Quick Links
Categories
Useful Links I Recommend
Les Posen's CyberPsych Blog
Thirty Thousand Feet Aviation Directory
Thirld World Congress on Fear of Flying (ICAO HQ)
Captain Lim's Boeing 777 Site
Captain Ron Neilsen's Site
VALK Foundation
Virtually Better
Airline Safety.com - Promoting free-market/limited government solutions to airline safety issues
Capt. Stacey Chance's DVD
Dr. Bryan Bourke - Sydney colleague
Flight Experience 737 sim
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Approved by Attention.org
XML/RSS Feed
Archives
Comments powered by
Counter
Search
|
|
Want to be emailed when I update the Weblog?
 |
 |
Books I use and recommend
Analytics
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 18, 2007 06:03 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 18, 2007 06:03 PM
Choosing an online support forum - how to get value for your internet time, and avoid the potential pitfalls.
The latest edition of the Australian
Psychological Society's InPsych magazine had a special feature on internet-based
therapies. It got me thinking about fear of flying online support sites and
groups, some of which are linked top left.
There's a lot to be said for participating in all
kinds of online forums for whatever ails you.
New research suggests many who ordinarily wouldn't seek face to face help - for reasons of being stigmatised, diagnosed, prescribed and more, can be reached and assisted with online help. But there are questions to be asked first before stepping up to the plate and opening yourself to online strangers, whose real identities may be justifiably hidden.
And what role can professionals play in these groups?
Should they too have the same concerns, be free of them, or never have had them in the first place?
Should such groups run along an AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) model applied online, or carve out their own ways and means as a co-evolving community of practice (to use a term borrowed from Knowledge Management circles)?
Does it really "take one to know one", or do professional carers have something unique to offer for their potentially expensive services?
Support groups have existed on the internet way before the Web as we know existed. They first were derived for technical support, both for hardware and software, at a time when the internet as we use it now expanded after the introduction of the Netscape browser. This was quickly followed by the bundling of Microsoft's Internet Explorer with Windows 95 (and then soon joined by the millions of AOL users who could access the web too from their walled enclaves), when groups soon developed to support all manner of common interests.
In the early days, indeed before the Web, private services like Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy, eWorld, GEnie, Delphi, and others existed and offered numerous forums for discussions of all manner of niche interests. The Usenet, originally a means of discussion between universities, pre-dated the commercial online services, and it is there where we can first see online communities forming. Here fantasy games could be played out, the early text-based forerunners of now-popular networked video games (many of a warrior or warlike character). They relied on words and imagination. BBS or Bulletin Board Services were also very early text-based meeting places.
Other forums offered technical help, discussions of politics and social agenda, travel information and many other niche interests. Indeed, it can be said that many eyes were opened observing the diversity of human endeavours which could be explored in various online communities. There was literally something for everyone, and a community of practice to match.
Many people came and stayed for long periods, gaining seniority and were accorded "moderator" status, where they could help shape conversations, keep unruly people in line (or offline if their behaviour could not be corralled), and generally keep conversations to the subject for which the forum was constructed.
Some groups had no moderation at all, no "list owner" whose say was final (listowners had the "electronic keys" allowing admission or the ability to lock the door shut, keeping the list safe from unwanted intrusions. Nowadays, such listowners face new intrusions from marketers inserting their spam messages into discussion lists.)
But in the old days, while people used mainly text to communicate on forums, not all were equally adept conveying their ideas in simple terms. For some, going from speaking to someone - with all the physical cues as to how your message was being received to allow for quick shifts when necessary - to writing their ideas in conversational writing was not easy.
Some who would impress as informal and friendly could easily come across as formal and starchy in their writing, perhaps because writing for them was a formal and precise part of their jobs. For others, their informality often meant drifting off topic, or expressing jokes which were unacceptable to some or appearing uncaring in the case of support groups.
So-called "flame wars" were not uncommon, and are still visible in contemporary forums. An upsetting post is made, others react, a defence is mounted by other members, and the original post is lost in a deluge of seemingly child-like diatribes. Some forums became famous for attracting "flamers" who could be counted on to commence a flame war sooner or later, despite appearing on "best behaviour" initially. Sooner or later, their "buttons" would be pressed, and old sores re-opened.
Online behaviours have now become the subject of psychological research, much like the study of any kind of group behaviours with their own norms and mores.
