Which perspectives are welcome here?

[Sanman]

Oh, I don’t care. It was just a strong example of a dismissive comment.

Or perhaps, to one psychologist, it is a reminder of childhood fun and laughter. And perhaps that psychologist, having watched countless people die in a decade as a geriatric psychologist prizes laughter with loved ones and good memories over appeasing the sensibilities of any number of strangers on the internet...maybe.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GradStudent2020]

I wonder if you could have expressed those sentiments without also implying the rest of the thread was useless?

Or perhaps, to one psychologist, it is a reminder of childhood fun and laughter. And perhaps that psychologist, having watched countless people die in a decade as a geriatric psychologist prizes laughter with loved ones and good memories over appeasing the sensibilities of any number of strangers on the internet...maybe.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Or perhaps, to one psychologist, it is a reminder of childhood fun and laughter. And perhaps that psychologist, having watched countless people die in a decade as a geriatric psychologist prizes laughter with loved ones and good memories over appeasing the sensibilities of any number of strangers on the internet...maybe.

And I'm hardly convinced that my post was off-topic. I think it hits the center of the topic (and the entire thread), actually.

 

[erg923]

Ugh!
Need to slow the burn guys?!

Think Kreutzmann might have cocaine stroke at 8:23. Seriously, think its in the bio.

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

Jon Snow modding *himself* is a peak emotional experience, I’m just saying

 

[OpalinePhoenix]

I have some reflections on this I'd like to share. One is that I'm pretty nervous about jumping in, though that is mostly because I am not a regular poster, and I feel like I might get piled on. That said, I think I have a few things to say that potentially haven't yet been said, or have been said without being expanded on, or have been alluded to in frustration without being fleshed out.

What this whole thread reminds ME of, a bit, is couples therapy. And I think that's important to bring up due to both sides of the tone debate. It's something that comes up constantly in couples therapy, and I've been reflecting on how psychologists tend to treat it there. In this thread, what I've noticed quite a bit of is some black and white commentary on it. This isn't true from everyone (I'm policing my own commentary/tone here, because I'm working not to get called out for that!), and there have definitely been people who have made it into shades of grey. However, the more frequent thing I've noticed is people saying less simplistic variants of, "I should be able to say whatever because it's an internet forum," while also stating that psychologists should (should) be able to recognize that folks communicate in different ways, or saying that tone is integral, but then devolving into barbs when they are frustrated. Both of those sets of behaviors are fairly hypocritical. The latter has been discussed several times. The former I find especially interesting because it's essentially saying that you should be able to act as you want, but others should respond in certain ways due to their role as psychologists. And...maybe. Psychologists certainly would be expected to be better than the average human at recognizing that people communicate differently. But also, that feels like having your cake and eating it too. And, after this long-winded tangent, to wrap back to couples therapy - isn't one of the primary things we suggest in couples therapy (or with anyone, for that matter) that while yes, intention matters, how we impact the other person also matters? It seems inconsistent with messages that psychologists regularly deliver to others to simplify it down to intent. We know better. We know that intent rarely smooths things over when someone has said/done something that sparked another person's hurt or fear. I'm intentionally not saying caused, because the cause is a combination of what happened outwardly, and what happened inwardly for the person who felt attacked. And both matter.

In this context, perhaps women need to take some responsibility for their perceptions. I think that men need to also take responsibility for their actions, even if they didn't mean to come across a certain way. Even if, absent context, their action was in no way aggressive. I am positive that has, and will continue to, be the case in many situations. However, as has been mentioned, context matters. It can both be real that from the male context, they are not being especially aggressive with or demeaning to women, and real that from the female perspective, it's an unwelcoming place for women (at times).

I think one issue, though, is something that has come up in various forms at various times, and that is the historical context for women feeling more aggressed against. I suspect that my thoughts on this and those of some others here are at odds, which is alright. I'm offering this more as thoughts and perhaps some explanation for some of what has been stated (though I obviously don't know what other posters meant; I'm only guessing and thinking about my own impressions), not with the expectation of changing "hearts and minds" or whatever. Something I've seen brought up here quite a bit is the conflation of female representation/majority status in the field of psychology with the idea of being in "power." Unfortunately, the fact that men are the minority in this context doesn't often take away the feelings of lack of representation that women feel overall, from what I understand. Ideally, perhaps, it would...but I haven't seen that to be true. Which means that even if women are in the numerical majority in this field, they're likely to not "feel" it in the same way due to thousands of years of history in most other spaces. It's hard to overcome that. Are women "too sensitive?" Maybe. Sometimes I think so. Other times I think about the incredible history they are facing, and I understand more. Patterns are really, really hard to change. I suspect no one disagrees with me on this.

So then, I think the issue moves into "responsibility." Men on this board are not responsible for thousands of years of oppression of women. Women on this board are not responsible for having learned that they are oppressed due to the experiences of their predecessors (as well as modern day peers). It is not fair for either group, either party, to have to take full responsibility for what is ultimately a human history of patterns. And...at the end of the day, it is really hard for a group that has been marginalized to trust a group that has been in power without a lot of explicit outreach from them. I hate the idea that women need "extra help," or are "fragile." I don't believe that. AND, I think that it behooves everyone to have men put in a little extra effort to show them they are safe, even if they are men who have ALWAYS been safe to be around. It's a kindness that seems worth extending, even if you aren't personally responsible. Some women here feel a certain way. Does it really take men down a notch to be attentive to that and try to respond? What I have found, both in therapy and in my personal life, is that when the person seen as the aggressor (even if they were objectively not aggressive) is willing to apologize, entertain the idea of making a change, or meet the other person where they're at, they're basically never seen as more to blame, or as weak, or anything like that. They tend to be respected for their willingness. I think that's especially true when they have positions of privilege (even ones they didn't seek).

As a side note, because I suspect I'm about to be typed automatically, without people even really trying, based on my response (because humans are amazing at categorizing): I'm not in either camp discussed here as far as my gender identity.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I have some reflections on this I'd like to share. One is that I'm pretty nervous about jumping in, though that is mostly because I am not a regular poster, and I feel like I might get piled on. That said, I think I have a few things to say that potentially haven't yet been said, or have been said without being expanded on, or have been alluded to in frustration without being fleshed out.

