to
> talk any more" may be pretending to respond to the manner of another,
but
> in fact leaves because he or she doesn't want to admit that they
cannot
> address the issues brought up by the other person. That isn't
direct. It
> disguises one motive by pretending another.
>
If the second person wants to make his last argument, then he gets the
last word. He should consider that a favor.
I once had a client who liked to fight with her husband, and who was
frustrated because he would give up too easily. He would take the
blame, declare her the winner, and comply with her wishes, before she
felt she was finished. She didn't like to win under those
circumstances. She wanted to win a battle in which he had fought to the
last breath, and then succumbed, and she could feel like a true victor.
Problem is, he never agreed to play that game. He would rather have
peace in the family, and being called "pathetic" didn't seem to him like
a constructive discussion.
> >
I have to go. I'll continue this later.
Gene
Gene Douglas
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. wrote:
skip
> Well I strongly disagree with this. But let me ask you how you decide
what
> rules for argument should prevail in an environment where each
individual
> enters with a different previous experience?
The group itself generally does this, and rules of netiquette are fairly
well established. Though they are not carved in stone by the finger of
God, they provide a common understanding to begin by. And the
collective displeasure of the group at somebody picking a fistfight at a
seminar (or whatever other metaphor you please) can provide the rest.
Why should yours or Kevin's
> rules for argument be inflicted on everyone else in this group simply
> because you or he decide the others are not behaving properly? I have
yet
> to see anyone put forth evidence that this group is "stuck" as he
calls it
> or that substantive discussion would increase if their rules were
enacted.
>
I am assuming that the two of us are not alone, of course.
> > When the heat involves name calling, accusations and personal
insults,
> > the subject has been changed. Once the subject is changed, the
original
> > topic doesn't go someplace. And the new topic will also never
achieve
> > resolution.
>
> I do not like name-calling, accusations or personal insults, but I do
not
> agree that once that happens the topic goes no place. It happened
early
> in the discussion with Brad on learning theory. We ignored the
> name-calling and focused on the issue at hand and the discussion
moved on.
> The topic did achieve resolution, largely because resolution did not
> depend on convincing Brad of anything. The subject need not change to
the
> namecalling unless those who are called names permit it to.
>
I suppose that, without resorting to DSM name calling, one can simply
assume that a particular poster is handicapped, consider the source, and
pretend not no notice that he is drooling or banging his head on the
table, so long as one can take care of his other business.
> Maybe what we need is a rule against meta-communication rather than a
rule
> against name-calling.
>
> >
Don't comment on the communication? Then how does one draw attention to
a violation of that rule? Or, to continue the metaphors, if one
deficates in the middle of a cocktail party, the rule should not be
about that, but about noticing that.
> > > I think you address that a little when you talk about conflict
that
> > > persists forever etc. But I don't think the people who are best
> > suited to
> > > judge whether conflict is serving any purpose are necessarily
those
> > > sitting on the sidelines who don't care about the issues
involved.
> > >
> > I have to confess to deleting half the ng posts before I begin
reading.
> > But when the headers themselves are insults, it isn't too hard to
guess
> > that the content of the posts is just junk anyway.
>
> That must be why I get the sense that I am talking to a blank wall
with
> you. I must repeat half the things I say to you because you don't
seem to
> hear them the first time -- such as the entire conversation about
babies
> and depth perception. In what way does kill-filing people improve
> conversation?
>
Or perhaps because I read very slowly. Maybe you could try writing more
slowly.
About the babies, you've changed the subject. I think it was just a
convenient opportunity to get in a dig. Hmmm... DSM anyone?
Then we'll wait and see. (Hint, hint--invitation...)
> > >
> > Of course, real violence is possible. Occasionally, somebody posts
> > another poster's name, address, phone number, employer, etc. (maybe
not
> > recently on this group) and advocates that others do them some
harm.
> > And occasionally, somebody posts (at least elsewhere) that they are
a
> > paranoid schizophrenic, and since getting back on meds they are now
> > feeling much better. Considering the many people and types of
people
> > who are reading, how does one know who might do what?
>
> It is a serious breach of netiquette to post real-life information
like
> that.
It's been done to me three times. Once someone advocated phone-bombing
my business line, another time they got the idea that I worked at a high
school in another Oklahoma town, and advocated that everybody contact my
employer, and it happened once on this ng, as if the poster thought he
was "exposing" me in some way.
Since there is little way of telling via the internet who may or may
> not be dangerous in real life (schizophrenics are not the ones most
likely
> to harm others anyway), I can see little basis for discriminating who
to
> avoid in conversation. I am more likely to be harmed by a
self-righteous
> individual who dislikes my posting style and happens to sit on the
search
> committee of a university where I apply for a job, than I am to be
harmed
> by Brad or Curio.
I think that for some people, anger is contageous, and a verbal assault
calls for an escalation. Also, I remember somebody in college who was
always railing about communists (including the president, etc.). I made
the mistake of debating him, and a few weeks later learned that he had
got drunk one night, picked up his shotgun, and gone hunting for
communists. He found one of my friends, who narrowly talked him out of
shooting him. The police had already picked the guy up by the time I
heard about it, and I never saw him again.
Shall I inhibit expressing my opinions, even to Brad, on
> the off-chance that someone watching will dislike me because of them?
I
> think not a few lurkers (the reasonable, knowledgeable type) refrain
from
> posting anything because this is a very real worry for them. I've
decided
> that the potential harm is outweighed by the benefits and my fears
about
> the increased visibility must be set aside if the internet is to be a
> place where any reasonable people participate.
>
> I don't think Kevin is advocating that deviant posters be ostracized
> because he is afraid they will harm others in real life. The
bickering
> bothers him.
I think he is suggesting what I have suggested to children, with little
effect. If you quit sending the ball back to them, they'll give up and
leave you alone. When you let them bait you, you are letting them
control you. If you catch on to that, you can stop being baited, and
stop being controlled. Then they'll stop, and you'll be the one
controlling them. Just common sense, but hard to see when one is among
the trees.
I think it would be useful for him to examine why that is
> rather than hiding behind quotes from Yallom about group process. He
> certainly does not have to post his reasons in public, but unless he
can
> demonstrate that group process has been harmed, I think this remains
a
> personal matter for him.
>
> Nancy
Well, there's got to be a good study in internet behavior. There's a
psychology group on internet behavior, though I've never looked at it.
Probably the research has never been done, but I suspect there are
plenty of opportunities, if one gets a notion of where to begin. In my
own mind, I've compared it to freeway behavior and CB radio behavior.
However, one can usually just see the overall output, rather than the
true motives of the individuals involved.
Concepts in family therapy and social psychology would probably apply,
and possibly make a little more sense of it all, in a meta sort of way.
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Gene Douglas wrote:
>
> I once had a client who liked to fight with her husband, and who was
> frustrated because he would give up too easily. He would take the
> blame, declare her the winner, and comply with her wishes, before she
> felt she was finished. She didn't like to win under those
> circumstances. She wanted to win a battle in which he had fought to the
> last breath, and then succumbed, and she could feel like a true victor.
I don't know the circumstances for your particular clients, but it seems
to me that marital arguments are not about winning and losing. It seems
more likely to me that a wife would be upset in these circumstances
because she felt the husband had not listened to and heard her side of
things. His giving in without a fight is a way of telling her he doesn't
want to listen or be involved with finding a mutually satisfying
resolution to the conflict. It is a stupid, passive aggressive maneuver.
Evidence of such a maneuver would be if he felt satisfaction in denying
her the chance to feel like a "true victor." Characterizing arguments in
these terms doesn't help marriages much, in my opinion.
>
> Problem is, he never agreed to play that game. He would rather have
> peace in the family, and being called "pathetic" didn't seem to him like
> a constructive discussion.
But it sounds to me like he was playing the game, just using different
tactics than the wife. Name calling doesn't help, but avoiding conflict in
a marriage doesn't work either. I would wager that his attempts at "peace"
did not actually gain him any peace in the family.
Nancy
Curio...@hotmail.com
In article <34B92BC6...@binus.com>,
st...@binus.com wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
> Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado wrote:
N > I find the attempts to reform the behavior of the group to be as
>much an example of the negative process Yalom describes above,
> as is the behavior these individuals wish to exclude from the group.
It's quite obvious you aren't concerned in the slightest about reforming
the behavior of your more abusive friends here and that it is your
job to think of ways to rationalize it, espcially for unsuspecting
folks who haven't watched you do this over a period of time.
It appears to me your intent is to keep this a closed system.
You do this by supporting the conduct of the more abusive people
in this group who blatantly try to stop people from posting messages
if it is contrary to their own political position.
They perform a function for you because you apparently hold
the same political position (her friend is "Betsey Loftus"). You don't
have to get your hands too dirty because they do the dirty work
for you and then you excuse their behavior.
Therefore, you are interested in reforming certain peoples behavior,
just as long as it suits your purposes.
Your pretense to "openess" and neutral objectivity is absurd
given your defense and justification of Michael Aquino's lawsuit and,
more recently, the defense and justification for John Price's
(your co-moderator of sppm) attempt to exclude my posts about
the FMSF from the entire internet when he illegally cancelled
several of them when I wasn't even posting to your moderated
newsgroup.
You people formed your own newsgroup, but because there
weren't enough people posting there for you to practice your
thought-reform techniques on and to control you and your friends
continued to post in this unmoderated newsgroup. Your friends
continued to use abusive tactics here and you continued to excuse
them.
Kevin, your observations are correct except I think what's going on
here is far worse than a mere "dysfunctional" system reflecting
unconscious processes. There's clearly more of a conscious
orchestration and pattern of deception to it, which about 8 people
are actively involved in here. It's more like an attempt at a
mini-cult group dynamic along with intimidation tactics.
You have to watch it for a while in order to understand it.
Many of us have learned how to work around it.
See my "corruption in Sci.psychology" post.
Curio
***
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
crep...@hotmail.com
In article <69brlg$n2d$1...@news.smart.net>,
f...@oceanDELETETHISstar.com (Fiona Webster) wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > Here's why: people with personality disorders are often treated poorly by
> > mental health professionals (I admit this, even though I am a psychiatrist),
> > and such people may well come into this newsgroup with an ax to grind. If
> > they then make a fuss and generate invective, etc., they are simply being
> > themselves. Personality-disordered people are famous for generating uproar
> > in group settings. Everyone knows that.
>
> Cheryl replied:
> >I didn't know that. Do you mean that personality-disordered people who
> >feel they have been mistreated, or abused, or have been the recipient of
> >an injustice will cause dissent in a group setting or cause uproar
> >moreso than someone not classified as having a personality disorder but
> >who also has been mistreated, abused, etc.?
>
> Yes, as a general observation, that's what I meant.
Uh oh. As a self-respecting schizoid, I feel thrown in with a bunch of
borderlines and antisocials--a place I shouldn't be.
> >Or do you mean that all
> >personality-disordered people, regardless of how they have been treated
> >will cause problems moreso than someone who isn't classified as having a
> >personality disorder?
>
> Yes, as a general observation, I meant that, too.
Oh, there it is again. I assure you that I am perfectly harmless in this
respect. Also, dependents and histrionics can be pleasant, or even
entertaining, company. And let's not forget the meek little avoidants.
Now, I am generalizing of course, but am doing so to make my point.
>
> I used the term "personality disorder" because Kevin used it, and
> I was responding to his posting. Perhaps what I said would make
> more sense if I'd said "borderline"
Yes, I certainly think so.
--or some other signifier that
> would point to those people whose personality disorders manifest
> partly in the form of flamboyant and combative behavior.
>
> >If so, could you please site your sources
> >(studies, papers, etc.) which confirm this?
>
> I know I'm going to sound like Dr. McCoy on "Star Trek" ("I'm a doctor,
> not a..."), but here goes: I'm a psychiatrist, not a researcher, so I say
> things on the basis of clinical experience and general reading in the field.
> I can't cite chapter and verse. But the observation that "borderlines" (I put
> that in quotes because I don't want my casual remarks here to send us
> off on a tangent about labels) tend, inadvertently, to agitate and polarize
> the people around them, is hardly controversial. It's well-known among
> mental health professionals.
As a mental health professional, you probably do not see many schizoids
or other "lower key" personality-disordered people. All "personality
disorder" means to me is that I deal with life in a very rigid way, which
may occassionally be self defeating and interfere with my functioning.
(But I'm pretty functional--especially when left alone. There are some
things, however, that I know I will never be able to do. But isn't this
the case for most everyone?) The point is, personality-disordered does
not automatically imply "difficult."
>
> Don't get me wrong: I'm very sympathetic toward "borderlines" who've been
> misunderstood and mishandled by therapists (of any stripe). I think it's
> egregious that many therapists (and non-therapist doctors) are not
> well-trained in how to deal with them. So I'm just saying, in response
> to Kevin's posting, that if they show up here, and make a fuss, and
> agitate other people, that's hardly big news. It's par for the course.
> Instead of complaining about it or saying it's evidence of a
> "dysfunctional" group, let's just live with it, deal with it, and above all,
> be as positive and compassionate as we can be.
>
> --Fiona Webster
I agree. I have seen how some mental health professionals regard
borderline patients. It's utterly disrespectful. And it's not completely
limited to borderlines. I've seen such treatment accorded narcissistic
patients. I, for one, will not subject myself to "treatment", as I do
not see the need or purpose for it. Best of luck to those who do.