Support forums for those with physical and psychological disabilities or challenges were seen to spring up once a certain critical mass of internet users was available. Often, there were two binding factors for which the forums offered solace and refuge. One was the obvious meeting of kindred spirits, where acknowledgment that one was not alone in their suffering or concerns proved very comforting - a problem shared is a problem solved. Or almost!
The other was a place to meet to discuss inadequate formal intervention supplied by professionals. Here too, solace could be found in the virtual arms of others who also had not found professional interventions helpful or felt they had indeed been harmed. In this way, two invisible groups could co-exist under the one umbrella each seeking ways to overcome their concerns.
Indeed, when a new member joined - "newbies" - it wouldn't take long before those with a good understanding of group dynamics could experience the "pull" into various camps: for or against, or naive to professional intervention. Moreover, within these various camps, there would often be more subgroups, reflecting the various nuances of their complaint, disorder, disability or challenge.
Some people were well-advanced in their change process, others had recently been diagnosed, while still others had accidentally tripped in, having done a search on the web, where a support group's links might be seen early in the results due to its popularity or links to other sites.
So even though on the surface, all were in the forum with seemingly similar concerns, the reality can now been seen a little differently. That is, that there are all manner of variations under the one roof, and individuality can be lost possibly through group dynamics.
With regard to fear of flying, there are perhaps more than a dozen online support groups available for those seeking help. Some have been created by professionals, such as psychologists or pilots or both, and others are entirely user-based, perhaps split off from an older group whose group dynamics had become unpalatable or where more sinister motives were found to exist with the forum.
Thus, a more seedy and certainly unhelpful side could exist in such forums. While many might claim to be helpful or supportive, it would be rare to see any published figures of outcomes. Certainly, if such figures existed, they would not match the rigour needed in professional studies to be published.
Of course, for some, outcomes are not important, but the sense of belonging and community becomes the central reason for remaining in the group, perhaps to the neglect of their concerns, or even after the group no longer served its original purpose. Numerous groups can be found where graduates remain on the list to help and guide others, and show that it's worth the effort, thus modelling success. Whether they can honestly put the success down to the forum's efforts is moot - that success is possible by whichever means is sufficient reason for staying on.
These forums often have professionals within their midst to assist. Sometimes, the professionals serve dual roles: they are or were fearful flyers and they have expertise, as accorded them by the group or its moderators. Other professionals usually found are pilots either commercial or private or military. Their assigned "role" is to deal with mechanical and aviation safety issues, although it's not unknown for them to occasionally veer off into a pseudo-counselling role in their explanations of weather, unusual noises, and explaining critical incidents reported by the media and brought to the forum by a concerned member. It's not uncommon to see professionals and pilots form tight bonds, or conversely niggle at each other for those who are sensitive enough to see on forums, each claiming the higher ground as to the salience of their individual knowledge domains for the general group. Because fear of flying is not unimodal, any attempt to corral all helpful knowledge into one domain is doomed to fail.
Professional counsellors have a difficult role to play, especially if they have their own history of fearful flying. They must not diagnose on the internet for ethical reasons (although they may share their concerns privately with moderators if they are fearful for the group's welfare due to one member's behavuour.) At best, their role might be restricted to factual explanations of experiences such as anxiety, panic, hyperventilation, avoidance and other phobic or even post-traumatic reactions. They, like the others, might offer support, and "high fives" for successful outcomes.
Both pilots and professionals are accorded great status by groups, in the hope that from them, some solutions will be found. Pilots in particular are offered exalted status, which can be enjoyed by some and experienced as quite uncomfortable for others, especially if they harbour reservations about themselves in other domains of their lives (e.g. am I a good parent, husband or wife, manager, community citizen, or more problematical, "I have my own psychological issues which I daren't share").
Because pilots are so used to doing their jobs procedurally, they can usually stick to their assigned roles very well. Some who have both pilot and psychological qualifications can be found on the net leading or participating in support groups. Like most support groups, reactions can vary widely, from adoration through to suspicion should they appear to be over-controlling. Some find it a difficult task to give up a "take command" role.
What makes for a good support group?
There is little doubt for me that support groups can play a valuable role in any one individual's return to happy flying. Sometimes, that person will stay on and assist others by example, passion and enthusiasm. But I also have little doubt that some stay for all the wrong reasons, and may well impede others who need only minor assistance. For them to leave the group behind would be akin to experiencing the loss of family.