What this whole thread reminds ME of, a bit, is couples therapy. And I think that's important to bring up due to both sides of the tone debate. It's something that comes up constantly in couples therapy, and I've been reflecting on how psychologists tend to treat it there. In this thread, what I've noticed quite a bit of is some black and white commentary on it. This isn't true from everyone (I'm policing my own commentary/tone here, because I'm working not to get called out for that!), and there have definitely been people who have made it into shades of grey. However, the more frequent thing I've noticed is people saying less simplistic variants of, "I should be able to say whatever because it's an internet forum," while also stating that psychologists should (should) be able to recognize that folks communicate in different ways, or saying that tone is integral, but then devolving into barbs when they are frustrated. Both of those sets of behaviors are fairly hypocritical. The latter has been discussed several times. The former I find especially interesting because it's essentially saying that you should be able to act as you want, but others should respond in certain ways due to their role as psychologists. And...maybe. Psychologists certainly would be expected to be better than the average human at recognizing that people communicate differently. But also, that feels like having your cake and eating it too. And, after this long-winded tangent, to wrap back to couples therapy - isn't one of the primary things we suggest in couples therapy (or with anyone, for that matter) that while yes, intention matters, how we impact the other person also matters? It seems inconsistent with messages that psychologists regularly deliver to others to simplify it down to intent. We know better. We know that intent rarely smooths things over when someone has said/done something that sparked another person's hurt or fear. I'm intentionally not saying caused, because the cause is a combination of what happened outwardly, and what happened inwardly for the person who felt attacked. And both matter.

In this context, perhaps women need to take some responsibility for their perceptions. I think that men need to also take responsibility for their actions, even if they didn't mean to come across a certain way. Even if, absent context, their action was in no way aggressive. I am positive that has, and will continue to, be the case in many situations. However, as has been mentioned, context matters. It can both be real that from the male context, they are not being especially aggressive with or demeaning to women, and real that from the female perspective, it's an unwelcoming place for women (at times).

I think one issue, though, is something that has come up in various forms at various times, and that is the historical context for women feeling more aggressed against. I suspect that my thoughts on this and those of some others here are at odds, which is alright. I'm offering this more as thoughts and perhaps some explanation for some of what has been stated (though I obviously don't know what other posters meant; I'm only guessing and thinking about my own impressions), not with the expectation of changing "hearts and minds" or whatever. Something I've seen brought up here quite a bit is the conflation of female representation/majority status in the field of psychology with the idea of being in "power." Unfortunately, the fact that men are the minority in this context doesn't often take away the feelings of lack of representation that women feel overall, from what I understand. Ideally, perhaps, it would...but I haven't seen that to be true. Which means that even if women are in the numerical majority in this field, they're likely to not "feel" it in the same way due to thousands of years of history in most other spaces. It's hard to overcome that. Are women "too sensitive?" Maybe. Sometimes I think so. Other times I think about the incredible history they are facing, and I understand more. Patterns are really, really hard to change. I suspect no one disagrees with me on this.

So then, I think the issue moves into "responsibility." Men on this board are not responsible for thousands of years of oppression of women. Women on this board are not responsible for having learned that they are oppressed due to the experiences of their predecessors (as well as modern day peers). It is not fair for either group, either party, to have to take full responsibility for what is ultimately a human history of patterns. And...at the end of the day, it is really hard for a group that has been marginalized to trust a group that has been in power without a lot of explicit outreach from them. I hate the idea that women need "extra help," or are "fragile." I don't believe that. AND, I think that it behooves everyone to have men put in a little extra effort to show them they are safe, even if they are men who have ALWAYS been safe to be around. It's a kindness that seems worth extending, even if you aren't personally responsible. Some women here feel a certain way. Does it really take men down a notch to be attentive to that and try to respond? What I have found, both in therapy and in my personal life, is that when the person seen as the aggressor (even if they were objectively not aggressive) is willing to apologize, entertain the idea of making a change, or meet the other person where they're at, they're basically never seen as more to blame, or as weak, or anything like that. They tend to be respected for their willingness. I think that's especially true when they have positions of privilege (even ones they didn't seek).

As a side note, because I suspect I'm about to be typed automatically, without people even really trying, based on my response (because humans are amazing at categorizing): I'm not in either camp discussed here as far as my gender identity.

Thanks for posting. This was very well thought-out and I like the comparison to couples therapy--I think you're onto something important there.

 

[deleted480308]

I have some reflections on this I'd like to share. One is that I'm pretty nervous about jumping in, though that is mostly because I am not a regular poster, and I feel like I might get piled on. That said, I think I have a few things to say that potentially haven't yet been said, or have been said without being expanded on, or have been alluded to in frustration without being fleshed out.

What this whole thread reminds ME of, a bit, is couples therapy. And I think that's important to bring up due to both sides of the tone debate. It's something that comes up constantly in couples therapy, and I've been reflecting on how psychologists tend to treat it there. In this thread, what I've noticed quite a bit of is some black and white commentary on it. This isn't true from everyone (I'm policing my own commentary/tone here, because I'm working not to get called out for that!), and there have definitely been people who have made it into shades of grey. However, the more frequent thing I've noticed is people saying less simplistic variants of, "I should be able to say whatever because it's an internet forum," while also stating that psychologists should (should) be able to recognize that folks communicate in different ways, or saying that tone is integral, but then devolving into barbs when they are frustrated. Both of those sets of behaviors are fairly hypocritical. The latter has been discussed several times. The former I find especially interesting because it's essentially saying that you should be able to act as you want, but others should respond in certain ways due to their role as psychologists. And...maybe. Psychologists certainly would be expected to be better than the average human at recognizing that people communicate differently. But also, that feels like having your cake and eating it too. And, after this long-winded tangent, to wrap back to couples therapy - isn't one of the primary things we suggest in couples therapy (or with anyone, for that matter) that while yes, intention matters, how we impact the other person also matters? It seems inconsistent with messages that psychologists regularly deliver to others to simplify it down to intent. We know better. We know that intent rarely smooths things over when someone has said/done something that sparked another person's hurt or fear. I'm intentionally not saying caused, because the cause is a combination of what happened outwardly, and what happened inwardly for the person who felt attacked. And both matter.

In this context, perhaps women need to take some responsibility for their perceptions. I think that men need to also take responsibility for their actions, even if they didn't mean to come across a certain way. Even if, absent context, their action was in no way aggressive. I am positive that has, and will continue to, be the case in many situations. However, as has been mentioned, context matters. It can both be real that from the male context, they are not being especially aggressive with or demeaning to women, and real that from the female perspective, it's an unwelcoming place for women (at times).