Crepitis, who is a tad autistic, I think, because this is probably what
schizoid PD really is.
Gene Douglas
crep...@hotmail.com wrote:
skip
> Crepitis, who is a tad autistic, I think, because this is probably
what
> schizoid PD really is.
>
Check out aspberger's syndrome.
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.
How about Asperger's syndrome.
This post was knowledgeably written. Do you really think this person
doesn't know what Asperger's syndrome is?
Nancy
Gene Douglas
Got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
John Clark
Fiona Webster wrote:
> I can't cite chapter and verse. But the observation that
> "borderlines" (I put
> that in quotes because I don't want my casual remarks here to send us
> off on a tangent about labels) tend, inadvertently, to agitate and
> polarize
> the people around them, is hardly controversial. It's well-known
> among
> mental health professionals.
I'm tending to think that political activists are 'boardline
personalities' in
general, if not actually disordered. It is only after the dust clears,
that a
political 'disruptive' person can be judged 'of benefit to the society',
otherwise most political actions cause some disruption, and 'debilitate'
the activist in some way relative to being a 'functional' individual in
the society.
Even then, the person may be disordered, but because the 'benefit' of
the disruption of 'the way things are done' is finally seen, the
'disorded'
status is insignficant.
Of course if the disordered, or borderline person gets a number of
people to commit suicide, they are adjudged disordered and life goes on.
Hence 'society' wins in both cases, benefits derive from disordered
persons
coming up with sufficient 'disruption' for beneficial change, or, at
least
'shining examples of why society needs to control them'.
I don't know how change could be effected in a beautific future where
all
disordered person were treated to be benign and never disruptive to the
way things are as is seen fitting by those who would treat disorder.
Maybe nice polite commitees with only repectful disputes would be the
venue for change... sort of like the brutish house of lawrds...
John Clark
Would this be kwazymutuality...
Ed Anderson wrote:
> be vulnerable, in other words. I won't hold my breath for that to
> happen, not least because I realize we've got some personality
> disordered individuals on board, who aren't known for their ability to
>
> do the things I mentioned.
crep...@hotmail.com
In article <34BCD0...@prodigy.net>,
Gene...@prodigy.net wrote:
>
> crep...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> skip
>
> > Crepitis, who is a tad autistic, I think, because this is probably
> what
> > schizoid PD really is.
> >
>
> Check out aspberger's syndrome.
Hi Gene,
Thanks. I have, in great detail, and believe that mild Asperger's is
probably a good diagnosis for me. In all likelihood, mild AS equals
schizoid PD. Of course, there is some debate about this in clinical
psychiatry/psychology.
Crepitis
GTV3419
Nancy writes:
>I think a content analysis over the past year would show that >content
increases along with the noise, not that content >diminishes as noise
increases.
I disagree with this, although I've no desire to do any content analysis, if
you're referring to posts by, to, or about Brad as "noise" and to posts not by,
to, or about Brad as "content". Maybe, though, you're including Brad's kook
ramblings as content.
Nancy writes:
> I have wanted a group that discusses scientific psychology. It >doesn't
exist in Usenet.
Try sci.psychology.research. No posts seen there by Brad, those with deviant
behaviors, or any other distractors diagnosed with personality disorders,
schizophrenia or DID. Sounds exactly like what you're looking for.
Nancy writes:
> It is our duty as professionals to make the general public aware >of
pseudo-science and potentially harmful cons masquerading as >psychology.
Yes, please, as we're too dysfunctional or dumb to figure it out on our own.
One of the ng's distractions . . .
Curio...@hotmail.com
In article <19980115092...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
gtv...@aol.com (GTV3419) wrote:
> Nancy writes:
>I think a content analysis over the past year would show that content
>increases along with the noise, not that content diminishes as noise
>increases.
Actually Nancy, we don't know that because Price was cancelling my
posts and you were in favor of it. So how does that jive with your
"objectivity."
G>I disagree with this, although I've no desire to do any content
>analysis, if you're referring to posts by, to, or about Brad as
>"noise" and to posts not by, to, or about Brad as "content". Maybe,
>though, you're including Brad's kook ramblings as content.
Perhaps you should include Peter Hood's "kook" rambling. He appears
about ready to "lose it." All this focussing on Brad's behavior and
making him the IP is really not fair or accurate.
> Nancy writes:
> I have wanted a group that discusses scientific psychology. It doesn't
exist in Usenet.
(cut)
> Nancy writes:
> It is our duty as professionals to make the general public aware of
> pseudo-science and potentially harmful cons masquerading as psychology.
Oh please. How about your own. You appear to be one of the biggest psyche
cons I've seen in awhile. Just your simple inability to orchestrate a
cohesive story between your support of Price's censorship and your
attempts to confuse Kevin about your openness is ample evidence enough.
You were in favor of censoring information about the FMSF. Therefore, you
are lying about wanting to educate the public about pseudo-science.
Curio
***
David van der Want
Hey Kevin,
I like your style.
Kevin
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. wrote:
[...]
> The frustration is relevant because Kevin seems to suggest that those who
> respond play into and feed the volume level.
This can't be anything but true. For me, the opposite of love isn't
hate, it's indifference. If people here can't divest from the battlers,
they're getting something out of it (and I've offered a number of
explanations for why this is; you added your own, 'entertainment').
You decide just how deeply embedded in the psyche that 'it' is.
For many people, conflict and crisis are grounding, organizing. To some
degree, that's true for me too.
[...]
> I have argued before and do again that learning theory terms are not an
> appropriate analysis for Brad's behavior. He is not motivated by the
> responses, but has other internal motivations that are satisfied by the
> act of posting and seeing his words on screen.
I think this is a very serious misrepresentation of the problem, which -
let's remember - you seem to believe doesn't exist, making this
discussion quite empty. Anyway, I do think this is a very telescoped
interpretation, to simply state that Brad's behavior is internally
generated, as though the individuals who interact with him here are
simply victims of his internal derangement. As I've stated in another
post, Brad does not exist in a vacuum; while his need to discharge and
represent himself in particulars ways may be internal, these motivations
are the product of a relational dynamic with others, and can only be
expressed through that medium. Clearly, he has found a nice home here.
This understanding reflects both systems theory and - one of my
favorites - Surrey's feminist self-in-relation theory, the central tenet
of which is that all human behavior, all development, is sprung from the
relational matrix.
[...]
> Brad's posting varies more as a result of his own internal mood states,
> than as a result of the provocation and reward.
I'll be honest: I find this splitting of hairs strategic: it absolves
you, maybe others, from your own part in sustaining the, er,
entertainment. Brad serves some purpose for the people who engage him.
This, I think, explains why they are vested in keeping it going.
Covered earlier in this thread are my reasons for caring about this.
[...]
> The problem with passive aggressive approaches is not the approach itself,
> but the denial of responsibility and the lack of directness or openness of
> the person using such approaches.
In my clinical training, I came to see passive aggressive behavior as a
defense, a way to go around expressing anger, for whatever reasons. And
we know it takes some courage, that persons need to feel safe, in order
to be angry directly. We can't blame them: at its root, pa is like
other manipulations: an attempt to survive a hostile and unyielding
relational environment.
That said, I think you're quite wrong in concluding that attempts at
understanding group process are passive aggressive. At best, it signals
a failure of understanding; at worst, it's a deliberate effort to close
discussion, control information, protect some hidden system of
agreement, alliance. Honestly, your reaction to all of this has
surprised me, claims of making the error of 'meta-communication'
notwithstanding.
In light of preceeding discussion, if you think that ignoring Brad is
simply being passive aggressive, then again I refer you to yourself.
> It is difficult to deal with someone who
> denies they are doing anything.
I agree.
> A person who says directly "I don't like
> being talked to in this manner so I am not going to participate any more"
> is being direct. A person who simply ignores another is not.
Only this: the explanation, especially in this medium, is - implicitly
- permission to engage. And lets remember, we only reserve this coutesy
for persons who can hear us, respond appropriately.
Gene wrote:
> > The problem is how it is conducted.
Nancy wrote:
> Well I strongly disagree with this. But let me ask you how you decide what
> rules for argument should prevail in an environment where each individual
> enters with a different previous experience?
If the isssue is founded on the belief that usenet is anarchy, then a
discussion of rules is moot. It seems, Nancy, that you're searching for
a silver bullet in all this, only that doesn't exist but in how the
people here accept responsibility for their own behavior. Again, it's
not about personality, it's about interaction. As Gene stated, the
quality of interaction is critical.
>Why should yours or Kevin's
> rules for argument be inflicted on everyone else in this group simply
> because you or he decide the others are not behaving properly?
That's right, I free lance as Ms. Manners and there's been a complaint
about you... lol. No one's inflicting anything, Love. Do what you want
and try to be more aware of what you're doing.
We really are at an impasse if you think this ng isn't stuck, and
there's the wall I perceive.
[..]
> Maybe what we need is a rule against meta-communication rather than a rule
> against name-calling.
Why do you often fall back onto the formation and enforcement of
'rules'? And why would you, or anyone, want to inhibit communication,
meta or otherwise? The onus of responsibility to conduct one's self
with propriety is on the sender.
[...]
> It troubles me that you and Kevin feel that whatever your opinion is must
> also be the opinion of the lurkers.
I think any reasonable person would be put-off by a first time random
sampling of posts. I stayed because I saw one thread that intrigued me;
that and because you reached out to me in pvt e-mail, which I'm still
very thankful for.
> They are capable of speaking for
> themselves.
Why do people lurk? IMO it has to do with feeling safe, welcomed... Is
it difficult for you to parse why that might not be the case? For the
record, I don't think lurkers who finally summon the courage to post
their alarm about how the group behaves are very welcomed here: not a
week goes by that one or two post a nasty critique before leaving.
These people are saying something worth hearing. A failure to grasp
this fact will maintain things the way they are now. Sad, IMO.
Kevin
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a
habit." - Aristotle
John Clark
Kevin wrote:
> Why do people lurk? IMO it has to do with feeling safe, welcomed... Is
> it difficult for you to parse why that might not be the case? For the
> record, I don't think lurkers who finally summon the courage to post
> their alarm about how the group behaves are very welcomed here: not a
> week goes by that one or two post a nasty critique before leaving.
I have no idea why people lurk. I have some guesses. One of which may be
the 'hospitality wagon', another could be vicarious entertainment, nothing to
say, or find others saying what is felt by the lurker, but better.
If they are looking for some support on some issue, then perhaps this is the
wrong place.
It seems that part of the 'volatility' seen here stems from closely held beliefs
about 'what causes current difficulties'.
Some people seem to feel satisfied that 'abuse X is it', and then feel a need
for
some sort of 'support group'. If that's what they are 'lurking for', they may
not find it in this group.
It is one think to ask 'how does one go about proving causality in a scientific
way', and quite another to state emphatically, 'you folks are a bunch of
shitheads because you don't believe me'.
I believe the reason there is so great a problem which correlation is because
correlation and superstition are closely related. In fact most folk wisdom
is based on correlation. That coupled with the belief that if only one
theory is offered, it must be the most likely one to be true, sort of an
Occam's rasorstrap appraoch, that one can only sharpen one rasor at
a time, hence the rasor in the hand is the only rasor to be sharpend.
(Or alternatively, use the strap to beat the hell out of any alternatives.)
So, if a lurker doesn't like being confronted with questions of proof,
alternative hypotheses, or perhaps even alternative conjectures, and
hypotheses that do not reenforce beliefs... I could see them leave
in disgust.
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Kevin wrote:
> Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > The frustration is relevant because Kevin seems to suggest that those who
> > respond play into and feed the volume level.
>
> This can't be anything but true. For me, the opposite of love isn't
> hate, it's indifference. If people here can't divest from the battlers,
> they're getting something out of it (and I've offered a number of
> explanations for why this is; you added your own, 'entertainment').
> You decide just how deeply embedded in the psyche that 'it' is.
Be fair, Kevin. I suggested a whole list of other explanations, which I
will not repeat here.
>
> For many people, conflict and crisis are grounding, organizing. To some
> degree, that's true for me too.
This was not on my list.
>
> [...]
>
> > I have argued before and do again that learning theory terms are not an
> > appropriate analysis for Brad's behavior. He is not motivated by the
> > responses, but has other internal motivations that are satisfied by the
> > act of posting and seeing his words on screen.
>
> I think this is a very serious misrepresentation of the problem, which -
> let's remember - you seem to believe doesn't exist, making this
> discussion quite empty. Anyway, I do think this is a very telescoped
> interpretation, to simply state that Brad's behavior is internally
> generated, as though the individuals who interact with him here are
> simply victims of his internal derangement. As I've stated in another
> post, Brad does not exist in a vacuum; while his need to discharge and
> represent himself in particulars ways may be internal, these motivations
> are the product of a relational dynamic with others, and can only be
> expressed through that medium. Clearly, he has found a nice home here.
Please do not exaggerate. I said he is more strongly motived by internals
than by externals. I did not say the externals had no effect on him. Just
that ignoring him wouldn't work because he is still reinforced by the
internals.
>
> This understanding reflects both systems theory and - one of my
> favorites - Surrey's feminist self-in-relation theory, the central tenet
> of which is that all human behavior, all development, is sprung from the
> relational matrix.