So one way to understand a group's mechanisms before you actively participate (and become an involuntary member of the group's dynamics) is to watch carefully (also known as "lurking") to understand the ebb and flow of conversation. What happens when a new person joins? What's expected of them? Are they welcomed warmly and then allowed to freely express their concerns? Is there group pressure to conform or toe a certain line, e.g.,"control issues are the most salient for fearful flyers" (Important, but not universal).
Look to see who leaps in early, and how they understand newbie concerns. Do they say, "Yeah, I know all about that!" or, "That's not my issue, but I'm here to help how I can." Do they respect individual differences?
Be wary of those who see all problems through their own eyes. This lack of empathic skills coupled with inflexibility of thought - which may well be part of their own fearful flying - can allow your concerns to be shaped to match, or worse still, can be discounted as not being as "real" or as valid or as troublesome as their own more "substantial" concerns.
Indeed, one of the first dynamics to be studied in support groups, usually for physical ailments, was that of group members outdoing each other over the seriousness of their concerns. There was an "undiscussed" hierarchy of suffering such that those with more life-threatening illness were accorded greater status than those with lesser threats to their physical integrity. To the outsider it appeared that a literally unhealthy competition for status was occurring, to which the members themselves were oblivious.
In some groups, and fear of flying is no exception, newcomers can be treated with suspicion as if they have to prove their dues of suffering to engage in conversation. Some can be treated as intruders if they don't conform to the unspoken group dynamics, despite a publicly stated tolerance for diversity. As with all human groups, dyads and other small groups can spring up especially if commonalities other than fear of flying are discovered by accident. The person who wants to fly to Italy to experience Tuscan cookery makes contact with another who likes the culinary arts; the Canuks fan who wants to follow the team about picks a pseudo (but fun) fight with a fan of a traditional opponent.
Occasionally things can get nasty and out of control, sometimes fanned by the moderators themselves with their human foibles. This is more likely to occur when the usual things which cause disagreements find their way into the discussion: sex, politics, and money! It is here that disappointment can be experienced especially when a previously helpful person - a comrade-in-arms - turns out to be intolerant of your brand of politics including sexual politics.
Trust issues must then be confronted, and whether the same individual or subgroup can be ever again be entrusted with one's fears and concerns.
What it's like to be a professional visitor...
I have been a visitor, member and advisor in a number of groups and it has been interesting to experience the widely varying responses to my presence.
For some, I'm like a breath of fresh air, challenging an old guard that may have formed to protect members from predatory practitioners and moderators in other forums. The old guard often ends up committing the same mistakes of control of information flow and discussion, coming off as insecure and repetitive.
Others welcome a different perspective especially where it can be seen to have a body of knowledge sustaining it. Not always do the appointed forum "experts" welcome strangers who do not have a fear, especially if forum members appear pleased with any explanations offered, even if they may be contrary to long-held beliefs.
One of those beliefs is that of the proposition of "recovered" fear of flyers, who are but one flight away from returning to fearful flying, using the same disease model as applied in substance abuse. Often, those forums that permit or even encourage this kind of thinking have "experts" whose backgrounds are in substance abuse, with a "subspecialty" in Personality Disorders.
This peculiar model of fearful flying is unknown, it seems to me, outside the US, with its many "Anonymous"-type organisations. The problem with this model is that fearful flying is no more a disease than is watching too much television or surfing the internet.
Using a disease model is a wonderful way of keeping individuals just short of actually disposing of their concerns once and for all, to the point where they believe they can manage their flying, despite the presence of bouts of anxiety or the occasional difficult flight. Such flights can happen to anyone, but don't necessarily mean one must return to previous high levels of anxious flying.
The bottom line is that if you believe you're entitled to see yourself as a "recovering" fearful flyer because the notion of being in recovery makes sense to you - and you find a forum that supports that notion - that's fine. But you won't get much support from me, because such a stance can't be substantiated by any body of evidence. It's dogma.
One of the issues I've also discovered in forums is that the word of pilots when it comes to things aviation is often considered FINAL by forum members and moderators. While pilots are often turned to on forums for their helpful knowledge, they are but one part of a complex enterprise that keeps planes flying safely. I have witnessed pilots "tell it like it is" on forums in the belief that the truth can't hurt, and one is entitled to know the truth about flying.