I think one issue, though, is something that has come up in various forms at various times, and that is the historical context for women feeling more aggressed against. I suspect that my thoughts on this and those of some others here are at odds, which is alright. I'm offering this more as thoughts and perhaps some explanation for some of what has been stated (though I obviously don't know what other posters meant; I'm only guessing and thinking about my own impressions), not with the expectation of changing "hearts and minds" or whatever. Something I've seen brought up here quite a bit is the conflation of female representation/majority status in the field of psychology with the idea of being in "power." Unfortunately, the fact that men are the minority in this context doesn't often take away the feelings of lack of representation that women feel overall, from what I understand. Ideally, perhaps, it would...but I haven't seen that to be true. Which means that even if women are in the numerical majority in this field, they're likely to not "feel" it in the same way due to thousands of years of history in most other spaces. It's hard to overcome that. Are women "too sensitive?" Maybe. Sometimes I think so. Other times I think about the incredible history they are facing, and I understand more. Patterns are really, really hard to change. I suspect no one disagrees with me on this.

So then, I think the issue moves into "responsibility." Men on this board are not responsible for thousands of years of oppression of women. Women on this board are not responsible for having learned that they are oppressed due to the experiences of their predecessors (as well as modern day peers). It is not fair for either group, either party, to have to take full responsibility for what is ultimately a human history of patterns. And...at the end of the day, it is really hard for a group that has been marginalized to trust a group that has been in power without a lot of explicit outreach from them. I hate the idea that women need "extra help," or are "fragile." I don't believe that. AND, I think that it behooves everyone to have men put in a little extra effort to show them they are safe, even if they are men who have ALWAYS been safe to be around. It's a kindness that seems worth extending, even if you aren't personally responsible. Some women here feel a certain way. Does it really take men down a notch to be attentive to that and try to respond? What I have found, both in therapy and in my personal life, is that when the person seen as the aggressor (even if they were objectively not aggressive) is willing to apologize, entertain the idea of making a change, or meet the other person where they're at, they're basically never seen as more to blame, or as weak, or anything like that. They tend to be respected for their willingness. I think that's especially true when they have positions of privilege (even ones they didn't seek).

As a side note, because I suspect I'm about to be typed automatically, without people even really trying, based on my response (because humans are amazing at categorizing): I'm not in either camp discussed here as far as my gender identity.

Except there isn’t “privilege” between members of an internet forum, we are all equals here

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

Except there isn’t “privilege” between members of an internet forum, we are all equals here

I can’t help it anymore, @sb247

YOU DONT EVEN GO HERE

 

[Sanman]

I have some reflections on this I'd like to share. One is that I'm pretty nervous about jumping in, though that is mostly because I am not a regular poster, and I feel like I might get piled on. That said, I think I have a few things to say that potentially haven't yet been said, or have been said without being expanded on, or have been alluded to in frustration without being fleshed out.

What this whole thread reminds ME of, a bit, is couples therapy. And I think that's important to bring up due to both sides of the tone debate. It's something that comes up constantly in couples therapy, and I've been reflecting on how psychologists tend to treat it there. In this thread, what I've noticed quite a bit of is some black and white commentary on it. This isn't true from everyone (I'm policing my own commentary/tone here, because I'm working not to get called out for that!), and there have definitely been people who have made it into shades of grey. However, the more frequent thing I've noticed is people saying less simplistic variants of, "I should be able to say whatever because it's an internet forum," while also stating that psychologists should (should) be able to recognize that folks communicate in different ways, or saying that tone is integral, but then devolving into barbs when they are frustrated. Both of those sets of behaviors are fairly hypocritical. The latter has been discussed several times. The former I find especially interesting because it's essentially saying that you should be able to act as you want, but others should respond in certain ways due to their role as psychologists. And...maybe. Psychologists certainly would be expected to be better than the average human at recognizing that people communicate differently. But also, that feels like having your cake and eating it too. And, after this long-winded tangent, to wrap back to couples therapy - isn't one of the primary things we suggest in couples therapy (or with anyone, for that matter) that while yes, intention matters, how we impact the other person also matters? It seems inconsistent with messages that psychologists regularly deliver to others to simplify it down to intent. We know better. We know that intent rarely smooths things over when someone has said/done something that sparked another person's hurt or fear. I'm intentionally not saying caused, because the cause is a combination of what happened outwardly, and what happened inwardly for the person who felt attacked. And both matter.

In this context, perhaps women need to take some responsibility for their perceptions. I think that men need to also take responsibility for their actions, even if they didn't mean to come across a certain way. Even if, absent context, their action was in no way aggressive. I am positive that has, and will continue to, be the case in many situations. However, as has been mentioned, context matters. It can both be real that from the male context, they are not being especially aggressive with or demeaning to women, and real that from the female perspective, it's an unwelcoming place for women (at times).

I think one issue, though, is something that has come up in various forms at various times, and that is the historical context for women feeling more aggressed against. I suspect that my thoughts on this and those of some others here are at odds, which is alright. I'm offering this more as thoughts and perhaps some explanation for some of what has been stated (though I obviously don't know what other posters meant; I'm only guessing and thinking about my own impressions), not with the expectation of changing "hearts and minds" or whatever. Something I've seen brought up here quite a bit is the conflation of female representation/majority status in the field of psychology with the idea of being in "power." Unfortunately, the fact that men are the minority in this context doesn't often take away the feelings of lack of representation that women feel overall, from what I understand. Ideally, perhaps, it would...but I haven't seen that to be true. Which means that even if women are in the numerical majority in this field, they're likely to not "feel" it in the same way due to thousands of years of history in most other spaces. It's hard to overcome that. Are women "too sensitive?" Maybe. Sometimes I think so. Other times I think about the incredible history they are facing, and I understand more. Patterns are really, really hard to change. I suspect no one disagrees with me on this.

So then, I think the issue moves into "responsibility." Men on this board are not responsible for thousands of years of oppression of women. Women on this board are not responsible for having learned that they are oppressed due to the experiences of their predecessors (as well as modern day peers). It is not fair for either group, either party, to have to take full responsibility for what is ultimately a human history of patterns. And...at the end of the day, it is really hard for a group that has been marginalized to trust a group that has been in power without a lot of explicit outreach from them. I hate the idea that women need "extra help," or are "fragile." I don't believe that. AND, I think that it behooves everyone to have men put in a little extra effort to show them they are safe, even if they are men who have ALWAYS been safe to be around. It's a kindness that seems worth extending, even if you aren't personally responsible. Some women here feel a certain way. Does it really take men down a notch to be attentive to that and try to respond? What I have found, both in therapy and in my personal life, is that when the person seen as the aggressor (even if they were objectively not aggressive) is willing to apologize, entertain the idea of making a change, or meet the other person where they're at, they're basically never seen as more to blame, or as weak, or anything like that. They tend to be respected for their willingness. I think that's especially true when they have positions of privilege (even ones they didn't seek).

As a side note, because I suspect I'm about to be typed automatically, without people even really trying, based on my response (because humans are amazing at categorizing): I'm not in either camp discussed here as far as my gender identity.