According to such a theory, how could anything I might say possibly be
correct? Your theory does not allow for any explanation inconsistent with
it -- the definition of an unfalsifiable theory. You have conveniently
applied a theory that means you will always be right no matter what.
>
> [...]
>
> > Brad's posting varies more as a result of his own internal mood states,
> > than as a result of the provocation and reward.
>
> I'll be honest: I find this splitting of hairs strategic: it absolves
> you, maybe others, from your own part in sustaining the, er,
> entertainment. Brad serves some purpose for the people who engage him.
> This, I think, explains why they are vested in keeping it going.
> Covered earlier in this thread are my reasons for caring about this.
You forget that people have already tried ignoring Brad. I am speaking
from my observation of what happens when Brad is ignored. You haven't
addressed what I said. He gets noisier, he answers his own posts, he
attacks innocents seeking advice/help in mean ways. When no one speaks to
him, he generates endless p.p.s's to his own statements, reposts his
consumer advocate manifesto, and so on. He has lots of ways to keep
himself going. Further, he is reinforced by the activity on the other
newsgroups he posts to even when he is not answered here. How might you
enforce this ban you seek so that he truly is not reinforced?
I do not believe it is Brad that bothers you. For some reason, the
behavior of those who answer him bothers you. I cannot speculate on why
that is, but I do invite you to consider the question. If I were guessing
about why someone might feel that way, I might suggest that it seems
embarrassing to be associated in a newsgroup with others who bicker with a
kook. I might suggest that one's professional stature is diminished when
other professionals don't live up to a high standard of empathy and
exemplary social interaction. I might suggest that perhaps a person is
worried about being mistaken for one of the inmates and lacking the white
coats and badges customary in mental health workplaces is unsure how to
distinguish the healthy from the less healthy and doesn't want there to be
any confusion about who is who. Any of these fit?
> That said, I think you're quite wrong in concluding that attempts at
> understanding group process are passive aggressive. At best, it signals
> a failure of understanding; at worst, it's a deliberate effort to close
> discussion, control information, protect some hidden system of
> agreement, alliance. Honestly, your reaction to all of this has
> surprised me, claims of making the error of 'meta-communication'
> notwithstanding.
If these attempts were not accompanied by what I see as attempts to direct
the behavior of others here, I might agree with you. I continue to fail to
see how disagreeing with you is an attempt to "close discussion" etc.
This may surprise you, but that is perhaps because you have not been
reading this group long. I have posted on the theme of therapists
mistaking cultural differences in communication styles for pathology in
the past. I have also posted on the topic of what to do about Brad, and
what is fair to assume about him from his posts. I have posted about not
therapizing people who have not asked for it (which I see you as doing
in this thread) and about therapists' right to behave untherapeutically
when off-duty.
I see systems explanations as a means to an end -- useful for explaining
miscommunication in certain contexts to the individuals seeking help. I do
not see them as useful theories about why problems occur, especially not
when the analogy between group behavior and newsgroup behavior fails in
crucial elements, as has been pointed out here by several others.
>
> In light of preceeding discussion, if you think that ignoring Brad is
> simply being passive aggressive, then again I refer you to yourself.
I see your attempt to psychologize this group in order to control the
behavior of posters whose style you don't like as passive aggressive. I
also see ignoring Brad as cruel in effect and hostile in motivation. The
passive part arises because it is cloaked in therapeutic terminology.
I have no idea what you mean when you refer me to myself. I think I am
being very direct in expressing my views to you (and to Brad). I have the
right to do both and am not disguising my views as anything other than
what they are -- my opinion.
>
> Only this: the explanation, especially in this medium, is - implicitly
> - permission to engage. And lets remember, we only reserve this coutesy
> for persons who can hear us, respond appropriately.
I do not understand what you mean by this. No one waits for, requests, or
is otherwise given permission to engage another in a public newsgroup.
E-mail is different, but that isn't what anyone has been talking about.
When you speak about reserving a courtesy for those who can respond
appropriately, I think that presumes a judgment about what is appropriate
and whether a person meets that criterion. Imposing that on someone when
the only evidence is posts cannot provide enough information to make such
a judgment. It seems to me you are again suggesting diagnosing people --
this time with respect to appropriate hearing and responding. I do not
understand why you are unwilling to just engage all comers without making
these kinds of diagnostic judgments. That leads me back to the
egalitarianism issue. Why should we insist that someone meet any standard
in order to earn the right to be conversed with here?
You, of course, have the right to pick and choose who you will respond to
and what you will say. You have no control over who reads and responds to
you. You have no control over the posting behavior of anyone else, except
when violations of netiquette occur that are of concern to ISPs. That's
what the internet is -- including this group. I'm sure you understand the
futility of trying to control something that you cannot influence. My
question to you is -- why do you wish to?
>
> Why do people lurk? IMO it has to do with feeling safe, welcomed... Is
> it difficult for you to parse why that might not be the case? For the
> record, I don't think lurkers who finally summon the courage to post
> their alarm about how the group behaves are very welcomed here: not a
> week goes by that one or two post a nasty critique before leaving.
Who is welcome anywhere when they approach a new group with criticism? And
I think you are exaggerating the frequency of the nastygrams. They occur
whenever Brad gets most vocal, certainly not weekly. The last spate of
them occurred during the bickering over moderation.
When I first observed the treatment of Brad in this group, as a lurker, I
sent private e-mail to Leslie, Paul B. and a few others expressing my
concerns. They explained the history of Brad. I watched for a while and
saw that they were largely correct. While I do not agree with Leslie's
matching strategy, she has the training and the cites to back up her
claims to its efficacy. I also saw that Brad backed down and became
quieter (after initially becoming much louder). That speaks louder to me
than your vague assertions that ignoring him will help the group dynamic.
My concern is that if he is ignored, people assume he is (1) a
professional as he claims to be, (2) accepted by others here, and (3) that
his posts responding to himself represent meaningful support for his style
and substance. I have tried being silent only to be drawn into the thread
by a newbie whose post indicates one of the above misunderstandings. Now I
jump in whenever he posts something I consider dangerous to the field or
seriously mistaken as to fact. The idea that deviant, malicious, problem
individuals should be ignored by societies ignores the fact that ignoring
is frequently taken as agreement, condoning, acceptance of behavior. In
this, of all groups, I do not want that to occur simply to maintain a
gentler atmosphere. I admire people who speak out even when it carries a
personal cost. I do not think we should stand by and let Brad characterize
the field of psychotherapy because the professionals are too busy or too
well-mannered to maintain a more visible presence here.
>
> These people are saying something worth hearing. A failure to grasp
> this fact will maintain things the way they are now. Sad, IMO.
I would agree with that if they came into the group saying anything
substantive -- anything other than complaint. People already here are also
saying things worth hearing. If lurkers are unwilling to recognize and
join in such threads, good riddance to them. Maybe you and Ed can form a
mailing list support group for those who find the internet too unfriendly?
I think Brad might be willing to join. Curio and David Van Want have also
expressed agreement with your posts and might be willing to join in too.
Out of curiosity, have you received much behind the scenes e-mail support
from lurkers who are grateful that you're expressing their views? I've
only seen the kooks chiming in publicly.
Nancy
John M Price
In article <34BFB8...@earthlink.net> Kevin <khur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. wrote:
[snip]
: > Brad's posting varies more as a result of his own internal mood states,
: > than as a result of the provocation and reward.
: I'll be honest: I find this splitting of hairs strategic:
Ok, just how many years have you been reading him?
[snip]
: Why do people lurk? IMO it has to do with feeling safe, welcomed... Is
: it difficult for you to parse why that might not be the case?
Parse? Really? I think you have used the wrong word here, and I will
refrain as to what the motives might be. I really don't think that even a
generous application of 'minute examination' applies.
[snip]
And I am still waiting for an analysis of, say, sci.skeptic. After all,
you do want to be rational and compare. Much better than simple hot air.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
We may get our facts wrong, but one thing is for sure, if we believe in
something, we will stick to that belief.
-Lew Kian Peng<kian...@po.pacific.net.sg>,
arguing in favor of the execution of Canadian
for marijuana possesion
Gene Douglas
John Clark wrote:
skip
> So, if a lurker doesn't like being confronted with questions of
proof,
> alternative hypotheses, or perhaps even alternative conjectures, and
> hypotheses that do not reenforce beliefs... I could see them leave
> in disgust.
Or perhaps attacks on their person, or crafty game playing in the guise
of the above...
Gene Douglas
Kevin wrote:
>
> Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > The frustration is relevant because Kevin seems to suggest that
those who
> > respond play into and feed the volume level.
>
> This can't be anything but true. For me, the opposite of love isn't
> hate, it's indifference.
All I can say is so what? Why is any poster obligated to demonstrate
that he loves another, or "neglecting" something if he is indifferent?
If people here can't divest from the battlers,
> they're getting something out of it (and I've offered a number of
> explanations for why this is; you added your own, 'entertainment').
> You decide just how deeply embedded in the psyche that 'it' is.
>
> For many people, conflict and crisis are grounding, organizing. To
some
> degree, that's true for me too.
>
In other words, you like to kick butt, and perhaps that's a motivation
for your arguments other than a disagreement on the facts or reasoning
of an idea. But maybe the person who supplies the butt doesn't relish
that game. And perhaps neither do the onlookers, other than those who
habitually do the same themselves.
> [...]
>
> > I have argued before and do again that learning theory terms are
not an
> > appropriate analysis for Brad's behavior. He is not motivated by
the
> > responses, but has other internal motivations that are satisfied by
the
> > act of posting and seeing his words on screen.
>
> I think this is a very serious misrepresentation of the problem,
which -
> let's remember - you seem to believe doesn't exist, making this
> discussion quite empty. Anyway, I do think this is a very telescoped
> interpretation, to simply state that Brad's behavior is internally
> generated, as though the individuals who interact with him here are
> simply victims of his internal derangement. As I've stated in
another
> post, Brad does not exist in a vacuum; while his need to discharge
and
> represent himself in particulars ways may be internal, these
motivations
> are the product of a relational dynamic with others, and can only be
> expressed through that medium. Clearly, he has found a nice home
here.
>
Like a cockroach in your kitchen?
> This understanding reflects both systems theory and - one of my
> favorites - Surrey's feminist self-in-relation theory, the central
tenet
> of which is that all human behavior, all development, is sprung from
the
> relational matrix.
>
> [...]
>
> > Brad's posting varies more as a result of his own internal mood
states,
> > than as a result of the provocation and reward.
>
> I'll be honest: I find this splitting of hairs strategic: it
absolves
> you, maybe others, from your own part in sustaining the, er,
> entertainment. Brad serves some purpose for the people who engage
him.
> This, I think, explains why they are vested in keeping it going.
> Covered earlier in this thread are my reasons for caring about this.
>
If there is a ng called brad.die.die.die, do you think that would be a
more appropriate place to do it?
> [...]
>
> > The problem with passive aggressive approaches is not the approach
itself,
> > but the denial of responsibility and the lack of directness or
openness of
> > the person using such approaches.
>
> In my clinical training, I came to see passive aggressive behavior as
a
> defense, a way to go around expressing anger, for whatever reasons.
And
> we know it takes some courage, that persons need to feel safe, in
order
> to be angry directly. We can't blame them: at its root, pa is like
> other manipulations: an attempt to survive a hostile and unyielding
> relational environment.
>
Perhaps the p.a. person has learned that he is safe if he has denial.
Or that he has power over certain things, such as not doing a task upon
which another depends, but does not have power over a confrontation
which is likely to go out of his control.
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.
On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Gene Douglas wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
> >
> > Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. wrote:
> >
> >
> > For many people, conflict and crisis are grounding, organizing. To
> some
> > degree, that's true for me too.
> >
> In other words, you like to kick butt, and perhaps that's a motivation
> for your arguments other than a disagreement on the facts or reasoning
> of an idea. But maybe the person who supplies the butt doesn't relish
> that game. And perhaps neither do the onlookers, other than those who
> habitually do the same themselves.
>
Kevin said this, not me. I haven't seen him do any butt-kicking here and
he seems to be advocating against it in his previous posts.
> motivations
> > are the product of a relational dynamic with others, and can only be
> > expressed through that medium. Clearly, he has found a nice home
> here.
> >
> Like a cockroach in your kitchen?
That's a pretty mean-spirited remark, in my opinion.
< snip of parts I don't want to comment on>
> Perhaps the p.a. person has learned that he is safe if he has denial.
> Or that he has power over certain things, such as not doing a task upon
> which another depends, but does not have power over a confrontation
> which is likely to go out of his control.
I agree with this.
> > Why do you often fall back onto the formation and enforcement of
> > 'rules'? And why would you, or anyone, want to inhibit
> communication,
> > meta or otherwise? The onus of responsibility to conduct one's self
> > with propriety is on the sender.
Kevin said this about me. I bring up rules because he was the one talking
about the hidden dynamics and power relationships in the group. I have
clearly been arguing against such rules.
Nancy
John Clark
Gene Douglas wrote:
> John Clark wrote:
>
> Or perhaps attacks on their person, or crafty game playing in the guise
> of the above...
I may play on words, and make leading statements, but you are a master
at attacks on their person. You seem to require a general pissing contest
every time a person mentions that they have some credentials, and makes
some statement you disagree with.
Gene Douglas
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Gene Douglas wrote:
>
> > Kevin wrote:
> > >
> > > Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. wrote:
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > motivations
> > > are the product of a relational dynamic with others, and can
only be
> > > expressed through that medium. Clearly, he has found a nice
home
> > here.