But a little knowledge of how people learn offers dissent to such a view. People learn in part by applying new knowledge to their already existing knowledge - bridging - so that new knowledge is better assimilated. "Too much too soon" when it comes to aviation knowledge and the fearful flyer has no appropriate place to yet file away - or assign personal meaning - to that information.
Allowing the fearful flyer to visit a hangar with a plane in hundreds of pieces as a part of a heavy maintenance schedule may not be the best thing for instance, even if the intent is to show quality assurance principles at work. Perhaps after quite some information has been presented verbally and via videos, is such a visit appropriate. Then the sight of the dismembered plane can be placed into a safety context.
What some in a forum may prefer a "just give it to me straight" forum posting from a pilot, others may interpret the same post as blunt and insensitive. When pilots also engage in political rabble-rousing to further their own particular agendas under the guise of discussing aviation safety, it's also probably time to question just whose agenda is best served by your remaining in that forum. Such events can be located on the web without too much effort, using Google's search function.
I suggest when you travel about the internet and watch forums in action, you keep some of these ideas in mind before you put fingers to the keyboard and share your concerns. While the initial blush of warmth and enthusiasm can be quite intoxicating, be aware that there are often deeper undercurrents, often incorporating belief systems and ideas irrelevant to aviation, but which are part and parcel of how groups operate.
One forum I'm aware of has quite conservative moderators in their political outlooks, who appear quite superficially welcoming of all and sundry but behind the scenes are very apprehensive of some of their members' "liberal" attitudes. It takes more than casual observation to see their concerns played out but it's there for those who look close enough. By and large, these forums get on OK, but every so often these differences of attitude will spring to the surface, and a quick glance at the thinking styles of those who run the show can be had. Sometimes, it becomes downright ugly, other times there is general bonhomie and high-fiving when a favourite forum member succeeds at a set flight task, such as their first unaccompanied flight, or a flight over water, or one of more than 5 hours endurance.
This is when forums come into their own.
If you're a professional thinking of joining a forum to offer your sage advice or simply to look and learn, my experiences suggest you think twice about it. Even when your body of knowledge would be considered academically sound, it doesn't mean it will be accepted in a forum. Some place a different weight on such knowledge, preferring that from their selected "experts" and their successful flyers which trumps professional knowledge.
Save your enthusiasm for your own patients and think about developing your own resources to give away or sell as you please. Or if you feel you simply must become an active member of a forum, with all the caveats I have so far described, write to the moderators and seek formal status as an industry expert. This way you are clear with regard to your intentions, and beyond suspicion.
You see, in some forums which purport to offer support, some wield power in a way that confirms the old adage from Lord Acton,
New research suggests many who ordinarily wouldn't seek face to face help - for reasons of being stigmatised, diagnosed, prescribed and more, can be reached and assisted with online help. But there are questions to be asked first before stepping up to the plate and opening yourself to online strangers, whose real identities may be justifiably hidden.
And what role can professionals play in these groups?
Should they too have the same concerns, be free of them, or never have had them in the first place?
Should such groups run along an AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) model applied online, or carve out their own ways and means as a co-evolving community of practice (to use a term borrowed from Knowledge Management circles)?
Does it really "take one to know one", or do professional carers have something unique to offer for their potentially expensive services?
Support groups have existed on the internet way before the Web as we know existed. They first were derived for technical support, both for hardware and software, at a time when the internet as we use it now expanded after the introduction of the Netscape browser. This was quickly followed by the bundling of Microsoft's Internet Explorer with Windows 95 (and then soon joined by the millions of AOL users who could access the web too from their walled enclaves), when groups soon developed to support all manner of common interests.
In the early days, indeed before the Web, private services like Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy, eWorld, GEnie, Delphi, and others existed and offered numerous forums for discussions of all manner of niche interests. The Usenet, originally a means of discussion between universities, pre-dated the commercial online services, and it is there where we can first see online communities forming. Here fantasy games could be played out, the early text-based forerunners of now-popular networked video games (many of a warrior or warlike character). They relied on words and imagination. BBS or Bulletin Board Services were also very early text-based meeting places.
Other forums offered technical help, discussions of politics and social agenda, travel information and many other niche interests. Indeed, it can be said that many eyes were opened observing the diversity of human endeavours which could be explored in various online communities. There was literally something for everyone, and a community of practice to match.