Interesting post and I can agree with most of what is said. The thing, in my mind, that is left out of this is motivation for change and investment in the community/couple. Investment in a couple is different than investment in an internet message board. Being attentive to a partner and apologizing is different than being attentive to the internet masses here, imo. I am curious as to your thoughts on that.

 

[Sanman]

Oh, I don’t care. It was just a strong example of a dismissive comment.

Ironically, so is your response.

 

[deleted480308]

I can’t help it anymore, @sb247

YOU DONT EVEN GO HERE

You have time to find youtube links but no links to this rampant male aggression mistreating women?

 

[GradStudent2020]

Ironically, so is your response.

Interesting, I can see how you read it as so.

I should have included more information. I do not care about your after the fact qualifiers for your behavior, or your follow-up excuses for why you engage in the behavior. I find the behavior interesting and relevant to the original thread. Maybe some other posters are interested in all your “whys”, so share away. However, I didn’t want you to feel as though I was requesting an explanation of motivation from you.

 

[deleted106747]

I don’t think it is entirely so. I think it’s a major contributing factor and I think the thought process is quite similar to real white supremacists, not men indiscriminately labeled as such because their politics are disagreeable to prog left types.


I get that there’s a historical context for why some progressive left types have taken up an effectively racist and sexist framework to thinking about those issues. Liam Neesen expressed a very racist viewpoint experience based on a real life issue he faced. Doesn’t make it the right way to address problems. I also think politicians are using it in highly unethical ways to categorize and clump voting blocks and fan hostility; you know, the same way real white supremacists do.

I’ll also note, it’s not the radical left. It’s the mainstream left. Listen to the presidential candidates talk. It’s out in the open. Read the Washington Post, CNN, the New York Times. They don’t look that different than the daily kos. It’s mainstream. Also, while I do see that problem exists on the right in regard to these issues too, that is not the driving factor on this board as that contingent isn’t represented on this board.

I am wondering how women & ethnic/racial minorities could talk about it any other way though? How could they frame it in anything other than racial or gender-based terms since it had been that way from the beginning? To tie it in with the thread, so it doesn't get moved to the SP forum... this forum doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Dylan made your point years ago, I think:
Half-wracked prejudice leaped forth, "rip down all hate, " I screamed
Lies that life is black and white spoke from my skull, I dreamed

- but I don't know that there's any other effective way to talk about it.

Also, I prefer a good stout or scotch if someone's buying.

 

[OpalinePhoenix]

Interesting post and I can agree with most of what is said. The thing, in my mind, that is left out of this is motivation for change and investment in the community/couple. Investment in a couple is different than investment in an internet message board. Being attentive to a partner and apologizing is different than being attentive to the internet masses here, imo. I am curious as to your thoughts on that.

I completely agree that these are in many ways really different situations. It has seemed, though, that a lot of people who have been following/commenting are pretty highly invested. Perhaps not in the way that a couple is, but I think there is a significant investment, both intellectually and emotionally, on all sides. My point was in part inspired by the fact that a handful of times people have suggested that others "should" react in specific ways, or have specific understandings, either due to this being an anonymous message board, or due to us being psychologists. So I suppose I was coming at it from the perspective of, "If you're going to say what others should do, let's look at what you think of how pairs or groups interact when you're being a psychologist and looking from the outside."

I suppose, also, the answer to your question may come down to how one wants to come across. If it is the case that men (some men - I'm going to try to not use universals in my language, but if I slip, please recognize it is not meant to imply that!) truly don't care or are uninvested in how they are coming across to women, why bother to jump in and defend themselves? The pull to do that suggests to me that there is a decent amount of investment. Maybe not for the same reasons - it may be that every reply here, from women and men, is only self-centered (and I don't mean that in a negative way; literally just, centered on the self and how the self is perceived). That may be, and if that is the case, then discussing how to best interact and how people feel based on interactions may be pointless, honestly. Because if that's the case, everyone will just focus on what works for them and share what doesn't, and no one has impetus to change. However, given that many folks have softened their language and made genuine efforts to be less aggressive and respond "in good faith" over the 13 pages here, I would also bet that most folks are also invested in the relationships to some degree. There isn't really a "right" or "wrong" amount of investment - perhaps the "right" thing is to consider how much and in which ways one is invested, and then question how to accomplish the goals from there. I suppose I was more coming from an assumption that many or most here are invested in both how they are seen and the relationships with others.

Except there isn’t “privilege” between members of an internet forum, we are all equals here

This is why I specified, "Which means that even if women are in the numerical majority in this field, they're likely to not "feel" it in the same way due to thousands of years of history in most other spaces. It's hard to overcome that." There may not be privilege on this board in the same way there is in society, but I don't think people can separate themselves, even here, from their place in society. Several pages back someone astutely pointed out that AIs and humans are really excellent at accurately guessing things such as gender, even in a space where that is not always made obvious. Even if everyone is objectively equal because this is an anonymous forum where no one is in power (except, arguably, the mods), I think that is not how things are felt by many, due to a variety of historical factors and "real life" factors. Even if it "should be" the case that everyone here is equal, humans aren't machines and in general cannot perfectly separate out one space from another. I think that's reasonable, if not ideal.

As I mentioned, I don't think it's that men here "caused" the problem, or "caused" the feelings some women have expressed. However, I do think that it's reasonable to recognize why women might feel unequal, in spite of status in this one tiny corner of the internet, and to recognize that due to other life experiences, women may read otherwise innocuous interactions in a specific way. And I don't think that is their fault either. So then it comes back to what can be done another it. And, perhaps unfortunately, it seems to rarely work to expect a single party to just change how they feel. And yes, I mean that on both sides - women perhaps need to see that men are not attempting to dismiss them, AND men need to see that they may seem dismissive when they don't intend, and both should perhaps attempt to change and meet in the middle. I think the hard thing is that since, in society, women are historically in a position of lower power, it feels harder (to me) to ask them to simply see intent without taking into account impact, because that feels like an additional burden on top of historical burdens. I think men are also burdened when they are asked to make changes to not impact women in a certain way, but that is not coming on top of a history of fear and concern. I think it is also in many ways hard to ask people to just change their perceptions/feelings rather than their actions. Again, that is not fair, but may be useful. I don't have a perfect solution, but those are some considerations I take into account.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I think a lot of this may be reduced down to fundamental differences in assumptions about what is 'useful' in this context (anonymous members of a doctoral-level profession openly commenting on a open (as opposed to closed) message board on the internet). I suspect that there are at least two primary 'camps' (which also *may* happen to largely break down in terms of gender [or even constructs of femininity vs. masculinity]) and that this is causing a lot of the back-and-forth (which I think is great...discussion is great and complete agreement is boring).