> > >
> > Like a cockroach in your kitchen?
>
>
> < snip of parts I don't want to comment on>
>
skip
>
> > > Why do you often fall back onto the formation and enforcement of
> > > 'rules'? And why would you, or anyone, want to inhibit
> > communication,
> > > meta or otherwise? The onus of responsibility to conduct one's
self
> > > with propriety is on the sender.
>
> Kevin said this about me. I bring up rules because he was the one
talking
> about the hidden dynamics and power relationships in the group. I
have
> clearly been arguing against such rules.
>
> Nancy
When "Miss Manners" speaks of rules, she doesn't mean they are
enforceable by physical means. She refers to rules related to respect
and esteem from others, or the lack of that if they are broken.
I see no reason why cyber-space should be unique in that regard. If we
want to "enforce" a rule, we should simply make it clear that a lot of
people reject certain behaviors.
Peter
In article <dvdwant.22...@libarts.up.ac.za>, David van der Want
<dvd...@libarts.up.ac.za> writes
>Hey Kevin,
>
>I like your style.
Then you don't lurk very efficiently, do you?
-"-
>AMERICA ONLINE INC0RPORATED
>Kevin E. Duke
>Assistant General Counsel
<snip>
>Jeanette Runyon
<snip>
>June 6, 1997
>Dear Ms. Runyon,
>Your inquiries regarding the alleged postings of your personal
>information on the Internet were forwarded to this Department for
>review. Specifically' you indicated in your correspondence that Mr.
>Kevin Filan published your AOL account information on the Internet.
>
>We have investigated this matter and have determined that Kevin Filan
>has never been employed by America Online, but was an employee of
>DialAmerica Marketing, Inc., during the period covered by your
>inquiries. DialAmerica is an independent company that provides
>telemarketing service to America Online.
>
>It is our understanding that DialAmerica has terminated Mr. Filan's
>employment. You may wish to direct additional inquiries to Mr. Scott
>Williams of DialAmerica at 1-706-546-1881.
>
>We regret any inconvenience this situation may have caused you. If we
>can provide you with any further assistance in this matter, please
>feel free to contact us.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Kevin E. Duke
-"-
--
Peter
In article <dvdwant.22...@libarts.up.ac.za>, David van der Want
<dvd...@libarts.up.ac.za> writes
>I lurk in this group about once a week.
Peter
My Guardian Angel wrote to me, and he pointed out that I opened my
virtual mouth without first having put my brain in gear.
This was a case of mistaken identity, and I apologise unreservedly to
Kevin and to David van der Want.
In article <QzygTGAa...@wharton.demon.co.uk>, Peter
<Pe...@wharton.demon.co.uk+> writes
--
Peter
<To respond remove the "+" from my address; minor spam block.>
Kevin
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. wrote:
[...]
> Please do not exaggerate. I said he is more strongly motived by internals
> than by externals. I did not say the externals had no effect on him. Just
> that ignoring him wouldn't work because he is still reinforced by the
> internals.
Did you not understand my assertion that Brad's deviant behavior, while
sprung from an internal source, flourishes here because his cry is
answered ten-fold? He is being rewarded, not altered, by his legion of
responders. My point, after all, is that the responders are getting
something out of it, are vested in keeping it going, would likely be at
a loss of what do do with themselves if he actually did leave. I
realize this pov might be threatening to some here, but it's a honest
assessment.
I wrote:
> > This understanding reflects both systems theory and - one of my
> > favorites - Surrey's feminist self-in-relation theory, the central tenet
> > of which is that all human behavior, all development, is sprung from the
> > relational matrix.
You wrote:
> According to such a theory, how could anything I might say possibly be
> correct? Your theory does not allow for any explanation inconsistent with
> it -- the definition of an unfalsifiable theory. You have conveniently
> applied a theory that means you will always be right no matter what.
This was unintentional. What do you think of the theory? Are we not
the creations of relations?
[...]
> You forget that people have already tried ignoring Brad. I am speaking
> from my observation of what happens when Brad is ignored. You haven't
> addressed what I said. He gets noisier, he answers his own posts, he
> attacks innocents seeking advice/help in mean ways.
Gene posted a trenchent bit about rats, that the abusive behavior
escalates initially, drops off, then a second milder attempt, then
<viola> BradBeGone. It takes more of a comittment than this group has.
Why? Well, for the unpopular reasons I mentioned and ones you added:
now and again, Brad is right on, clinically; that and because he has a
style that is entertaining, engaging.
Again, I accept his presence here. I'm looking at the group, the daily
loss of expertise because of what happens here.
> How might you
> enforce this ban you seek so that he truly is not reinforced?
Moot point. My initial response wasn't about Brad, it was about his
'fans' and the question, 'What are they getting out of it?' And I'll be
honest, what I see from the pros here is problematic, for me. I'd have
a hard time refering clients to some of them. Why? They degrade
well-proven principles of psychology by engaging in conflict with a
verbally abusive person. And this: I believe that when you respond to
an abusive person in kind you nourish them, give them permission to
carry on. This is why I believe the responders are vested.
> I do not believe it is Brad that bothers you.
See above. It's the pros that bother me.
>For some reason, the
> behavior of those who answer him bothers you. I cannot speculate on why
> that is, but I do invite you to consider the question. If I were guessing
> about why someone might feel that way, I might suggest that it seems
> embarrassing to be associated in a newsgroup with others who bicker with a
> kook.
[...]
No, not embarassment. Surprise, maybe. I'm not sure how much I want to
explore my unconscious motives here... I'm surprised that a collective
of persons trained in psychology are contributors of and participants in
a group devoted to a person's pathology. Why haven't they extricated
themselves?, why the recurrent threats of litigation?, why not a ng that
does what it was founded to do? The mission of this group has wildly
veered off. Right?
That said, I'd offer - with some trepidation - that I feel the outsider
and perhaps this discussion is my point of entry, a manner of turning
attention to my own words. I'd caution anyone reading this last
statement to think twice before lifting it from context, trouncing me.
This hidden motive is just that, hidden, as a speculation, not as a
conscious, primary cause of my concern or reason for attempting to
examine group process here.
[...]
> This may surprise you, but that is perhaps because you have not been
> reading this group long. I have posted on the theme of therapists
> mistaking cultural differences in communication styles for pathology in
> the past. I have also posted on the topic of what to do about Brad, and
> what is fair to assume about him from his posts.
Perhaps while overlooking or being unaware of the reciprocal nature of
this difficulty you forgot to consider that Brad is about interaction?
There is a resistance to regarding the 'Brad Problem' as a shared one...
Missing from your equation, in such an assessment, is the purpose Brad
serves others. It takes balls to say it, but any review of the problem
would be fragmented, distorted, without a consideration of the shared
responsibility for why this ng is about a few persons and the others who
will set them straight.
> I have posted about not
> therapizing people who have not asked for it (which I see you as doing
> in this thread) and about therapists' right to behave untherapeutically
> when off-duty.
Both valid points, I think. You're right, spp didn't ask for an
assessment, and in that regard I'm quite uncertain... I think I tried to
evade this issue by, in part, avoiding personality. You are correct,
though.
> > In light of preceeding discussion, if you think that ignoring Brad is
> > simply being passive aggressive, then again I refer you to yourself.
>
> I see your attempt to psychologize this group in order to control the
> behavior of posters whose style you don't like as passive aggressive.
Whatever... I still haven't seen where you addressed the shared
responsibility of how this ng operates, degenerates. After you do, I'll
claim or disclaim passive aggressive charges.
>I
> also see ignoring Brad as cruel in effect and hostile in motivation.
I have to speculate, Nancy, that for whatever reasons you too need to
experience the continuation of the Theatre of Brad. Perhaps because
it's a group norm?, expected?... If so, by whom?
> I have no idea what you mean when you refer me to myself. I think I am
> being very direct in expressing my views to you (and to Brad). I have the
> right to do both and am not disguising my views as anything other than
> what they are -- my opinion.
You're a complex, incisive thinker, imo. Still, you have been unable to
release some system of alliance, some habit of attention, to see your
own and others' part in the Brad, er, difficulty. So I refer you to
yourself. In a quiet moment, ask yourself 'What do I get out of Brad?'
The answers, in a deep quiet, may surprise you. It may have to do with
your own particular role in this group.
[...]
> > Why do people lurk? IMO it has to do with feeling safe, welcomed... Is
> > it difficult for you to parse why that might not be the case? For the
> > record, I don't think lurkers who finally summon the courage to post
> > their alarm about how the group behaves are very welcomed here: not a
> > week goes by that one or two post a nasty critique before leaving.
[...]
>
> Who is welcome anywhere when they approach a new group with criticism?
Forest. Trees. See.
[..]
> When I first observed the treatment of Brad in this group, as a lurker, I
> sent private e-mail to Leslie, Paul B. and a few others expressing my
> concerns. They explained the history of Brad. I watched for a while and
> saw that they were largely correct.
This won't make me popular with them, but clearly Brad satisfies some
attentional need for them. Otherwise they wouldn't attend so well, so
lovingly, to him. Right? And it's not about nastiness on Brad's part;
it's about anger management, poorly attenuated at that. Anyone who says
'I'm going to match him dollar for dollar', needs to conflict, here. It
reflects poorly on them, imo.
While I do not agree with Leslie's
> matching strategy, she has the training and the cites to back up her
> claims to its efficacy.
re-read the earlier thread on intellectualization. Throwing your own
leg at a canibal will not stop their hunger.
> I also saw that Brad backed down and became
> quieter (after initially becoming much louder).
You consider what's at work now a moderate, reasonable presence? It's
out of control. The persons involved have feuled the problem, not
extinguished it. Go along if you like, but don't be deluded.
[...]
> Out of curiosity, have you received much behind the scenes e-mail support
> from lurkers who are grateful that you're expressing their views? I've
> only seen the kooks chiming in publicly.
That's immaterial to the discussion I was hoping to have. Simply, it's
none of your business. Pvt e-mail should be kept private and you'll
never see me act otherwise.
Kevin
'We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a
habit.' - Aristotle
Tim Brown
Kevin <khur...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Did you not understand my assertion that Brad's deviant behavior, while
>sprung from an internal source, flourishes here because his cry is
>answered ten-fold? He is being rewarded, not altered, by his legion of
>responders. My point, after all, is that the responders are getting
>something out of it, are vested in keeping it going, would likely be at
>a loss of what do do with themselves if he actually did leave. I
>realize this pov might be threatening to some here, but it's a honest
>assessment.
MY point is that it's wrong to harass Brad, so they should stop. The
people who harass him are the same people who threw the smaller kids into
urine puddles back when they were kids.
The people who harass Brad are exhibiting a complete lack of ethical
standards.
--
bath...@iglou.com http://members.iglou.com/bathroom Tantrum 95.7 FM
Read THE LAST WORD before the Kenton County Public LIEbrary censors it!
Annoy a conservative -- THINK!
*** Gatewood Galbraith for Governor 1999 ***
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Kevin wrote:
This just hit my server today, and I'm not sure when you wrote it. I
suspect a while ago, since this thread has been inactive for a while. I
couldn't help responding to this bit though:
>
> Gene posted a trenchent bit about rats, that the abusive behavior
> escalates initially, drops off, then a second milder attempt, then
> <viola> BradBeGone. It takes more of a comittment than this group has.
> Why? Well, for the unpopular reasons I mentioned and ones you added:
> now and again, Brad is right on, clinically; that and because he has a
> style that is entertaining, engaging.
I don't believe I said that Brad is right on clinically. He is not. He is
misinformed and misguided and has no understanding of clinical
interaction. He parrots ideas previously expressed by key figures in the
field, including Meehl, Dawes, and Mischel (long ago). He expresses
concerns about psychotherapy held by any conscientous member of the
profession and discussed in introductory psychology courses, at no higher
level than that in sophistication. His style is repulsive and far from
engaging.
If you truly feel these things about him, you either have not read him
sufficiently or you have been ingenuous in your previous discussion.
Gene's bit about rats was idiotic. He confused the spontaneous
reappearance of a previously extinguished classically conditioned
association with the response to be expected when an operant response is
initially unreinforced (increased effort to obtain reward followed by an
abrupt decrease in operant responding). I pointed out that there is never
a situation where Brad is unreinforced. You persist in thinking of the
responses to Brad as the only source of reinforcement. That is incorrect.
>
> Again, I accept his presence here. I'm looking at the group, the daily
> loss of expertise because of what happens here.
> verbally abusive person. And this: I believe that when you respond to
> an abusive person in kind you nourish them, give them permission to
> carry on. This is why I believe the responders are vested.
What about the situation with schoolyard bullies? Only responding in kind
deters them from victimizing others. What about the situation with those
who commit crimes? Ignorning them does not decrease their criminal
activity -- only meeting their anti-social acts with force designed to
coerce social cooperation works with them. Professionals are engaged in
therapy. Therapy has different goals than do other kinds of social
interactions. Meeting verbal abuse with verbal abuse may not achieve any
of the goals of therapy, but it may achieve other goals. What might those
goals be and why do you consider them inappropriate to pursue?