Many people came and stayed for long periods, gaining seniority and were accorded "moderator" status, where they could help shape conversations, keep unruly people in line (or offline if their behaviour could not be corralled), and generally keep conversations to the subject for which the forum was constructed.
Some groups had no moderation at all, no "list owner" whose say was final (listowners had the "electronic keys" allowing admission or the ability to lock the door shut, keeping the list safe from unwanted intrusions. Nowadays, such listowners face new intrusions from marketers inserting their spam messages into discussion lists.)
But in the old days, while people used mainly text to communicate on forums, not all were equally adept conveying their ideas in simple terms. For some, going from speaking to someone - with all the physical cues as to how your message was being received to allow for quick shifts when necessary - to writing their ideas in conversational writing was not easy.
Some who would impress as informal and friendly could easily come across as formal and starchy in their writing, perhaps because writing for them was a formal and precise part of their jobs. For others, their informality often meant drifting off topic, or expressing jokes which were unacceptable to some or appearing uncaring in the case of support groups.
So-called "flame wars" were not uncommon, and are still visible in contemporary forums. An upsetting post is made, others react, a defence is mounted by other members, and the original post is lost in a deluge of seemingly child-like diatribes. Some forums became famous for attracting "flamers" who could be counted on to commence a flame war sooner or later, despite appearing on "best behaviour" initially. Sooner or later, their "buttons" would be pressed, and old sores re-opened.
Online behaviours have now become the subject of psychological research, much like the study of any kind of group behaviours with their own norms and mores.
Support forums for those with physical and psychological disabilities or challenges were seen to spring up once a certain critical mass of internet users was available. Often, there were two binding factors for which the forums offered solace and refuge. One was the obvious meeting of kindred spirits, where acknowledgment that one was not alone in their suffering or concerns proved very comforting - a problem shared is a problem solved. Or almost!
The other was a place to meet to discuss inadequate formal intervention supplied by professionals. Here too, solace could be found in the virtual arms of others who also had not found professional interventions helpful or felt they had indeed been harmed. In this way, two invisible groups could co-exist under the one umbrella each seeking ways to overcome their concerns.
Indeed, when a new member joined - "newbies" - it wouldn't take long before those with a good understanding of group dynamics could experience the "pull" into various camps: for or against, or naive to professional intervention. Moreover, within these various camps, there would often be more subgroups, reflecting the various nuances of their complaint, disorder, disability or challenge.
Some people were well-advanced in their change process, others had recently been diagnosed, while still others had accidentally tripped in, having done a search on the web, where a support group's links might be seen early in the results due to its popularity or links to other sites.
So even though on the surface, all were in the forum with seemingly similar concerns, the reality can now been seen a little differently. That is, that there are all manner of variations under the one roof, and individuality can be lost possibly through group dynamics.
With regard to fear of flying, there are perhaps more than a dozen online support groups available for those seeking help. Some have been created by professionals, such as psychologists or pilots or both, and others are entirely user-based, perhaps split off from an older group whose group dynamics had become unpalatable or where more sinister motives were found to exist with the forum.
Thus, a more seedy and certainly unhelpful side could exist in such forums. While many might claim to be helpful or supportive, it would be rare to see any published figures of outcomes. Certainly, if such figures existed, they would not match the rigour needed in professional studies to be published.
Of course, for some, outcomes are not important, but the sense of belonging and community becomes the central reason for remaining in the group, perhaps to the neglect of their concerns, or even after the group no longer served its original purpose. Numerous groups can be found where graduates remain on the list to help and guide others, and show that it's worth the effort, thus modelling success. Whether they can honestly put the success down to the forum's efforts is moot - that success is possible by whichever means is sufficient reason for staying on.
These forums often have professionals within their midst to assist. Sometimes, the professionals serve dual roles: they are or were fearful flyers and they have expertise, as accorded them by the group or its moderators. Other professionals usually found are pilots either commercial or private or military. Their assigned "role" is to deal with mechanical and aviation safety issues, although it's not unknown for them to occasionally veer off into a pseudo-counselling role in their explanations of weather, unusual noises, and explaining critical incidents reported by the media and brought to the forum by a concerned member. It's not uncommon to see professionals and pilots form tight bonds, or conversely niggle at each other for those who are sensitive enough to see on forums, each claiming the higher ground as to the salience of their individual knowledge domains for the general group. Because fear of flying is not unimodal, any attempt to corral all helpful knowledge into one domain is doomed to fail.
