Why do some people have a huge number of posts?

rob2, You have touched on a very relevant topic (2 posts up)…one that influences so many people here and most don’t even realize how significantly they are affected.   There are two psychological phenomenon at play here, the first one commonly called the “Uncle Harry” effect.   By way of example of this factor, over a year ago here at HW, someone started a thread titled, “ Which car should we buy ?” as a reference to the looming choice of PC treatments.   I gave this reply: If we drove a Ford in the past and we had good results with a Ford, we are likely to buy a Ford again next time.  If we didn't have good results with a Ford in the past, we are likely to buy something other than a Ford next time. The analogy to PC treatments is similar, but can be called the "Uncle Harry" scenario. With PC as common as it is, most of us found someone relatively close to us who was also treated with PC when we were making our decision; maybe a blood relative, the ficticious "Uncle Harry." ·           If "Uncle Harry" had good results with seeds, many of us will be influenced to select seeds as a treatment.  ·           If "Uncle Harry" had good results with surgery, many of us will be influenced to select surgery as a treatment. ·           If "Uncle Harry" had bad results with surgery, many of us will be influenced to not select surgery as a treatment. Common consumer behavior.  (But doesn't lead to effecient provision of services.)   The second psychological factor, related to the first, is called “avoidance of cognitive dissonance.”   In the context of prostate cancer, when over 300 affected men were surveyed (with over 90% having radical treatments) almost 90% stated that they were satisfied or extremely satisfied with their choice, and a similar number indicated that they would choose the same treatment again.   I think we see another common example of the “cognitive dissonance” phenomenon frequently here at HW.   As an example , medical research conducted in the past few years has shown that bioactive dietary agents can (a) reduce an individual’s chances of developing PC, (b) diminish the risk of disease recurrence, and (c) inhibit disease progression.    Far too many of the “average” doctors, dieticians, clinicians, etc are ignorant of the unique challenges, as well as the opportunities prostate cancer presents…they are simply too busy running their day-to-day operations to keep well informed of the growing evidence in such a narrow niche.   What we see here is patients of these (probably very nice & compassionate) “average” doctors strongly defending their very “average” knowledge , and those patients are not even aware of the strength of this conviction.   These are “our” doctors, we selected them, and thus we hold them in the highest esteem and all others—even the true subject matter experts—must be stupid.   Sometimes, this blind faith based on cognitive dissonance, which some follow perhaps to their own peril, becomes clearly apparent to other HW readers but in the end each must make up their own minds on action/inaction. Again, yet another example of this is in the trashing of Active Surveillance by those here who chose more radical treatments for their own therapy.   As a long-timer here, I’m very ashamed of this site when I recall the AS posters (and other types of posters) who have been “run-off” by obnoxiousness of others.   And the amazing part is that those who obnoxiously “ran-off” the others seemed completely oblivious to the damage they had done…not only to that individual who had sought AS support, but also the lost opportunity for that AS patient to help others in the future. Rob, you have brought to the surface good points for participants at this site to keep in mind.   I think some people see these two psychological phenomena playing out every day here, and some have been--by the very nature of them being psychological phenomena--oblivious to them.   With this reminder, perhaps we can collectively be more tolerant, aware and supportive.

Definition I found online:

Cyber-bullying

Cyber-bullying is any bullying done through the use of technology. This form of bullying can easily go undetected because of lack of parental/authoritative supervision. Because bullies can pose as someone else, it is the most anonymous form of bullying. Cyber bullying includes, but is not limited to, abuse using email, instant messaging, text messaging, websites, social networking sites, etc.

I've posted quite a bit in my 9 months here on HW. I haven't originated many threads, but I find myself compelled to respond sometimes, esp. to a post like Casey's most recent (above).  That post has moved away from the topic of why some folks post so frequently, but it's the kind of post that prompts me to reply.  Sometimes I reply because I reallize I speak for a minority point of view, and that if I don't say something, no one will.