Camp Y (Camp Mars): (Freedom of Expression is to be prioritized as a value over Sensitivity to Feelings [where they are in conflict as values])

Camp X (Camp Venus): (Sensitivity to Feelings is to be prioritized as a value over Freedom of Expression [where they are in conflict as values])

Speaking of 'utility,' here's one very real difference between the Camp Y vs. Camp X approaches: ensuring Freedom of Expression (as a 'right') is a heck of a lot more attainable (as a technical matter) than ensuring Sensitivity to Feelings (or, ensuring some kind of 'right' 'not to be offended.').

There's NO WAY that you're going to be able to have an attainable goal/rule of, 'don't say anything that is going to possibly offensive to someone who might read it a certain way.' And, frankly, I think we get enough of that these days in the daily grind of work, organizational culture/climate, popular culture, and even the professional books/journals/conferences in our field.

However, I think that it is a very reasonable and attainable goal/rule to say, 'you can pretty much say anything you want in here as long as it is not a personal attack or threat against another poster.' As long as it's reasonably on-topic and consists of you trying to address the 'reasoning' or 'evidence' of a particular position at issue, it's okay to say. People can form (and even express) their opinions about what you posted and everyone can make up their own minds about it. People are, of course, 'free to take offense,' but it is impossible to construct a space where people are 'free from experiencing discomfort or potentially taking offense.'

I think it would be interesting to have people chime in with what--to them--they see (or experience) as the main value of this board in a single sentence. For me it would be: "This is a place where psychologists are free to express/share and debate their actual opinions about topics of interest to psychologists in a relatively relaxed, informal, but ultimately serious dialogue among colleagues."

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

I completely agree that these are in many ways really different situations. It has seemed, though, that a lot of people who have been following/commenting are pretty highly invested. Perhaps not in the way that a couple is, but I think there is a significant investment, both intellectually and emotionally, on all sides. My point was in part inspired by the fact that a handful of times people have suggested that others "should" react in specific ways, or have specific understandings, either due to this being an anonymous message board, or due to us being psychologists. So I suppose I was coming at it from the perspective of, "If you're going to say what others should do, let's look at what you think of how pairs or groups interact when you're being a psychologist and looking from the outside."

I suppose, also, the answer to your question may come down to how one wants to come across. If it is the case that men (some men - I'm going to try to not use universals in my language, but if I slip, please recognize it is not meant to imply that!) truly don't care or are uninvested in how they are coming across to women, why bother to jump in and defend themselves? The pull to do that suggests to me that there is a decent amount of investment. Maybe not for the same reasons - it may be that every reply here, from women and men, is only self-centered (and I don't mean that in a negative way; literally just, centered on the self and how the self is perceived). That may be, and if that is the case, then discussing how to best interact and how people feel based on interactions may be pointless, honestly. Because if that's the case, everyone will just focus on what works for them and share what doesn't, and no one has impetus to change. However, given that many folks have softened their language and made genuine efforts to be less aggressive and respond "in good faith" over the 13 pages here, I would also bet that most folks are also invested in the relationships to some degree. There isn't really a "right" or "wrong" amount of investment - perhaps the "right" thing is to consider how much and in which ways one is invested, and then question how to accomplish the goals from there. I suppose I was more coming from an assumption that many or most here are invested in both how they are seen and the relationships with others.



This is why I specified, "Which means that even if women are in the numerical majority in this field, they're likely to not "feel" it in the same way due to thousands of years of history in most other spaces. It's hard to overcome that." There may not be privilege on this board in the same way there is in society, but I don't think people can separate themselves, even here, from their place in society. Several pages back someone astutely pointed out that AIs and humans are really excellent at accurately guessing things such as gender, even in a space where that is not always made obvious. Even if everyone is objectively equal because this is an anonymous forum where no one is in power (except, arguably, the mods), I think that is not how things are felt by many, due to a variety of historical factors and "real life" factors. Even if it "should be" the case that everyone here is equal, humans aren't machines and in general cannot perfectly separate out one space from another. I think that's reasonable, if not ideal.

As I mentioned, I don't think it's that men here "caused" the problem, or "caused" the feelings some women have expressed. However, I do think that it's reasonable to recognize why women might feel unequal, in spite of status in this one tiny corner of the internet, and to recognize that due to other life experiences, women may read otherwise innocuous interactions in a specific way. And I don't think that is their fault either. So then it comes back to what can be done another it. And, perhaps unfortunately, it seems to rarely work to expect a single party to just change how they feel. And yes, I mean that on both sides - women perhaps need to see that men are not attempting to dismiss them, AND men need to see that they may seem dismissive when they don't intend, and both should perhaps attempt to change and meet in the middle. I think the hard thing is that since, in society, women are historically in a position of lower power, it feels harder (to me) to ask them to simply see intent without taking into account impact, because that feels like an additional burden on top of historical burdens. I think men are also burdened when they are asked to make changes to not impact women in a certain way, but that is not coming on top of a history of fear and concern. I think it is also in many ways hard to ask people to just change their perceptions/feelings rather than their actions. Again, that is not fair, but may be useful. I don't have a perfect solution, but those are some considerations I take into account.

I admire your thinking and appreciate that you took clearly ample time and energy to express it so thoughtfully. Cheers!

 

[deleted106747]

I think a lot of this may be reduced down to fundamental differences in assumptions about what is 'useful' in this context (anonymous members of a doctoral-level profession openly commenting on a open (as opposed to closed) message board on the internet). I suspect that there are at least two primary 'camps' (which also *may* happen to largely break down in terms of gender [or even constructs of femininity vs. masculinity]) and that this is causing a lot of the back-and-forth (which I think is great...discussion is great and complete agreement is boring).

Camp Y (Camp Mars): (Freedom of Expression is to be prioritized as a value over Sensitivity to Feelings [where they are in conflict as values])

Camp X (Camp Venus): (Sensitivity to Feelings is to be prioritized as a value over Freedom of Expression [where they are in conflict as values])

Speaking of 'utility,' here's one very real difference between the Camp Y vs. Camp X approaches: ensuring Freedom of Expression (as a 'right') is a heck of a lot more attainable (as a technical matter) than ensuring Sensitivity to Feelings (or, ensuring some kind of 'right' 'not to be offended.').

There's NO WAY that you're going to be able to have an attainable goal/rule of, 'don't say anything that is going to possibly offensive to someone who might read it a certain way.' And, frankly, I think we get enough of that these days in the daily grind of work, organizational culture/climate, popular culture, and even the professional books/journals/conferences in our field.