Professional counsellors have a difficult role to play, especially if they have their own history of fearful flying. They must not diagnose on the internet for ethical reasons (although they may share their concerns privately with moderators if they are fearful for the group's welfare due to one member's behavuour.) At best, their role might be restricted to factual explanations of experiences such as anxiety, panic, hyperventilation, avoidance and other phobic or even post-traumatic reactions. They, like the others, might offer support, and "high fives" for successful outcomes.
Both pilots and professionals are accorded great status by groups, in the hope that from them, some solutions will be found. Pilots in particular are offered exalted status, which can be enjoyed by some and experienced as quite uncomfortable for others, especially if they harbour reservations about themselves in other domains of their lives (e.g. am I a good parent, husband or wife, manager, community citizen, or more problematical, "I have my own psychological issues which I daren't share").
Because pilots are so used to doing their jobs procedurally, they can usually stick to their assigned roles very well. Some who have both pilot and psychological qualifications can be found on the net leading or participating in support groups. Like most support groups, reactions can vary widely, from adoration through to suspicion should they appear to be over-controlling. Some find it a difficult task to give up a "take command" role.
What makes for a good support group?
There is little doubt for me that support groups can play a valuable role in any one individual's return to happy flying. Sometimes, that person will stay on and assist others by example, passion and enthusiasm. But I also have little doubt that some stay for all the wrong reasons, and may well impede others who need only minor assistance. For them to leave the group behind would be akin to experiencing the loss of family.
So one way to understand a group's mechanisms before you actively participate (and become an involuntary member of the group's dynamics) is to watch carefully (also known as "lurking") to understand the ebb and flow of conversation. What happens when a new person joins? What's expected of them? Are they welcomed warmly and then allowed to freely express their concerns? Is there group pressure to conform or toe a certain line, e.g.,"control issues are the most salient for fearful flyers" (Important, but not universal).
Look to see who leaps in early, and how they understand newbie concerns. Do they say, "Yeah, I know all about that!" or, "That's not my issue, but I'm here to help how I can." Do they respect individual differences?
Be wary of those who see all problems through their own eyes. This lack of empathic skills coupled with inflexibility of thought - which may well be part of their own fearful flying - can allow your concerns to be shaped to match, or worse still, can be discounted as not being as "real" or as valid or as troublesome as their own more "substantial" concerns.
Indeed, one of the first dynamics to be studied in support groups, usually for physical ailments, was that of group members outdoing each other over the seriousness of their concerns. There was an "undiscussed" hierarchy of suffering such that those with more life-threatening illness were accorded greater status than those with lesser threats to their physical integrity. To the outsider it appeared that a literally unhealthy competition for status was occurring, to which the members themselves were oblivious.
In some groups, and fear of flying is no exception, newcomers can be treated with suspicion as if they have to prove their dues of suffering to engage in conversation. Some can be treated as intruders if they don't conform to the unspoken group dynamics, despite a publicly stated tolerance for diversity. As with all human groups, dyads and other small groups can spring up especially if commonalities other than fear of flying are discovered by accident. The person who wants to fly to Italy to experience Tuscan cookery makes contact with another who likes the culinary arts; the Canuks fan who wants to follow the team about picks a pseudo (but fun) fight with a fan of a traditional opponent.
Occasionally things can get nasty and out of control, sometimes fanned by the moderators themselves with their human foibles. This is more likely to occur when the usual things which cause disagreements find their way into the discussion: sex, politics, and money! It is here that disappointment can be experienced especially when a previously helpful person - a comrade-in-arms - turns out to be intolerant of your brand of politics including sexual politics.
Trust issues must then be confronted, and whether the same individual or subgroup can be ever again be entrusted with one's fears and concerns.
What it's like to be a professional visitor...
I have been a visitor, member and advisor in a number of groups and it has been interesting to experience the widely varying responses to my presence.
For some, I'm like a breath of fresh air, challenging an old guard that may have formed to protect members from predatory practitioners and moderators in other forums. The old guard often ends up committing the same mistakes of control of information flow and discussion, coming off as insecure and repetitive.
Others welcome a different perspective especially where it can be seen to have a body of knowledge sustaining it. Not always do the appointed forum "experts" welcome strangers who do not have a fear, especially if forum members appear pleased with any explanations offered, even if they may be contrary to long-held beliefs.