It's a provocative post, but also an unsettling one, and with a degree of arrogance about it. When we amateurs here on HW start criticizing "average" doctors for not being sufficiently knowledgeabe to understand our particular points of view, that makes me nervous. I suspect that the majority of "average" urologists know a whole lot more about prostate cancer and how to treat it than even the most widely read here on HW. In that sense, I suspect "cognitive dissonance" leads some of us to seek out studies that agree with and support our particular interests (e.g., the interrelation of diet and disease) and to dismiss anyone who diagrees with us or who is less than willing to become enthusiastic about those protocols as less informed and less forward thinking.

It's somewhat the same with AS. Of course AS can work in certain cases. It would be hard to argue otherwise. I essentially put myself through AS (or at least watchful waiting) out of personal ignorance. My PSA went into the 4 range and my internist said I needed to see a urologist. I ignored the recommendation, and on the next physical it had gone into the 5 range. I again ignored his recommendation that I see a urologist. Then it reached the 6 range and I complied, had the DRE and found myself in a Gleason 7 (3+4) situation, no doubt much more worrisome than my case would have been two or three years earlier.    So, I had 3 years without the SE of impotence, but I would give back those 3 years to have been treated earlier.

Would I recommend waiting two or three years, as I did. Certainly not. I wish I would have acted several years earlier, probably thereby dealing with a Gleason 6, and probably sparing both nerve bundles instead of only one.

So why have I sometimes posted thoughts against AS?  Not because I want to "run off" people from this site, but because I don't want to see them postpone treatment out of fear of the SE's until, like me, they've put themselves in a situation that lends itself to a worse long-term prognosis. I would also mention that hardly a month goes by that we don't meet someone who goes into surgery a G-6 and comes out a G-7 with EPE or margin involvement. My dispositon tends to be of caution. I'm not a gambler (although I stupidly gambled with my own personal situation regarding my rising PSA). That was a mistake I made and one I don't want to see others repeat. Sure, AS can work, but it's definitely not for everyone. 

Sorry if this is oblivious blather :)

Mel, Casey, Clock, Alf, 142, Sleepless, Rob, Snow and others, Great topic this may end up being one of my favorite.

mel - my radiation oncologist was as nice and friendly and polite as apple pie, but she still blundered and put me through a year plus of pure physical hell and left me without a working bladder, that's didn't stop me from litigation against her and the radiation clinic. also, an excellent doctor doesn't have to be an arrogant butt hole, i dont think the "nice" part has anything to do with the "quality" side of any doctor, some people are nice, some are arrogant and rude, just human nature

clocknut, your last post was hardly "blather", I am repulsed by the use of that word here at HW, as it devalues a persons attempt to communicate via writing. One person's "blather" is good info to another. your other points are well made, and others should pay attention to them in my opinion.

david

DAVID:

Excellent point about your RO and there is no doubt that you absolutely should have filed this suit. In terms of personal knowledge,, you are the most extreme case of medical malpractice. I've read of some that are worse, but i KNOW you. Incidentally, some of the worst cases do involve radiation. So I also agree with your past statements that patients look too lightly at this modality.

But, as I said, studies have shown without any doubt that the personality/"niceness" of the doctor GREATLY influences patient decisions regarding malpractice suits. I am too lazy to try and find those studies (actually, too busy also) but I remember really being struck by this. The data was very compelling.

Mel

 

David,

I started the post because someone had implied that posting a lot had some negative connotation. I was trying to make the point that if we are following each other's journeys, and offering an acknowledgement as we go, the number of posts rises quickly.

I was trying to thank those who do that on a regular basis. If you hadn't sorted it out, it was directed at you, alf, sonny, and the others who help welcome the newcomers and offer an electronic "nod" along the way

142, i think your motives were fine on your thread, the title could be fodder for those trying to make some other points. the way i see it, if you look at the other HW communities here, we are extremely active at all times, and answer come quickly to those asking. since i have a stoma, i read and rarely post at the ostomie portion of HW too.

the whole point is we learn from one another, and help one another. volume shouldn't be a question in anyone's mind, i think for the most part, people post exactly at the pace they are comfortable at, and that's how it should be.

appreciate you, brother.

david