However, I think that it is a very reasonable and attainable goal/rule to say, 'you can pretty much say anything you want in here as long as it is not a personal attack or threat against another poster.' As long as it's reasonably on-topic and consists of you trying to address the 'reasoning' or 'evidence' of a particular position at issue, it's okay to say. People can form (and even express) their opinions about what you posted and everyone can make up their own minds about it. People are, of course, 'free to take offense,' but it is impossible to construct a space where people are 'free from experiencing discomfort or potentially taking offense.'

I think it would be interesting to have people chime in with what--to them--they see (or experience) as the main value of this board in a single sentence. For me it would be: "This is a place where psychologists are free to express/share and debate their actual opinions about topics of interest to psychologists in a relatively relaxed, informal, but ultimately serious dialogue among colleagues."

Although well thought out, this once again misses the point, at least for me. It's not about "sensitivity to feelings" whatsoever. I'm just asking for all of us - inclusive of myself - to be respectful when posting. That's all. No one needs to be sensitive to my feelings, I'm responsible for those.

 

[Sanman]

I think a lot of this may be reduced down to fundamental differences in assumptions about what is 'useful' in this context (anonymous members of a doctoral-level profession openly commenting on a open (as opposed to closed) message board on the internet). I suspect that there are at least two primary 'camps' (which also *may* happen to largely break down in terms of gender [or even constructs of femininity vs. masculinity]) and that this is causing a lot of the back-and-forth (which I think is great...discussion is great and complete agreement is boring).

Camp Y (Camp Mars): (Freedom of Expression is to be prioritized as a value over Sensitivity to Feelings [where they are in conflict as values])

Camp X (Camp Venus): (Sensitivity to Feelings is to be prioritized as a value over Freedom of Expression [where they are in conflict as values])

Speaking of 'utility,' here's one very real difference between the Camp Y vs. Camp X approaches: ensuring Freedom of Expression (as a 'right') is a heck of a lot more attainable (as a technical matter) than ensuring Sensitivity to Feelings (or, ensuring some kind of 'right' 'not to be offended.').

There's NO WAY that you're going to be able to have an attainable goal/rule of, 'don't say anything that is going to possibly offensive to someone who might read it a certain way.' And, frankly, I think we get enough of that these days in the daily grind of work, organizational culture/climate, popular culture, and even the professional books/journals/conferences in our field.

However, I think that it is a very reasonable and attainable goal/rule to say, 'you can pretty much say anything you want in here as long as it is not a personal attack or threat against another poster.' As long as it's reasonably on-topic and consists of you trying to address the 'reasoning' or 'evidence' of a particular position at issue, it's okay to say. People can form (and even express) their opinions about what you posted and everyone can make up their own minds about it. People are, of course, 'free to take offense,' but it is impossible to construct a space where people are 'free from experiencing discomfort or potentially taking offense.'

I think it would be interesting to have people chime in with what--to them--they see (or experience) as the main value of this board in a single sentence. For me it would be: "This is a place where psychologists are free to express/share and debate their actual opinions about topics of interest to psychologists in a relatively relaxed, informal, but ultimately serious dialogue among colleagues."

I agree with your assessment and am very much in Camp Y and agree with your reasoning for being here. I enjoy the debates and conversations. I would add that I enjoy the low level of investment and thought that comes with that unfettered speech. I don't believe everyone is willing to make the investment in time and energy to make this more like Camp X may want.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Although well thought out, this once again misses the point, at least for me. It's not about "sensitivity to feelings" whatsoever. I'm just asking for all of us - inclusive of myself - to be respectful when posting. That's all. No one needs to be sensitive to my feelings, I'm responsible for those.

But...(and again, we're all psychologists here)...how do we operationalize 'respectful?'

To me, 'softening' my speech or censoring my speech because I think it might upset someone (even assuming I'm somehow able to know this beforehand) sounds more 'patronizing' than 'respectful' to me.

 

[Sanman]

Although well thought out, this once again misses the point, at least for me. It's not about "sensitivity to feelings" whatsoever. I'm just asking for all of us - inclusive of myself - to be respectful when posting. That's all. No one needs to be sensitive to my feelings, I'm responsible for those.

Okay, but isn't the term respectful specific to each poster and related to their individual feelings?

 

[deleted106747]

But...(and again, we're all psychologists here)...how do we operationalize 'respectful?'

To me, 'softening' my speech or censoring my speech because I think it might upset someone (even assuming I'm somehow able to know this beforehand) sounds more 'patronizing' than 'respectful' to me.

Okay, but isn't the term respectful specific to each poster and related to their individual feelings?

Well, perhaps we should operationalize "respectful." Obviously, I'm not the voice for everyone on this board, but respect to me is not "softening" an approach, but considering someone's position carefully and responding with a well thought out response that doesn't contain ad hominem insults. It's really quite irritating to posit a thread or a comment and get responses that not only derail the thread, but imply the poster lacks some very basic knowledge.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Okay, but isn't the term respectful specific to each poster and related to their individual feelings?

And--assuming that there is more than one reader of every post I write--how am I to POSSIBLY pre-take-into-account all the ways in which my post may possibly offend more than a single reader of my post? How about 100 readers? How about 1000 readers?

How does anyone write anything remotely interesting or useful (or honest) while trying to ensure that it doesn't offend at least one of those thousand readers?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Well, perhaps we should operationalize "respectful." Obviously, I'm not the voice for everyone on this board, but respect to me is not "softening" an approach, but considering someone's position carefully and responding with a well thought out response that doesn't contain ad hominem insults. It's really quite irritating to posit a thread or a comment and get responses that not only derail the thread, but imply the poster lacks some very basic knowledge.

I still think that there's a lot of room for interpretation and that well-meaning participants are likely to disagree (in good faith) whether a spirited response represents (a) not considering someone's position carefully and responding in a thoughtful way, (b) an ad hominem attack/insult.

I guess that's why we are free to express how *we* see it and let every individual make their own determination of it.

 

[deleted106747]

I still think that there's a lot of room for interpretation and that well-meaning participants are likely to disagree (in good faith) whether a spirited response represents (a) not considering someone's position carefully and responding in a thoughtful way, (b) an ad hominem attack/insult.

I guess that's why we are free to express how *we* see it and let every individual make their own determination of it.

Of course, but that's a discussion (and I'm certain that will happen, and it will be) for that time. In the meantime, we can all strive to be respectful of others' opinions, until someone comes on here and announces that they are taking on $300,000 debt for a psychology PhD and then starts to insult those who try to dissuade him/her.
(joking! before anyone takes offense.)