One of those beliefs is that of the proposition of "recovered" fear of flyers, who are but one flight away from returning to fearful flying, using the same disease model as applied in substance abuse. Often, those forums that permit or even encourage this kind of thinking have "experts" whose backgrounds are in substance abuse, with a "subspecialty" in Personality Disorders.
This peculiar model of fearful flying is unknown, it seems to me, outside the US, with its many "Anonymous"-type organisations. The problem with this model is that fearful flying is no more a disease than is watching too much television or surfing the internet.
Using a disease model is a wonderful way of keeping individuals just short of actually disposing of their concerns once and for all, to the point where they believe they can manage their flying, despite the presence of bouts of anxiety or the occasional difficult flight. Such flights can happen to anyone, but don't necessarily mean one must return to previous high levels of anxious flying.
The bottom line is that if you believe you're entitled to see yourself as a "recovering" fearful flyer because the notion of being in recovery makes sense to you - and you find a forum that supports that notion - that's fine. But you won't get much support from me, because such a stance can't be substantiated by any body of evidence. It's dogma.
One of the issues I've also discovered in forums is that the word of pilots when it comes to things aviation is often considered FINAL by forum members and moderators. While pilots are often turned to on forums for their helpful knowledge, they are but one part of a complex enterprise that keeps planes flying safely. I have witnessed pilots "tell it like it is" on forums in the belief that the truth can't hurt, and one is entitled to know the truth about flying.
But a little knowledge of how people learn offers dissent to such a view. People learn in part by applying new knowledge to their already existing knowledge - bridging - so that new knowledge is better assimilated. "Too much too soon" when it comes to aviation knowledge and the fearful flyer has no appropriate place to yet file away - or assign personal meaning - to that information.
Allowing the fearful flyer to visit a hangar with a plane in hundreds of pieces as a part of a heavy maintenance schedule may not be the best thing for instance, even if the intent is to show quality assurance principles at work. Perhaps after quite some information has been presented verbally and via videos, is such a visit appropriate. Then the sight of the dismembered plane can be placed into a safety context.
What some in a forum may prefer a "just give it to me straight" forum posting from a pilot, others may interpret the same post as blunt and insensitive. When pilots also engage in political rabble-rousing to further their own particular agendas under the guise of discussing aviation safety, it's also probably time to question just whose agenda is best served by your remaining in that forum. Such events can be located on the web without too much effort, using Google's search function.
I suggest when you travel about the internet and watch forums in action, you keep some of these ideas in mind before you put fingers to the keyboard and share your concerns. While the initial blush of warmth and enthusiasm can be quite intoxicating, be aware that there are often deeper undercurrents, often incorporating belief systems and ideas irrelevant to aviation, but which are part and parcel of how groups operate.
One forum I'm aware of has quite conservative moderators in their political outlooks, who appear quite superficially welcoming of all and sundry but behind the scenes are very apprehensive of some of their members' "liberal" attitudes. It takes more than casual observation to see their concerns played out but it's there for those who look close enough. By and large, these forums get on OK, but every so often these differences of attitude will spring to the surface, and a quick glance at the thinking styles of those who run the show can be had. Sometimes, it becomes downright ugly, other times there is general bonhomie and high-fiving when a favourite forum member succeeds at a set flight task, such as their first unaccompanied flight, or a flight over water, or one of more than 5 hours endurance.
This is when forums come into their own.
If you're a professional thinking of joining a forum to offer your sage advice or simply to look and learn, my experiences suggest you think twice about it. Even when your body of knowledge would be considered academically sound, it doesn't mean it will be accepted in a forum. Some place a different weight on such knowledge, preferring that from their selected "experts" and their successful flyers which trumps professional knowledge.
Save your enthusiasm for your own patients and think about developing your own resources to give away or sell as you please. Or if you feel you simply must become an active member of a forum, with all the caveats I have so far described, write to the moderators and seek formal status as an industry expert. This way you are clear with regard to your intentions, and beyond suspicion.
You see, in some forums which purport to offer support, some wield power in a way that confirms the old adage from Lord Acton,
"Power tends to corrupt;
absolute power corrupts absolutely".
The screen shot below shows how one moderator who couldn't handle disagreement or diversity of opinion decided to bring a useful forum thread to a close in a pique of temper:
So much for a warm fuzzy supportive attitude!
Posted: Tue - February 28, 2006 at 04:20 AM |