A less moot point is whether the response to Brad has been abusive in the
same way he has been. Aside from one or two instances of mutual
name-calling, I believe the response to Brad has been unfriendly but not
abusive. I think it might be worthwhile to examine your definition of
what constitutes verbal abuse. Is assertion of your own right to dignity
and respect against someone like Brad an instance of verbal abuse directed
toward him? Is it abuse to post his list of screen names or to point out
when he is lying by posting his own words? That does not strike me as
being the same thing as what Brad does. I see it more as confronting him
with reality and I do believe that professionals ought not to "collude
with a delusion."
> a group devoted to a person's pathology. Why haven't they extricated
> themselves?, why the recurrent threats of litigation?, why not a ng that
> does what it was founded to do? The mission of this group has wildly
> veered off. Right?
Why not post a few threads that you consider on-topic and see what happens
to them?
>
> Perhaps while overlooking or being unaware of the reciprocal nature of
> this difficulty you forgot to consider that Brad is about interaction?
> There is a resistance to regarding the 'Brad Problem' as a shared one...
> Missing from your equation, in such an assessment, is the purpose Brad
> serves others. It takes balls to say it, but any review of the problem
> would be fragmented, distorted, without a consideration of the shared
> responsibility for why this ng is about a few persons and the others who
> will set them straight.
Brad probably serves different purposes for different people. Why do you
use that term in the singular. I know what purpose he serves for me and I
am not inclined to share it. This newsgroup is not about a few persons but
you too make it so by defining it that way. There are many people in the
group and we all take turns setting each other straight. More time in the
group would make that dynamic clearer to you. You weren't here when Silke
was on my case about calling gang members criminals, or when the whole
group criticized me for wishing to exclude so-called clients from
discussion. Who does the criticizing and on what basis shifts regularly
depending on the content of the thread. No one is immune because no one
knows everything. This "setting straight" is part of the value of the
internet, in my opinion, because it is the way discussion builds. If you
think about it, there cannot be the kind of turn-taking that occurs in
normal conversation because the number of participants and the time
sequencing is screwed up on-line.
>
> Whatever... I still haven't seen where you addressed the shared
> responsibility of how this ng operates, degenerates. After you do, I'll
> claim or disclaim passive aggressive charges.
I don't see this newsgroup as much different than any other newsgroup on
the internet -- in many respects it is much better which is why I am here.
Shared responsibility seems inappropriate anyway because it implies
control over more than we each have the ability to affect. I am
responsible for my own actions -- that's all. If I can retreat from a
hostile post or not, then so can Brad or anyone else here. I do not accept
that responding to Brad makes me responsible for his actions. That, to me,
is a distortion of what responsibility means.
>
> I have to speculate, Nancy, that for whatever reasons you too need to
> experience the continuation of the Theatre of Brad. Perhaps because
> it's a group norm?, expected?... If so, by whom?
I've said that myself. I also said why. I refuse to permit Brad to be
viewed as a professional, as an exemplar of the field of psychotherapy
practioners, as an "expert" on things he knows little about. I also refuse
to convey the impression that his behavior is in any way condoned by the
rest of the group. He is a kook and he should be clearly identified as
such to those who surf through intermittently. Further, I refuse to permit
Brad's victims to bear their victimization alone. When you are targeted by
him, you will understand what it feels like and why it is important that
others know him for what he is.
>
> You're a complex, incisive thinker, imo. Still, you have been unable to
> release some system of alliance, some habit of attention, to see your
> own and others' part in the Brad, er, difficulty. So I refer you to
> yourself. In a quiet moment, ask yourself 'What do I get out of Brad?'
> The answers, in a deep quiet, may surprise you. It may have to do with
> your own particular role in this group.
All interactions are systems of alliance. I consider Brad to be the price
I have to pay in order to get to talk to the others here. I am not one of
the people who asks "where's Brad" when he disappears. Your implication
that you know something about what I might discover should I do this soul
searching (that you seem to also imply I neglect) is offensive because it
is invasive. It is a truism that my role here is constructed both from my
own actions and those of others. Whether I play the role I wish to play,
or the one I think I play, strikes me as pretty irrelevant. You assume I
have wished to release "some system of alliance or habit of attention". I
have not. That is your goal for us.
>
> Forest. Trees. See.
>
To see either you have to spend some time looking and have some basis for
making the identification. See? Have you thought much about why you are
having this discussion with me instead of with Brad?
> This won't make me popular with them, but clearly Brad satisfies some
> attentional need for them. Otherwise they wouldn't attend so well, so
> lovingly, to him. Right? And it's not about nastiness on Brad's part;
> it's about anger management, poorly attenuated at that. Anyone who says
> 'I'm going to match him dollar for dollar', needs to conflict, here. It
> reflects poorly on them, imo.
"Some attentional need" is just another way of saying that they have some
motivation for engaging him. Isn't that pretty obvious? Whether that is
pathological (on a group level) is a different question.
You attribute Leslie's matching strategy to poor anger management, but you
appear to be unaware that she is an expert in behavior management and
learning theory and has written a paper about the efficacy of using such a
strategy. Her posts rarely convey an angry tone, though they are sometimes
mocking. The only time I saw her truly angry was when Brad called her
patients retards and called her a child killer. That was in the context of
discussing her own child's attempted suicide, so I consider the
provocation to have been extreme. Accusing someone of poor anger
management under such provocation strikes me as unempathetic.
> re-read the earlier thread on intellectualization. Throwing your own
> leg at a canibal will not stop their hunger.
>
Intellectualization is a defense involving distancing through abstraction.
Leslie's paper included empirical testing of a theory that was not being
implemented in any context where she had a vested emotional interest. And
throwing your own leg at a cannibal will stop their hunger -- it just
won't help you any. Leslie certainly paid a price for becoming the focus
of Brad's anger, and as such she has deflected him from the rest of us.
She feels willing to do that precisely because she generally doesn't take
it personally. She is an advocate in real life and not thin-skinned. I
don't imagine she likes being involved with Brad but I don't think he
hurts her feelings (except for the times noted above).
The main dynamic that sustains release of anger is that there is a
reduction of tension that feels pleasurable and is thus reinforcing. To
feel that, you have to feel the anger in the first place. I think that
sustains Brad, but I don't see it in Leslie's posts usually. The other
dynamic that sustains anger is the feeling that one is less of a man if
one tolerates a slight without reprisal. Women don't tend to feel that --
it's a male thing. I definitely see that with Brad and some others here.
It is the same dynamic involved in road rage and Nisbett's recent study of
the increased incidence of violence where codes of honor are emphasized as
part of the definition of manhood.
> You consider what's at work now a moderate, reasonable presence? It's
> out of control. The persons involved have feuled the problem, not
> extinguished it. Go along if you like, but don't be deluded.
So, if I disagree with you I'm deluded?
> > Out of curiosity, have you received much behind the scenes e-mail support
> > from lurkers who are grateful that you're expressing their views? I've
> > only seen the kooks chiming in publicly.
>
> That's immaterial to the discussion I was hoping to have. Simply, it's
> none of your business. Pvt e-mail should be kept private and you'll
> never see me act otherwise.
>
That strikes me as a pretty convenient ethic. You could provide anonymous
quantitative summaries and still protect everyone's confidentiality.
Nancy
Cognitee
Dear Nancy,
I nearly have a second graduate degree in counseling. I know very well
the work of a counselor and have even had some practicum classes (using
fellow grad. students as clients). I have taught college students how to
do individual counseling and am highly well-reviewed by my students for my
thorough knowledge. I have studied abnormal p[sychology extensively and
have taught the college course several times. Your presentation, Nancy,
is nothing more than a mindless assertion of what you would like to say
and how you would like to aggress to be self-serving.
I would also add that my paper that was praised by Dawes, Ivey,
Barrett, Izard, Alvin Mahrer and others was WRITTEN BEFORE I READ DAWES
BOOK !! I am parroting no one.
The whole newsgroup has become an exercize in inappropriate aggression
against me and is an abuse of the entire world. I have very little (or
nothing) to do with this. This is how my opponents have chosen to respond
!! THEY ARE SHAMING THEMSELVES AND THEIR FIELD.
In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.98012...@psy.ucsd.edu>, "Nancy
Kevin
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado wrote:
[...]
> And I have just realized, thanks to Silke and Kevin, that I am actually trying to
> provoke you to inanity because you represent the brother I never had. By
> getting you to abuse me in public I feel more like I have a real sibling, recover
> the family I secretly long for and can replay in fantasy the family position I
> never had, thus completing myself. What a revelation!! I am deeply grateful
> for their suggestion to probe my dark secret depths and discover this. Now
> I can find the brother I yearn for any time I want just by yanking your chain.
> I think I'll do it more frequently.
No, no, no. *I* am the brother you never had; Brad is the third child
Mom and Dad sold to the gypsies so Dad could buy more of the drink. Now
Brad's back and he's pissed. Being the eldest, you feel guilty. As the
middle child, I can't stand the tension, so I find ways to get you to
stop feeling guilty, all the while avoiding my own feelings of guilt.
Please try to stick to the script.
Kevin
Cognitee
Dear Nancy,
I did point out I have had more than one practicum class. <-- This IS
doing counseling (many, many hours of it under the supervision of great
counselors and professors, with MUCH feedback and praise from them). I
also have ALL the book-learning of many Ph.D.s in the area and this DOES
matter.
About the psychodynamic "stuff": you're welcome.
In article <34CB0D40...@binus.com>, st...@binus.com wrote:
> Cognitee wrote:
>
> > Dear Nancy,
> > I nearly have a second graduate degree in counseling. I know very well
> > the work of a counselor and have even had some practicum classes (using
> > fellow grad. students as clients). I have taught college students how to
> > do individual counseling and am highly well-reviewed by my students for my
> > thorough knowledge. I have studied abnormal p[sychology extensively and
> > have taught the college course several times. Your presentation, Nancy,
> > is nothing more than a mindless assertion of what you would like to say
> > and how you would like to aggress to be self-serving.
>
> <sarcasm alert>
>
> My apologies Brad. I never realized you were so well trained. You are
obviously
> qualified to teach others how to do counseling, having almost earned a degree
> yourself and undoubtedly having attended many such sessions yourself.
> Learning something in class is, after all, close enough to real life
that your lack
>
> of any experience with clients would not matter. Silly of me to forget that.
>
> And I have just realized, thanks to Silke and Kevin, that I am actually
trying to
> provoke you to inanity because you represent the brother I never had. By
> getting you to abuse me in public I feel more like I have a real
sibling, recover
> the family I secretly long for and can replay in fantasy the family position I
> never had, thus completing myself. What a revelation!! I am deeply grateful
> for their suggestion to probe my dark secret depths and discover this. Now
> I can find the brother I yearn for any time I want just by yanking your chain.
> I think I'll do it more frequently.
>
> Nancy
Gene Douglas
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Kevin wrote:
>
> This just hit my server today, and I'm not sure when you wrote it. I
> suspect a while ago, since this thread has been inactive for a while.
I
> couldn't help responding to this bit though:
>
> >
> > Gene posted a trenchent bit about rats, that the abusive behavior
> > escalates initially, drops off, then a second milder attempt, then
> > <viola> BradBeGone. It takes more of a comittment than this group
has.
> > Why? Well, for the unpopular reasons I mentioned and ones you
added:
> > now and again, Brad is right on, clinically; that and because he
has a
> > style that is entertaining, engaging.
>
> Gene's bit about rats was idiotic.
Perhaps that's because Gene is idiotic. (Are you sure that Nancy isn't
another of Brad's aliases?)
He confused the spontaneous
> reappearance of a previously extinguished classically conditioned
> association with the response to be expected when an operant response
is
> initially unreinforced (increased effort to obtain reward followed by
an
> abrupt decrease in operant responding). I pointed out that there is
never
> a situation where Brad is unreinforced. You persist in thinking of
the
> responses to Brad as the only source of reinforcement. That is
incorrect.
>
The problem is that there is always more than one, and though one might
assume that if you ignore him he'll go away, there'll always be somebody
who doesn't, and somebody else in England who likes the fray, and wants
to keep it going.
However, consider what happened when Brad was gone for a while. Did the
others say, "wow, I'm glad that's over. Now we can get back to serious
business." No, it was, "Hello, Brad, where are you? If we can keep a
thread going saying bad things about you, maybe you'll come back." That
tells a lot.
As to whether his motivations are internal, consider what would happen
if his computer were broken. Would he just keep typing? No, if he
didn't get a response from others, he would simply give up.
> >
skip
>
> What about the situation with schoolyard bullies? Only responding in
kind
> deters them from victimizing others.
Assuming certain things, of course. Firstly, that you can. If the
bullies whip the crap out of you, responding in kind is a waste of time.
Secondly, that they will respond to resistance with extinction. I have
worked in two day treatment centers, one which also included
adolescents, and many of the kids keep it going forever, regardless of
retaliation by victims.
Gene Douglas
Kevin wrote:
>
> Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Please do not exaggerate. I said he is more strongly motived by
internals
> > than by externals. I did not say the externals had no effect on
him. Just
> > that ignoring him wouldn't work because he is still reinforced by
the
> > internals.
>
> Did you not understand my assertion that Brad's deviant behavior,
while
> sprung from an internal source, flourishes here because his cry is
> answered ten-fold? He is being rewarded, not altered, by his legion
of
> responders. My point, after all, is that the responders are getting
> something out of it, are vested in keeping it going, would likely be
at
> a loss of what do do with themselves if he actually did leave. I
> realize this pov might be threatening to some here, but it's a honest
> assessment.