 

[Sanman]

Well, perhaps we should operationalize "respectful." Obviously, I'm not the voice for everyone on this board, but respect to me is not "softening" an approach, but considering someone's position carefully and responding with a well thought out response that doesn't contain ad hominem insults. It's really quite irritating to posit a thread or a comment and get responses that not only derail the thread, but imply the poster lacks some very basic knowledge.

I think thoughtful can become an issue due to investment of time. If you look at the exchange between myself and @grad2020 further up this page, Brevity led to someone being disrespected in both the comment and response. However, I am not always willing to make the additional time investment and forums accessed on an iPhone may not lend themselves to that.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Of course, but that's a discussion (and I'm certain that will happen, and it will be) for that time. In the meantime, we can all strive to be respectful of others' opinions, until someone comes on here and announces that they are taking on $300,000 debt for a psychology PhD and then starts to insult those who try to dissuade him/her.
(joking! before anyone takes offense.)

Well, I Laughed Out Loud (LOL)!

 

[Sanman]

Of course, but that's a discussion (and I'm certain that will happen, and it will be) for that time. In the meantime, we can all strive to be respectful of others' opinions, until someone comes on here and announces that they are taking on $300,000 debt for a psychology PhD and then starts to insult those who try to dissuade him/her.
(joking! before anyone takes offense.)

Some say joking about a serious topic is disrespectful to others. Not me though.

 

[deleted106747]

I think thoughtful can become an issue due to investment of time. If you look at the exchange between myself and @grad2020 further up this page, Brevity led to someone being disrespected in both the comment and response. However, I am not always willing to make the additional time investment and forums accessed on an iPhone may not lend themselves to that.

Fine, but I think we should take the time to be respectful, it’s not that much of an investment.

Some say joking about a serious topic is disrespectful to others. Not me though.

Me either.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Fine, but I think we should take the time to be respectful, it’s not that much of an investment.

Me either.

Is it perhaps useful to make a distinction between *civility* vs. *respect* though?

I think it's reasonable to expect people to be civil. But I think that respect is earned, else it's meaningless. If you 'give everyone respect' then: a) you render the concept meaningless and b) you'll end up respecting some pretty bad actors (because you're giving it to everyone).

 

[Sanman]

Fine, but I think we should take the time to be respectful, it’s not that much of an investment.

Me either.

I can agree with overtly being respectful of others and not attacking one another, but brevity allows me to post on a phone while doing other stuff, so that is unlikely to change for me.

 

[deleted106747]

Is it perhaps useful to make a distinction between *civility* vs. *respect* though?

I think it's reasonable to expect people to be civil. But I think that respect is earned, else it's meaningless. If you 'give everyone respect' then: a) you render the concept meaningless and b) you'll end up respecting some pretty bad actors (because you're giving it to everyone).

I like that distinction. Basic civility. I like to give respect until it is no longer deserved, but I can get on board with it being earned also.

I can agree with overtly being respectful of others and not attacking one another, but brevity allows me to post on a phone while doing other stuff, so that is unlikely to change for me.

I haven’t found you rude (that I recall) not sure if anyone else has.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Some say joking about a serious topic is disrespectful to others. Not me though.

I appreciate jokes about serious topics. I do draw the line at entertaining myself and maybe one other person with a thoughtless joke in the midst of a conversation where people are sharing personal stories of sexual assault.

I guess we all have to decide where our own boundaries are. Personally, finding that way over the line doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate a good deal of humor in other contexts.

 

[Sanman]

I appreciate jokes about serious topics. I do draw the line at entertaining myself and maybe one other person with a thoughtless joke in the midst of a conversation where people are sharing personal stories of sexual assault.

I guess we all have to decide where our own boundaries are. Personally, finding that way over the line doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate a good deal of humor in other contexts.

To be clear, I wasn't referring to just you or that single instance. There have been instances of others wanting a more serious tone on the board. That is a perfectly acceptable position, even if one I don't agree with myself. Others feel it is just fine to do.

That said, even in that instance, I not sure if I had read the posts of someone self-disclosing at the time I made a joke as I haven't read all the posts in this long thread. Context is vague in this medium. Some might not read everything written and time also plays a role (responses only a few posts apart if read straight through may have been days apart in time). Add to that we all have own boundaries, as you stated, and it can be tough to "read the room" as it were.

 

[deleted106747]

I appreciate jokes about serious topics. I do draw the line at entertaining myself and maybe one other person with a thoughtless joke in the midst of a conversation where people are sharing personal stories of sexual assault.

I guess we all have to decide where our own boundaries are. Personally, finding that way over the line doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate a good deal of humor in other contexts.

This is true. It's not a black and white thing, & someone isn't humorless, if a joke isn't appreciated for its timing or placement. Humor is a wonderful thing but it has unfortunately been used to shut people down, e.g. can't you take a joke when you are the butt of the joke and so on. Just an example, I didn't see that happening on this board.

 

[GradStudent2020]

To be clear, I wasn't referring to just you or that single instance. There have been instances of others wanting a more serious tone on the board. That is a perfectly acceptable position, even if one I don't agree with myself. Others feel it is just fine to do.

That said, even in that instance, I not sure if I had read the posts of someone self-disclosing at the time I made a joke as I haven't read all the posts in this long thread. Context is vague in this medium. Some might not read everything written and time also plays a role (responses only a few posts apart if read straight through may have been days apart in time). Add to that we all have own boundaries, as you stated, and it can be tough to "read the room" as it were.

Fair enough. I don’t know if other women here feel the same way, but “reading the room” (here, and IRL), doesn’t feel optional to me. This board is low stakes, however, I’m still careful to read all comments if/when I respond. It is not “safe” to ignore some or skip ahead. There’s a sort of privilege feeling comfortable to say what you want, when/where you want, in various settings (even here).

Even when you (kind of general you, kind of you=male posters) do misstep (IMO, that joke way back then was a misstep), you do not feel the need to take any responsibility, apologize, “clear the air”, whatever. When we can see on this thread many women who have been “called out” on their language or comments follow-up with apologies, long commentary on how they *do* *appreciate/respect other posters, and true responsibility for what they posted (ex. I could have said that differently, I should have provided more info, etc.).



Just some thoughts I had, *appreciate your response.

 

[GradStudent2020]

This is true. It's not a black and white thing, & someone isn't humorless, if a joke isn't appreciated for its timing or placement. Humor is a wonderful thing but it has unfortunately been used to shut people down, e.g. can't you take a joke when you are the butt of the joke and so on. Just an example, I didn't see that happening on this board.

