I don't understand what this means. There are some references to the original post, which was a presentation of legislation, but no personal opinions were given. There was another student that talked about how she struggled with obesity. There was no more to her quote than I gave you so I'm not sure why you said that???
I thought you edited her but I guess not. I based that on when she says in her response "I did move on to state that most of the time there is, most certainly, an underlying issue that generates such behavior, whether it be physical, sexual, mental abuse or neglect."
I still have the same opinion but adding this type of context would have been helpful during the original point she made because it shows you have an understanding of how people may have gotten to where they are.
I have read this several times and I just cannot see the point of view where this woman would set anyone off.
This is a classroom setting where logic and rational should be employed.
Getting personal though she does say she is a foster parent (or has been) working with kids troubled enough to see pychologists.
"...these are the descriptions used by a clinical psychologist that I work with as a DYFS foster parent."
How you get from the classroom setting this woman has no compassion or understanding of the reality is a bit beyond my understanding. Maybe someone could explain it to me?
I think it is a difference between reading it and listening to her say it while watching her facial expressions. The way I read it, it sounded like she was blowing off "reasons and justifications" like they were pitiful excuses.
I think it could be read in a lot of ways, but the quotations make me think she wants it read in a different tone than the rest of her piece. If she didn't want to get into the explanation, she could have written "reasons, justifucations, etc." Rather than call those two words out specifically.
I'm not offended, but I do read the tone because of the quotation marks, and it sounds like she has a problem with someone or is trying to wake someone up by shaming them into following her advice.
I think there are many ways to interpret what she is saying. I do believe we tend to cast our own shadows on other people's words...meaning we hear things a certain way because of our own experiences. I do think that I am particularly sensitive to this so I was more inclined to see it as her being dismissive by quoting those words.
Part of my point to her, which I may not have conveyed is that quoting those words can be upsetting to a patient.
I can be blunt and crass here, on 3FC, but it might surprise many of you that I do not approach my patients like this at all. My job is to listen to them and let them know they are heard. Not everyone has someone to talk to and sometimes patients need to know that I am there not to judge them but just to listen. I'm not there to lecture them (educate, yes, lecture, no). I would never ever write in reference to my patients their "reasons" or "justifications" for over eating, or smoking, or drinking, or drug use or anything else. That is not my place. I'm sure they receive enough criticism and dismissing of their experiences from some many other sources.
I took a look at this nurses info page a little while ago, and its hard to explain, but if another nurse is reading this, you'll get it. Her background is very skill oriented but not very people/patient oriented. However I also noticed that her info post was written very impersonally. So maybe what I interpreted as cold was just the way she writes. I feel bad about that now. But what do I say? I read your other posts and realized most of your writing seems like something out of a textbook rather than an a personable exchange between two nurses? IDk...I know my pregnancy hormones are not helping as I been on edge all week. :P
Last edited by GlamourGirl827; 07-20-2014 at 10:11 PM.
Part of my point to her, which I may not have conveyed is that quoting those words can be upsetting to a patient.
This is exactly the point I am making defending the woman. Given the information we have it is a big jump to conclude how she communicates to a patient even with her background which seems to lack experience in the personal side.
Having said that you do make a good point about how we view things with our own bias and I would postulate your own bias jumped out on the first communication and then you were not impartial when reading her second. Maybe I'm wrong but based on your post history you tend to be quite logical and I'm being purely logical when I say we have no idea how she communicates to patients.
My bias is to give her the benefit of the doubt because she is a foster parent and pursuing an occupation based on the service to others.
Whatever this woman's communication style is to patients I am quite sure that one can be quite clinical in their scholastic approach while being the biggest sweetheart on the planet to one's patients because a very good family friend of ours is exactly like this. She is an RN and when discussion a topic about health in general she is all about the facts but when it is specific to a person she is always very compassionate.
I don't see a thing to get offended over in her responses - but I make it my number one rule of human communication to always assume the very best intentions and tone of everything said, by anyone.
I didn't find the quotations offensive either. In fact, I probably would have used them myself, if I were either using the words patients/clients had used themselves or as a more universally understood, but less precise replacement for more accurate, but less universally known science-speak terminology such as, "contributory factors," which would be more specific, accurate, and science-based, but less universally understood by layfolk without a science/medical knowledge base (btw, I use the quotations in this case only because grammar and sentence structure demands it, not because I think "factors" is any less or more legitimate a word when encased in quotation marks).
I get that some folks use quotes in writing and "air quotes" in speaking colloquially to denote sarcasm, negation, or disagreement, but I wouldn't generally expect a nurse to do so in an informative piece of writing (again I'm using quotation marks only grammatically as I was taught to, not sarcastically or with any judgement, which I think the author was dong as well).
I don't believe it was the author's intent to diminish or deny the existence of contributory factors. Rather, I suspect that quotation marks were probably used either because the terms were the words patients used themselves or were words more likely to be understood by more people, even though a phrase such as "contributory factors" would have been technically more precise.
I didn't find the quotations offensive either. In fact, I probably would have used them myself, if I were either using the words patients/clients had used themselves or as a more universally understood, but less precise replacement for more accurate, but less universally known science-speak terminology such as, "contributory factors," which would be more specific, accurate, and science-based, but less universally understood by layfolk without a science/medical knowledge base (btw, I use the quotations in this case only because grammar and sentence structure demands it, not because I think "factors" is any less or more legitimate a word when encased in quotation marks).
I get that some folks use quotes in writing and "air quotes" in speaking colloquially to denote sarcasm, negation, or disagreement, but I wouldn't generally expect a nurse to do so in an informative piece of writing (again I'm using quotation marks only grammatically as I was taught to, not sarcastically or with any judgement, which I think the author was dong as well).
I don't believe it was the author's intent to diminish or deny the existence of contributory factors. Rather, I suspect that quotation marks were probably used either because the terms were the words patients used themselves or were words more likely to be understood by more people, even though a phrase such as "contributory factors" would have been technically more precise.
When I read it this way, as contributory factors" I received it very differently. It sounded more analytical and matter of fact.
Yes, I typically take "quotes" as sarcasm, but I can see with the wording you used how it can be meant in a different way. But I did take the post as sarcasm, and I agree, I would truly hope that a professional in a online class would not use them in that way.
I still think it was a poor choice for her to use those words and quote them, but I can see how maybe she wasn't thinking that it would be received that way.
A bit of interesting info I found out later, she has NO previous internet experience! None. Yes I was amazed at this. Where its common practice in writing, such as on message boards to quote for sarcasm as you said, she has no prior experience with this. Had I known this, I would have been more aware that she is not aware of these nuances.
Last edited by GlamourGirl827; 08-03-2014 at 09:51 AM.
I think she spent only five minutes writing it with only one second of thought. I would not take it personally at all (unless I've had bad run-ins with her in the past). She might be horrified that her One Quotes Blunder took up two pages of internet forum discussion! I'm sure if she knew she would never post again without two editors LOL.