>
standpoint, but of a behavioral view. Quite often people engage in
activity which they arbitrarily define as punishing, but which is
instead reinforcing.
This is often the case with yelling at a kid, or yelling at a spouse.
(He leaves his socks on the floor by the bed, she gives him lots of
(negative) attention, and he is encouraged to continue doing the same.
I once worked in a prison where segregation (being shot to the hole, as
they liked to say) was considered punishing. However, many inmates wore
it as a badge of honor. They stood up to an officer, their friends saw
them being walked to the "hole," and when they returned, they were a
"big man" in certain circles.
Among newspaper reporters, which once included me, I would have loved to
have been jailed for protecting the 1st amendment. I would have put it
on my resume, and that's much easier than getting a Pulitzer prize.
Peter
In article <34CB0D40...@binus.com>, "Daniel V. Stone/Nancy
Alvarado" <st...@binus.com> writes
>Cognitee wrote:
>
>> Dear Nancy,
>> I nearly have a second graduate degree in counseling. I know very well
>> the work of a counselor and have even had some practicum classes (using
>> fellow grad. students as clients). I have taught college students how to
>> do individual counseling and am highly well-reviewed by my students for my
>> thorough knowledge. I have studied abnormal p[sychology extensively and
>> have taught the college course several times. Your presentation, Nancy,
>> is nothing more than a mindless assertion of what you would like to say
>> and how you would like to aggress to be self-serving.
>
>
>My apologies Brad. I never realized you were so well trained. You are obviously
>qualified to teach others how to do counseling, having almost earned a degree
>yourself and undoubtedly having attended many such sessions yourself.
>Learning something in class is, after all, close enough to real life that your
>lack
>
>of any experience with clients would not matter. Silly of me to forget that.
>
>And I have just realized, thanks to Silke and Kevin, that I am actually trying
>to
>provoke you to inanity because you represent the brother I never had. By
>getting you to abuse me in public I feel more like I have a real sibling,
>recover
>the family I secretly long for and can replay in fantasy the family position I
>never had, thus completing myself. What a revelation!! I am deeply grateful
>for their suggestion to probe my dark secret depths and discover this. Now
>I can find the brother I yearn for any time I want just by yanking your chain.
>I think I'll do it more frequently.
>
>Nancy
LOL. Nancy, you have to write that script you know.
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Tim Brown (bath...@iglou2.iglou.com) wrote:
> : Kevin <khur...@earthlink.net> writes:
> : MY point is that it's wrong to harass Brad, so they should stop. The
> : people who harass him are the same people who threw the smaller kids into
> : urine puddles back when they were kids.
> : The people who harass Brad are exhibiting a complete lack of ethical
> : standards.
>
> Yes, yes, and yes. And even that comparison has been made in the past.
> And Kevin's points have been made in the past. But you'll never see them
> even _look_ at their psychological gains, it's funny. All kind of
> horseshit about how clients need to be protected from Brad etc, but not
> _one_ post by the regular harassers that says, "let me think what I'm
> getting out of this, personally." And some of them are quite nice
> besides. It's mass brutality. Brad's willing tormentors.
Are you sure you don't want to hang up a shingle someplace, Silke?
Nancy
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado
Cognitee wrote:
> Dear Nancy,
> I nearly have a second graduate degree in counseling. I know very well
> the work of a counselor and have even had some practicum classes (using
> fellow grad. students as clients). I have taught college students how to
> do individual counseling and am highly well-reviewed by my students for my
> thorough knowledge. I have studied abnormal p[sychology extensively and
> have taught the college course several times. Your presentation, Nancy,
> is nothing more than a mindless assertion of what you would like to say
> and how you would like to aggress to be self-serving.
<sarcasm alert>
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado
Cognitee wrote:
> Dear Nancy,
> I did point out I have had more than one practicum class. <-- This IS
> doing counseling (many, many hours of it under the supervision of great
> counselors and professors, with MUCH feedback and praise from them).
<sarcasm alert>Now this is truly scary. So, what you are saying is that you
cansimulate empathy when it is needed to earn a course grade? Tell us, how
much praise did you get, on a scale from 1 to 10? And what would you
estimate the feedback-to-praise ratio to be? Have you had the chance to
work with many "retards" yet (to use your word), and what was your
level of rapport after you called them that? Did your supervisors offer
any constructive comments on those sessions, or was it just more
praise again?
> I
> also have ALL the book-learning of many Ph.D.s in the area and this DOES
> matter.
This cannot be true unless many Ph.D.s stop reading books the minute theyearn their
degrees. That doesn't happen much. People who tend to get Ph.D.s
also tend to like reading books so they just do more and more of it.
Do you suppose that reading all those books makes you the equivalent of a
Ph.D? If that's true, why not just go ahead and call yourself one? In fact,
if you understand everything you imagine Carl Rogers knew, why not call
yourself him? I imagine it would attract many clients once you complete
your degree, apply for a license, and have a legitimate basis for being in
practice. In fact, since you know ALL that many Ph.Ds know, why not
advertise yourself as Virginia Satir too? And Albert Ellis? If you learn TFT,
then you can advertise yourself as Gene Douglas, or go for the whole
magilla and advertise yourself as Callahan. Don't advertise yourself as me,
because I certainly don't know ALL that many Ph.Ds know and thus you
would decrease your current increment of knowledge, not increase it. But
lest you mistake my meaning, I DO know ALL that I know, and that is
obviously different than what you know or what many other Ph.D.s know.
Nancy
> About the psychodynamic "stuff": you're welcome.
>
> In article <34CB0D40...@binus.com>, st...@binus.com wrote:
>
> > Cognitee wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Nancy,
> > > I nearly have a second graduate degree in counseling. I know very well
> > > the work of a counselor and have even had some practicum classes (using
> > > fellow grad. students as clients). I have taught college students how to
> > > do individual counseling and am highly well-reviewed by my students for my
> > > thorough knowledge. I have studied abnormal p[sychology extensively and
> > > have taught the college course several times. Your presentation, Nancy,
> > > is nothing more than a mindless assertion of what you would like to say
> > > and how you would like to aggress to be self-serving.
> >
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado
Kevin wrote:
> Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > And I have just realized, thanks to Silke and Kevin, that I am actually trying to
> > provoke you to inanity because you represent the brother I never had. By
> > getting you to abuse me in public I feel more like I have a real sibling, recover
> > the family I secretly long for and can replay in fantasy the family position I
> > never had, thus completing myself. What a revelation!! I am deeply grateful
> > for their suggestion to probe my dark secret depths and discover this. Now
> > I can find the brother I yearn for any time I want just by yanking your chain.
> > I think I'll do it more frequently.
>
> No, no, no. *I* am the brother you never had; Brad is the third child
> Mom and Dad sold to the gypsies so Dad could buy more of the drink. Now
> Brad's back and he's pissed. Being the eldest, you feel guilty. As the
> middle child, I can't stand the tension, so I find ways to get you to
> stop feeling guilty, all the while avoiding my own feelings of guilt.
>
> Please try to stick to the script.
>
Sorry. This systems thinking is new to me.
So, how old do I have to be? Do Mom and Dad get to do all the
drinking? (doesn't seem fair) Does this mean I have to yank your
chain? That will be much harder. Where does my imaginary "friend"
fit in?
Seriously, one of the problems I have with family systems is the
idea that someone is made the identified patient in order to preserve
the normalcy or cohesiveness of the remaining members of the family.
This parallels Durkheim's (I think it was) idea that societies define
themselves and create cohesion by excluding others who are defined
as "not like" those included. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting
these ideas -- I don't know this area very well.
In my experience, the IP does have something inherently deviant
about themselves -- a real trait that leads to whatever is focused upon
by the other family members. Removing that person from the equation
does not cause other members to become deviant and if nondeviant
or conforming members are removed, then the deviant person does not
necessarily change roles and become conforming. Further, the same
dynamic of defining what is deviant or acceptable occurs in both
functional and dysfunctional groups. It does not appear to me that the
process of identifying an IP is itself problematic, but rather the inflexibility
attendant if the person cannot change and be regarded differently.
So, the idea that there is a bad child who acts out, a good one who is
an overachiever and affirms the normalcy of the family in the face of
underlying dysfunction, and parents who ignore each other's problems
in order to avoid rocking the boat, implies that the bad child has no
inherent problems (such as impulse control, sensation-seeking, poor
coping skills, maybe a little fetal alcohol syndrome) and the good
child is somehow doing something improper by not challenging a
role from which that child obviously benefits. If the bad child is taken
from this environment, the good child may relax a little but will not
show the same problematic acting out because the underlying factors
are missing. The bad child will not become good in other environments
because the same traits are still there (though a supportive environ-
ment would mitigate them). The parents will go right on drinking (or
whatever it is they are doing) even if the dynamic is upset, because
the dynamic is more of an effect of the dysfunction rather than a
cause of it. See my problem?
If this is an unfair characterization of systems theory, or other
approaches do a better job of explaining things, please do set me
straight.
Nancy
Gene Douglas
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado <st...@binus.com> wrote in article
<34CB06E3...@binus.com>...
:
:
It wouldn't be the first time she faked a degree claim. However, I have a
shingle, and for the first time, she makes a lot of sense to me.
:
:
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Just a jingle in your ear, m'dear, a little chime playing, "nancy, you
> lie, nancy, you lie." It will make your sleep even sweeter.
>
A lie is a deliberate falsehood. The deviations from reality that occur
as the result of defense mechanisms don't qualify.
Nancy
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado
Gene Douglas wrote:
> Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Kevin wrote:
<snips>
> > Gene's bit about rats was idiotic.
>
> Perhaps that's because Gene is idiotic. (Are you sure that Nancy isn't
> another of Brad's aliases?)
>
Do you really not understand the difference between condemning aperson and
condemning their behavior? You said something not just
incorrect, but miles off base. I know that when Kevin misidentified
your remark as "trenchent" I should have said "Perhaps that's because
Gene has trench mouth." But then, I'm not Brad. Instead I took the
time to explain why you were mistaken. Wasted time, as it appears.
> However, consider what happened when Brad was gone for a while. Did the
> others say, "wow, I'm glad that's over. Now we can get back to serious
> business." No, it was, "Hello, Brad, where are you? If we can keep a
> thread going saying bad things about you, maybe you'll come back." That
> tells a lot.
>
One person said this. Others said "shut up and don't ask." Go back and
look it up.
> As to whether his motivations are internal, consider what would happen
> if his computer were broken. Would he just keep typing? No, if he
> didn't get a response from others, he would simply give up.
>
It is reinforcing to him to see his own words on the screen. If hiscomputer
is broken he obviously can't do that. Why do you think he
posts the same message over and over again without saying anything
different? Why do you think he keeps generating p.s. and pps and
corrections to his own previous posts, one after another, minutes
apart? He isn't responding to others. He is in a closed loop with his
own thought processes. He does it because it feels so good to type
that vitriolic stuff and press the send key. The messages he reads
from others may fuel his anger, but they certainly are not reinforcing
in any sense. Anger is not a behavior that can be reinforced, it is an
internal state, a motivation or drive. Increasing it does lead to
increased behavior. The behavior continues regardless of who
responds because the reinforcement is the expression, not what
others say to him. What others say to him feels bad. If anything it
should be a punishment except that it motivates pain-induced
aggression, in my opinion. I know that Leslie disagrees.
The continual invocation of Intro to Psych learning
theory concepts is unhelpful in understanding him and is just a way
for those who want him to go away to blame those critical of him for
behavior that only Brad is responsible for.
Now, if you want to ask Peter or Leslie to stop their posts because
you find what they write boring or expensive to download, that is a
different matter than holding them responsible for what Brad writes
because they are "reinforcing" him.
> Assuming certain things, of course. Firstly, that you can. If the
> bullies whip the crap out of you, responding in kind is a waste of time.
>
Empirical research shows that an assertive response deters bullies, evenif
you lose the fight. They pick on the person most likely to back down.
Minimal assertion is a deterrent. However, the better solution is for
authority figures to intervene, as has happened in sppm (a place where
you do not choose to post for some reason).
> Secondly, that they will respond to resistance with extinction. I have
> worked in two day treatment centers, one which also included
> adolescents, and many of the kids keep it going forever, regardless of
> retaliation by victims.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a day treatment center a place where
all of the kids are there because they have serious problems? Is this
equivalent to the average school yard? My reading of the literature is
that bullies are not typically sociopaths but merely kids who are large
for their age who are not taught that victimizing younger/weaker kids is
wrong. It is fun to be a bully. I doubt that is the motivation for the
kids
in your day treatment center. I don't think hardened criminals in prisons
are equivalent to schoolyard bullies either and I would not recommend
standing up to a mugger or car-jacker.
Nancy
Gene Douglas
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado wrote:
>
>
> > Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. wrote:
> > >
>
>
> > > Gene's bit about rats was idiotic.
> >
isn't
> > another of Brad's aliases?)
> >
>
> Do you really not understand the difference between condemning
aperson and
> condemning their behavior? You said something not just
> incorrect, but miles off base. I know that when Kevin misidentified
> your remark as "trenchent" I should have said "Perhaps that's because
> Gene has trench mouth." But then, I'm not Brad. Instead I took the
> time to explain why you were mistaken. Wasted time, as it appears.
days and restrained on odd days isn't very convincing of your
credibility.