I’ve definitely seen humor used in patronizing ways on this board. Yesterday I was reading an old thread, someone had asked for thoughts on using an optional index score on the WAIS. Many people basically told them to go back to their supervisor and just do what they were told. Someone made a comment that was basically “oh, how cute when students come here for supervision.” Very sarcastic, pretty sexist undertones (we aren’t calling obvious male posters “cute”), and easily dismissed as humor.

 

[psych.meout]

Here’s a new article from Allen Frances, chair of the DSM-IV task force, on advice he‘d give to new psychiatrists. Lots of good and applicable fodder for psychotherapists in general. Which ones speak to you? My favorites tonight:

2. No meeting with any patient is ever routine for them; so it should never be routine for you.

18. Diagnosis should almost always be written in pencil—especially in the young and the old. Always err on the side of underdiagnosis—it is easy to later up-diagnose; almost impossible to erase a diagnostic error that can haunt the patient for life.

19. Use DSM, but don't worship it. I equally distrust clinicians who do not know DSM and those who only know DSM.

40. Embark on a personal psychotherapy to help understand yourself better, solve any problems you may have, correct biases based on your personality and experiences, and discover what it is like to be a patient.

49. Be yourself—and grow into an even better version of yourself as you enjoy the special privilege of helping others also better themselves.

Advice to Young Psychiatrists From a Very Old One

Here it is—the 50 most important things Allan Frances, MD, has learned in over 50 years studying psychiatry.

www.psychiatrictimes.com

Yeah, I could be wrong, but I'm not familiar with any literature that personal psychotherapy is associated with any outcomes of interest.

Gee. In starting this thread, I was kind of hoping to chat about wisdom-based aphorisms about the mechanics of effective psychotherapy. But ugh, I guess we lack RCTs about the value of psychotherapists engaging in their own psychotherapy? Color me shocked.

Isn't psychology supposed to be a science? Shouldn't we be operating based on where the evidence is, not "wisdom-based aphorisms?"

Gee, smartypants, have you graduated yet? Nope? That’s what I thought.

Huh, that seems a bit uncalled for. Maybe we could use a thread about welcoming all perspectives and how being "rude" or "aggressive" is unhelpful and keeps people from participating.

Lol! Let’s call this a social experiment in which I am a female psychologist who is your professional superior. (This is obviously what is really happening, but for the sake of collective suspension of disbelief, I’ll continue with the hypothetical.)

You’re clearly a know-it-all graduate student. Permit me to emulate the smooth moves of my masculine brethren in suggesting that you’re all hat, no cattle in this discussion. Maybe try to listen more and talk less? Just a suggestion, no RCT to back it up. Shrug!

Huh, that sounds a bit like "dismissiveness" and a "condescending reality check." Weird....

My conceptualization appears to be quite sound. Good night, junior.

Alright, you've convinced me. Psychologists should definitely get their own psychotherapy.

I agree, and thanks for the feedback.

Sorry, @psych.meout.

Perhaps this thread is worth some further consideration in the other thread on the unique dismissiveness and aggressiveness of male posters.

::Shrug::

I’m loath to break the fourth wall, but yes, my rude bluster is largely a performance to gauge differential responses to similar types of content. Irony really is dead.

I say that not to discount the reality that, at times, I can definitely behave in dismissive and aggressive ways. I work sincerely to improve my character in recognizing these less appealing sides of myself.

Anyway, I’m going take Dr. Frances’s advice (39. Have a rich, varied, and satisfying personal life) and go do some awesome stuff. Have a nice rest of your weekend.

 

[GradStudent2020]

From the "therapy pearls" thread:

Did you forget the post where she sincerely apologized to you? Let’s at least have the convo in its entirety. Maybe including the OP where the comment about gaining one’s own psychotherapy was shared and your own response about lack of research.

Edited: my read on those comments was a tongue-in-cheek, here’s a really obvious example of how many posters communicate. I haven’t seen @msgeorgeelliot communicate in this style before, which contributed to my interpretation of those comments. I appreciated the follow-up explanation AND the sincere apology (not included here).

 

[psych.meout]

Did you forget the post where she sincerely apologized to you? Let’s at least have the convo in its entirety. Maybe including the OP where the comment about gaining one’s own psychotherapy was shared and your own response about lack of research.

Edited: my read on those comments was a tongue-in-cheek, here’s a really obvious example of how many posters communicate. I haven’t seen @msgeorgeelliot communicate in this style before, which contributed to my interpretation of those comments. I appreciated the follow-up explanation AND the sincere apology (not included here).

Fine, I added those, but I'd argue that the following post negates any "sincerity" of the "apology."

I’m loath to break the fourth wall, but yes, my rude bluster is largely a performance to gauge differential responses to similar types of content. Irony really is dead.

I say that not to discount the reality that, at times, I can definitely behave in dismissive and aggressive ways. I work sincerely to improve my character in recognizing these less appealing sides of myself.

Anyway, I’m going take Dr. Frances’s advice (39. Have a rich, varied, and satisfying personal life) and go do some awesome stuff. Have a nice rest of your weekend.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Fine, I added those, but I'd argue that the following post negates any "sincerity" of the "apology."

The post where she acknowledges she is working on recognizing when she is dismissive and/or aggressive negates the sincerity of the apology?

that’s interesting, why?

 

[psych.meout]

The post where she acknowledges she is working on recognizing when she is dismissive and/or aggressive negates the sincerity of the apology?

that’s interesting, why?

I'm clearly referring to this part:

I’m loath to break the fourth wall, but yes, my rude bluster is largely a performance to gauge differential responses to similar types of content. Irony really is dead.

 

[psych.meout]

So you were intentionally rude, insulting, and dismissive without provocation or reason, knowing it would be a problem? And the real problem is someone else? Ok.

Enjoy your weekend and your thread.

 

[GradStudent2020]

I'm clearly referring to this part:

thank you for clarifying. That was not obvious to me. Saying it was a performance negates the apology?

 

[psych.meout]

thank you for clarifying. That was not obvious to me. Saying it was a performance negates the apology?

It negates the "sincerity."

 

[GradStudent2020]

It negates the "sincerity."

I guess I just can’t understand why anyone would be offended by a joke/comment that they clearly made for their own entertainment.

(THIS IS SARCASM)

 

[GradStudent2020]

 

[GradStudent2020]

really only the first bit is relevant....

 

[WisNeuro]

Y'all were busy over the weekend. It's fall, why aren't you out picking apples or carving pumpkins?

 

[Sanman]

Y'all were busy over the weekend. It's fall, why aren't you out picking apples or carving pumpkins?

Because that is next weekend. Didn't you get the memo? We sent one out with the morning email about donuts.