>
> > However, consider what happened when Brad was gone for a while.
Did the
> > others say, "wow, I'm glad that's over. Now we can get back to
serious
> > business." No, it was, "Hello, Brad, where are you? If we can
keep a
> > thread going saying bad things about you, maybe you'll come back."
That
> > tells a lot.
> >
>
> One person said this. Others said "shut up and don't ask." Go back
and
> look it up.
>
saying, "come back, I want to play some more?"
> > As to whether his motivations are internal, consider what would
happen
> > if his computer were broken. Would he just keep typing? No, if he
> > didn't get a response from others, he would simply give up.
> >
>
> It is reinforcing to him to see his own words on the screen. If
hiscomputer
> is broken he obviously can't do that.
His computer could do that without going on the internet. (unbroken, of
course.)
Why do you think he
> posts the same message over and over again without saying anything
> different? Why do you think he keeps generating p.s. and pps and
> corrections to his own previous posts, one after another, minutes
> apart?
He is probably anticipating opportune zingers from the flamers, which is
why I added (unbroken, of course) just above here. And he is probably
falsly assuming that others are studying his words very carefully, and
remembering everything in them.
He isn't responding to others. He is in a closed loop with his
> own thought processes. He does it because it feels so good to type
> that vitriolic stuff and press the send key. The messages he reads
> from others may fuel his anger, but they certainly are not
reinforcing
> in any sense.
It's pretty much like two people in a room yelling at one another. A
person may feel good yelling what he thinks is an eloquent comeback, but
is taken one down when the other does the same. So he feels the need to
try for a one-up position, and so on, etc.
Anger is not a behavior that can be reinforced, it is an
> internal state, a motivation or drive.
Very clearly, anger can be externally stimulated. Whether you choose to
put the word reinforcement on it, or some other word which does not have
a connotation of "reward," becomes a matter of semantics. If I inflict
pain, which continues, that is punishing. It is also motivating to
reduce the pain. To remove the pain is reinforcing. The memory of
having done so in the past is reinforcing to doing so in the future.
(The negative reinforcement concept.)
Increasing it does lead to
> increased behavior. The behavior continues regardless of who
> responds because the reinforcement is the expression, not what
> others say to him.
See above.
What others say to him feels bad. If anything it
> should be a punishment except that it motivates pain-induced
> aggression, in my opinion. I know that Leslie disagrees.
>
> The continual invocation of Intro to Psych learning
> theory concepts is unhelpful in understanding him and is just a way
> for those who want him to go away to blame those critical of him for
> behavior that only Brad is responsible for.
>
You are saying that: a.) people other than yourself are proposing
primitive, elementary concepts, which don't come up to the high
standards of your own statements. b.) Concepts taught in intro to psych
are false, and will be corrected when one takes the advanced courses.
> Now, if you want to ask Peter or Leslie to stop their posts because
> you find what they write boring or expensive to download, that is a
> different matter than holding them responsible for what Brad writes
> because they are "reinforcing" him.
>
> > Assuming certain things, of course. Firstly, that you can. If the
> > bullies whip the crap out of you, responding in kind is a waste of
time.
> >
>
> Empirical research shows that an assertive response deters bullies,
evenif
> you lose the fight. They pick on the person most likely to back
down.
In this case, the physical pain to either party is minimal, which means
that either can pick himself up and go for another round, without too
much fear. Even in the cases where physical pain/damage occur, once the
bully sees that you are going to lose, he is less deterred by a future
instance of resistance. And the one who lost is further deterred. Even
in the initial instance, if a victim perceives that the bully is going
to kick his ass, the goal of teaching the bully to improve his behavior
in the future takes a secondary priority.
> Minimal assertion is a deterrent. However, the better solution is
for
> authority figures to intervene, as has happened in sppm (a place
where
> you do not choose to post for some reason).
>
For some reason? For some reason? What hypocrisy. There is a thread
on gambling psychology. It is being cross posted to both spp and sppm.
I make a statement that the house forces excessive winners to quit. You
reply, posting the complete quote of my original statement, and adding a
statement of your own, not relating to psychology.
Then you send me e-mail, saying that you are getting complaints on "this
sort of thing," and I need to be more careful when a thread is
cross-posted. I then requested to be "blacklisted" on sppm, because I
don't want to be getting e-mail of that sort.
I concealed your name, and even your gender.
Then I get e-mail from you, saying that you sent me that protest,
because you were frustrated with yourself, for having sent the second
posting.
Earlier, Silke had flamed me on sppm, and there was not a peep about it
from anybody. I answered her, and Paul Bernhardt e-mailed me saying he
was getting complaints from two other administrators about that (now,
who could that be?) Even though he included a complete copy of Silke's
text in his letter, he said that he hadn't noticed what Silke had said,
and therefore didn't know about it.
So I said that if he, and you, chose not to complain about Silke's
behavior, I was complaining. Paul made me complain 3 times, asking if I
was sure I wanted to do this, before he would accept the complaint. Did
he make you complain 3 times?
> > Secondly, that they will respond to resistance with extinction. I
have
> > worked in two day treatment centers, one which also included
> > adolescents, and many of the kids keep it going forever, regardless
of
> > retaliation by victims.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a day treatment center a place
where
> all of the kids are there because they have serious problems? Is
this
> equivalent to the average school yard?
Does it need to be? All of the children came from average school yards,
and they are the very same bullies one found when they were there.
My reading of the literature is
> that bullies are not typically sociopaths but merely kids who are
large
> for their age who are not taught that victimizing younger/weaker kids
is
> wrong.
Wrong. Very few of these kids are sociopaths, and very few are large
for their age. They are often "taught" that victimizing people is
wrong, but when they see their dad victimizing their mom, or both of
them victimizing the child, they are also taught a stronger lesson.
All kids are bigger than somebody. My dad tried to teach me that
victimizing people was right (so long as it's fair, that is. Then to be
the Rambo of the playground is an admirable thing.) His proudest story
was the day he whipped every kid in school during recess. He told it
over and over, until he ran into a friend and said, "remember the day we
whipped every kid in school?" The friend was embarassed, and rightly
so, as it was the behavior of a little thug. When I was in the 3rd
grade, and he was telling that story for the 1,000th time, I asked if
that included 1st & 2nd graders. He jumped down my throat, didn't
answer the question, and I never dared ask it again.
Though I was small for my age, there was always the next grade down, and
the one younger than that. And I never had any wish to hit on the
little kids, because it WASN'T fun, even though my dad encouraged me to
think that it was.
It is fun to be a bully. I doubt that is the motivation for the
> kids
> in your day treatment center.
Why do you think that a bully taken from a playground and placed in a
day treatment center, suddenly has different motivations? Our quack
psychiatrist (in one of the centers) diagnosed any misbehaving kid as
ADHD. However, the fact that his Ritalin and Clonadine didn't work
suggested that perhaps not every patient who comes to him deserves the
same diagnosis.
I don't think hardened criminals in prisons
> are equivalent to schoolyard bullies either and I would not recommend
> standing up to a mugger or car-jacker.
Who said anything about hardened criminals in prisons? (Completely and
totally changing the subject) the psychology in a prison is different.
If you don't stand up to a bully, everybody sees it. And then everybody
becomes a bully. Your commissary goods are no longer your own, and
neither is your rectum. You have to stand up to him, or you have to pay
dearly later.
The bully also has to stand up to anybody who crosses him, or he loses
his reputation, and his power. Consequently, he can't let a slight go
unanswered. When he harms you, it's nothing personal, he's just doing
what he has to do, to stay on top.
A day treatment center is a very, very far cry from a prison.
>
> Nancy
Larry C. Lyons
>Cognitee wrote:
>
>> Dear Nancy,
>> I nearly have a second graduate degree in counseling.
Brad:
Closse only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. Definately not in
graduate degrees. You could nearly have a hundred graduate degrees, and
none would count until you get the piece of vellum or paper signed and in
your hand.
Larry C. Lyons | email: mailto://sol...@NOSPAMmnsinc.com
| To reply remove the NOSPAM from the above address.
| Home Page: http://www.mnsinc.com/solomon
My opinions alone, no one else will take responsibility for them!
========================================================
Life is Complex. It has both real and imaginary parts.
========================================================
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado
Gene Douglas wrote:
> Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado wrote:
>
> Anger is not a behavior that can be reinforced, it is an
> > internal state, a motivation or drive.
>
> Very clearly, anger can be externally stimulated. Whether you choose to
> put the word reinforcement on it, or some other word which does not have
> a connotation of "reward," becomes a matter of semantics. If I inflict
> pain, which continues, that is punishing. It is also motivating to
> reduce the pain. To remove the pain is reinforcing. The memory of
> having done so in the past is reinforcing to doing so in the future.
> (The negative reinforcement concept.)
>
That's right. What you said was close enough. No need to worryabout
definitions and no need to be concerned with what any
literature on this topic says. It really doesn't matter that people have
been studying these angry responses for a long time now. Your
intuitive description makes sense to you so why search for any
better understanding?
There is a big difference between removing an aversive (negative
reinforcement) and stimulating anger through infliction of pain.
It matters what is actually happening with Brad because you and
others are making accusations that his behavior is being perpetuated
through the reinforcement of his posting behavior. It is just as
possible that Brad is displacing the frustrations of his marriage or his
work life onto hapless innocents here, with no dynamic of
reinforcement involved at all. If you are going to try to change
someone's behavior you need to understand it. Thinking up a
plausible explanation (as you try to do above) is not the same as
thinking up a correct explanation. The correctness of the
explanation needs to be tested and confirmed in real life. Yours
doesn't fit the facts because Brad's posting behavior is not
directly responsive to changes in patterns of reinforcement.
Deal with it!
Nancy
Cognitee
Dear Nancy,
To answer your first question (below) ("So, what you are saying is that
you cansimulate empathy when it is needed to earn a course grade?"): The
answer is: "NO." **BUT** I will point out this is precisely what the
"therapists" around here say they do. They say they have no obligations
(or need or desire or reason) to act any better than *ANYONE* else might
act as long as they are not in the "therapy" session treating someone. We
have heard this over and over from licensed clinicians in this newsgroup
(and I believe you have supported this VERY position, when your friends
have invoked it !!) I, of course, find this ludicrious and believe it
seriously questions the integrity and value of these "therapists". I have
made a good and clear a rgument on this point, and most find my position
intuitively correct even without much argument.
On another question you ask ("Do you suppose that reading all those
books makes you the equivalent of a Ph.D?"): Actually, I personally
believe that the education, research, and publication background *I have*
makes me better than the VAST nmajority of Ph.Ds. I wake up believing
this every day and believe it with every breath I take each day. And, it
is proven true and serves me well EACH DAY. I BELIEVE **NOT** in the
ability of pretentious pretenders and hacks. I am spared the consequences
of their ignorance and presumptions (which is noteworthy !!) I hold to
real sceince and the benefits of real knowledge.
In article <34CB5D64...@binus.com>, st...@binus.com wrote:
> Cognitee wrote:
>
> > Dear Nancy,
> > > > Dear Nancy,
> > > > I nearly have a second graduate degree in counseling. I know
very well
> > > > the work of a counselor and have even had some practicum classes (using
> > > > fellow grad. students as clients). I have taught college students
how to
> > > > do individual counseling and am highly well-reviewed by my
students for my
> > > > thorough knowledge. I have studied abnormal p[sychology extensively and
> > > > have taught the college course several times. Your presentation, Nancy,
> > > > is nothing more than a mindless assertion of what you would like to say
> > > > and how you would like to aggress to be self-serving.
> > >
> > > <sarcasm alert>
> > >
> > > My apologies Brad. I never realized you were so well trained. You are
> > obviously
> > > qualified to teach others how to do counseling, having almost earned
a degree
> > > yourself and undoubtedly having attended many such sessions yourself.
> > > Learning something in class is, after all, close enough to real life
> > that your lack
> > >
> > > of any experience with clients would not matter. Silly of me to
forget that.
> > >
> > > And I have just realized, thanks to Silke and Kevin, that I am actually
> > trying to
> > > provoke you to inanity because you represent the brother I never had. By
> > > getting you to abuse me in public I feel more like I have a real
> > sibling, recover
> > > the family I secretly long for and can replay in fantasy the family
position I
> > > never had, thus completing myself. What a revelation!! I am deeply
grateful
> > > for their suggestion to probe my dark secret depths and discover
this. Now
> > > I can find the brother I yearn for any time I want just by yanking
your chain.
> > > I think I'll do it more frequently.
> > >
> > > Nancy
Cognitee
GeneDoug is correct.
Since you cannot be sure what is punishing or reinforcing, extinction
is the only sensible procedure. **ALSO** (and this is more than a little
noteowthy): Not only would it certainly work to some extent, but it would
keep this newsgroup from becoming the sh**hole it is now over and over and
over.
GeneDoug is also correct in that retaliation even retaliation that
**is** perceived as aggressive and punishing can not be counted on to work
unless you destry the other. You can't destroy "the other" (and, by the
way, that wouldn't be right anyway). I might also add that it is usually
true that aggression makes an aggressive response more likely, which is
NOT what you want (fortunately, I am very civil and I am rarely
inappropriate).
(It is unfortunate how many "therapists" I have to help teach the basics
of their work.)
In article <34C9F2...@prodigy.net>, Gene...@prodigy.net wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
> >
> > Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Please do not exaggerate. I said he is more strongly motived by
> internals
> > > than by externals. I did not say the externals had no effect on
> him. Just
> > > that ignoring him wouldn't work because he is still reinforced by
> the
> > > internals.
> >
> > Did you not understand my assertion that Brad's deviant behavior,
> while
> > sprung from an internal source, flourishes here because his cry is
> > answered ten-fold? He is being rewarded, not altered, by his legion
> of
> > responders. My point, after all, is that the responders are getting
> > something out of it, are vested in keeping it going, would likely be
> at
> > a loss of what do do with themselves if he actually did leave. I
> > realize this pov might be threatening to some here, but it's a honest
> > assessment.
> >
Cognitee
Dear Nancy,
I do not see what Leslie and Peter as doing as "minimal assertion".
Moreover, it is NOT appropriate assertion they are doing (which IS what
you mean, whether you know it or not), rather what they are doing is
inappropriate aggression and often RAW (unprocessed, knee-jerk, reptilian)
AGGRESSION.
It is untenable to try to defend the behavior of Peter or Leslie at
this point. Only a VERY few of their supportors have come up to their
level of gross impropriety -- even though many of their supporters are not
well educated or professionals. Leslie and Peter has lost their grasp on
decency (and have long lost their professionalism).
In article <34CBD007...@binus.com>, st...@binus.com wrote:
> Gene Douglas wrote:
>
> > Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Kevin wrote:
>
> <snips>
>
> > > Gene's bit about rats was idiotic.
> >
> > Perhaps that's because Gene is idiotic. (Are you sure that Nancy isn't
> > another of Brad's aliases?)
> >
>
> Do you really not understand the difference between condemning aperson and
> condemning their behavior? You said something not just
> incorrect, but miles off base. I know that when Kevin misidentified
> your remark as "trenchent" I should have said "Perhaps that's because
> Gene has trench mouth." But then, I'm not Brad. Instead I took the
> time to explain why you were mistaken. Wasted time, as it appears.
>
> > However, consider what happened when Brad was gone for a while. Did the
> > others say, "wow, I'm glad that's over. Now we can get back to serious
> > business." No, it was, "Hello, Brad, where are you? If we can keep a
> > thread going saying bad things about you, maybe you'll come back." That
> > tells a lot.
> >
>
> One person said this. Others said "shut up and don't ask." Go back and
> look it up.
>
> > As to whether his motivations are internal, consider what would happen
> > if his computer were broken. Would he just keep typing? No, if he
> > didn't get a response from others, he would simply give up.
> >
>
> It is reinforcing to him to see his own words on the screen. If hiscomputer
> is broken he obviously can't do that. Why do you think he
> posts the same message over and over again without saying anything
> different? Why do you think he keeps generating p.s. and pps and
> corrections to his own previous posts, one after another, minutes
> apart? He isn't responding to others. He is in a closed loop with his
> own thought processes. He does it because it feels so good to type
> that vitriolic stuff and press the send key. The messages he reads
> from others may fuel his anger, but they certainly are not reinforcing
> in any sense. Anger is not a behavior that can be reinforced, it is an
> internal state, a motivation or drive. Increasing it does lead to
> increased behavior. The behavior continues regardless of who
> responds because the reinforcement is the expression, not what
> others say to him. What others say to him feels bad. If anything it
> should be a punishment except that it motivates pain-induced
> aggression, in my opinion. I know that Leslie disagrees.
>
> The continual invocation of Intro to Psych learning
> theory concepts is unhelpful in understanding him and is just a way
> for those who want him to go away to blame those critical of him for
> behavior that only Brad is responsible for.
>
> Now, if you want to ask Peter or Leslie to stop their posts because
> you find what they write boring or expensive to download, that is a
> different matter than holding them responsible for what Brad writes
> because they are "reinforcing" him.
>
> > Assuming certain things, of course. Firstly, that you can. If the
> > bullies whip the crap out of you, responding in kind is a waste of time.
> >
>
> Empirical research shows that an assertive response deters bullies, evenif
> you lose the fight. They pick on the person most likely to back down.
> Minimal assertion is a deterrent. However, the better solution is for
> authority figures to intervene, as has happened in sppm (a place where
> you do not choose to post for some reason).
>
>
> > Secondly, that they will respond to resistance with extinction. I have
> > worked in two day treatment centers, one which also included
> > adolescents, and many of the kids keep it going forever, regardless of
> > retaliation by victims.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a day treatment center a place where
> all of the kids are there because they have serious problems? Is this
> equivalent to the average school yard? My reading of the literature is
> that bullies are not typically sociopaths but merely kids who are large
> for their age who are not taught that victimizing younger/weaker kids is
> wrong. It is fun to be a bully. I doubt that is the motivation for the
> kids
> in your day treatment center. I don't think hardened criminals in prisons
> are equivalent to schoolyard bullies either and I would not recommend
> standing up to a mugger or car-jacker.
>
> Nancy
Cognitee
At least I am glad I have been worked into something ON-TOPIC and support
and enjoy the discussion between GeneDoug and Nancy. Thank you all. You
have sublimated your hatred. Now if only Leslie and Peter could become
socialized.
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado
Gene Douglas wrote:
> Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado wrote:
> > Minimal assertion is a deterrent. However, the better solution is
> for
> > authority figures to intervene, as has happened in sppm (a place
> where
> > you do not choose to post for some reason).
> >
>
> For some reason? For some reason? What hypocrisy. There is a thread
> on gambling psychology. It is being cross posted to both spp and sppm.
> I make a statement that the house forces excessive winners to quit. You
> reply, posting the complete quote of my original statement, and adding a
> statement of your own, not relating to psychology.
>
> Then you send me e-mail, saying that you are getting complaints on "this
> sort of thing," and I need to be more careful when a thread is
> cross-posted. I then requested to be "blacklisted" on sppm, because I
> don't want to be getting e-mail of that sort.
> I concealed your name, and even your gender.
>
> Then I get e-mail from you, saying that you sent me that protest,
> because you were frustrated with yourself, for having sent the second
> posting.
>
If this is all too confusing for you, Gene, you can always go back
towatching TV. Sppm is about psychotherapy. If you post someting
there that is off-topic and you also post it here, and someone replies to
you here, their response is also sent there. That means that sppm gets
cluttered with garbage. I tried to be nice to you by sending you an
e-mail admitting that I had not looked closely enough at the groups
line before sending my own posts. You seem to see that as some sort
of persecution. OK, I won't try to be nice any more.
The thread was originally acceptable to sppm because it was about
compulsive gambling and it grew out of a discussion about whether
such behavioral problems should be termed addictions. Your comment
about the mechanics of gambling and how casinos are run had nothing
to do with the psychology of gambling and especially nothing to do
with compulsive gambling and psychotherapy issues. It was clearly
off-topic. I thought I was replying to spp, not sppm when I responded
to you. That was my mistake and I admitted it. You seem to feel I did
something wrong by doing that.
> Earlier, Silke had flamed me on sppm, and there was not a peep about it
> from anybody. I answered her, and Paul Bernhardt e-mailed me saying he
> was getting complaints from two other administrators about that (now,
> who could that be?) Even though he included a complete copy of Silke's
> text in his letter, he said that he hadn't noticed what Silke had said,
> and therefore didn't know about it.
>
Yes, there have been peeps about all of this. There is frequently
discussion among the moderators about which posts are inappropriate
and there are attempts to keep the level of such posts down -- that's
our job. If you think you got flamed and no one responded, you
always have the option to make a complaint yourself, as you did.
I think you do not post to sppm because you have little substantive
to say and don't like to conform your behavior to polite discourse.
> So I said that if he, and you, chose not to complain about Silke's
> behavior, I was complaining. Paul made me complain 3 times, asking if I
> was sure I wanted to do this, before he would accept the complaint. Did
> he make you complain 3 times?
>
Yes. Paul has been trying to set up a real procedure for handling
complaintsso they do not fall through the cracks. He not only makes me
complain
formally (rather than informally) but he makes us vote anonymously on the
complaints and he makes sure the complaints get presented fairly to all the
moderators (e.g., with copies of the posts and without lobbying). I think
he
is doing a fair and even-handed job, despite early difficulties implementing
this whole thing. I was censured just as you were for the gambling posts.
If you don't like how the group is going and it is actually serving as the
deterrent to posting you claim it to be, you can circulate a recall petition
or
make a complaint against Paul (or any of us).
In the meantime, your attitude stinks. If you view friendly e-mail as
harrassment, you aren't open to gentler forms of guidance, obviously.
I won't bother trying to talk to you any more -- I'll just go right to Paul
with my complaints against you, or right to the screen with them (if
they occur in this newsgroup).
Nancy
Edna
In article <34C932...@earthlink.net>, Kevin
> [...]
>
> > Out of curiosity, have you received much behind the scenes e-mail support
> > from lurkers who are grateful that you're expressing their views? I've
> > only seen the kooks chiming in publicly.
>
> That's immaterial to the discussion I was hoping to have. Simply, it's
> none of your business. Pvt e-mail should be kept private and you'll
> never see me act otherwise.
>
> Kevin
> 'We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a
> habit.' - Aristotle
Hum... Since you asked, Nancy. It wouldn't be a surprise to you that I
e-mailed Kevin letting him know that I've held the same views as him and
predicting what sort of response he was likely to get.
I wrote my own version of Kevin's inquiry as far back as March 96. Got a
lot of e-mails in support, and the same deal of similar criticism on the
spp. Nothing new...
--
Edna
Gene Douglas
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado <st...@binus.com> wrote in article
<34CBC736...@binus.com>...
:
:
:
Hot dog! I'll have to remember that one. So when Nancy does it, she's
just deviating from reality as a result of defense mechanisms. She's so
motivated to prove she's right, she'll say anything, but that's not a lie.
I wonder if Whopper Bill wants to use that one as a defense?
Ed Anderson
Edna wrote:
> Hum... Since you asked, Nancy. It wouldn't be a surprise to you that I
> e-mailed Kevin letting him know that I've held the same views as him and
> predicting what sort of response he was likely to get.
I also agree with most of what Kevin is saying, and I've let him know
that, publically and behind the scenes. If he seems to lack supporters,
remember that spp's climate selects them out. Even I (a long-time
reader) have been spending a lot of time on the mailing lists, waiting
for the Brad Quotient to drop below 40%.
My difference with Kevin, I think, is that his words sometimes carry the
implication that Brad does what he does because others provide him with
the opportunity. This is true, but it's also true that Brad does what
he does because that's what Brad does, and just about _any_ human
interaction (including ones not directed at him) provides Brad the
opportunity to do what he does. So, I think there is blame or
responsibility being attached, that doesn't necessarily belong. Brad is
like a mousetrap on a hair trigger, that will go off no matter what
walks across. We might as well assign responsibility to anyone who
voices an opinion, since that offers Brad an opportunity to "snap."
Now, some people deliberately play with the mousetrap -- they provoke
him -- and that is a different matter.
> I wrote my own version of Kevin's inquiry as far back as March 96. Got a
> lot of e-mails in support, and the same deal of similar criticism on the
> spp. Nothing new.
I bristled at Edna's criticism, back in 96. Now, of course, I have seen
the light.
But really, it wasn't Edna, Silke, or anyone else who changed my mind
about arguing with Brad. It was my own sense that I had better things
to do with my time. For me, the payoffs just weren't there. The more
we talked, the more circular things became -- the more obsessively
detailed, the more avoidant, the more rationalized, etc. I eventually
got bored and frustrated. I thought to myself, "This is a big waste of
time."
Ed Anderson
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado
Calm yourself, Gene. Silke wasn't calling me a liar.
Unless I totally misunderstood her, we were both talking about group
process and unwillingness to examine it, not any particular statement
I have made that she considers to be an untruth. (Silke?)
You on the other hand are calling me a liar. If you have proof of that,
please present it. Otherwise please desist immediately.
Nancy
Gene Douglas
Daniel V. Stone/Nancy Alvarado wrote:
>
You need to read my current posts more closely.
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.
On 25 Jan 1998, Cognitee wrote:
> GeneDoug is correct.
> Since you cannot be sure what is punishing or reinforcing, extinction
> is the only sensible procedure. **ALSO** (and this is more than a little
If you cannot be sure what is punishing or reinforcing, then how do you
accomplish extinction?
Nancy
GTV3419
Ed Anderson <ander...@prodigy.net> wrote on
Sun, Jan 25, 1998 17:22 EST:
>Edna wrote:
>> Hum... Since you asked, Nancy. It wouldn't be a surprise to you that I
>> e-mailed Kevin letting him know that I've held the same views as him and
>> predicting what sort of response he was likely to get.
>
>I also agree with most of what Kevin is saying, and I've let him know
>that, publically and behind the scenes. If he seems to lack supporters,
>remember that spp's climate selects them out.
(snip rest of post)
At the risk of being selected out, I also agree with most of what Kevin is
saying.
Cognitee
Extinction would entail NOT responding at all. This would include
eliminating any reinforcment. DAH !! Nancy, can you say: DAH !!!
Manytimes this is not only how extinction has been imposed (in behavior
mod through the decades) BUT it is also WHY it is used (not just to be
cruel, as you might think or hope, Nancy).
In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.980125...@psy.ucsd.edu>, "Nancy