Because there are many, many people in this country who believe that Trump is supremely capable and believe that his various outrageous acts are simply examples of how he's playing 4D chess while everyone else is struggling with checkers.

I believe that if they understood that Trump has a serious personality disorder, they would see that his words and deeds result from that disorder rather than some supernatural business acumen, and I think we'd have a better national government right now.

Which is a silly argument. There are lots of mental illnesses that are not a problem in many situations. But it's absolutely stupid to claim that there are no mental illnesses that are dangerous or which render someone unfit to hold a position of responsibility.

Those people aren't going to believe he has a serious personality disorder. They see no problem with his behavior -applaud it, in fact. "Those doctors are just part of the Deep State Liberal Media bias machine!"

This information is out there now and it's pretty much been dismissed. No one in the mainstream media is really talking about it and it will be pretty much a non-factor in November.

Whether or not somoene is fit to hold the position of responsibility we call POTUS is entirely down to voters.

I'm not saying don't talk about his dangerousness. I acknowledge he is dangerous. I'm not saying don't talk about his unfitness. I acknowledge he is unfit. I am saying that professionals should not apply such labels and equate them with unfitness. They are free to speak as concerned citizens. They are free to say they are professionals. According to the ethics and standards of their profession, however, they should not use their profession to diagnose people they've never met.

So voters couldn't possibly elect somebody who is unfit. That idea explains a lot.


You also just contradicted yourself.


What you are not saying is that you find it embarrassing that a psychopath, an extremely ignorant and incoherent psychopath, represents your nation and your party. It makes it even more embarrassing when professionals point it out, so it's unethical when they do.

No, it's not. Not at all. This may be the most ignorant attempt at defining psychopathy that we have yet seen in this thread, but it's in line with your attempts to make a scientific defintion appear to be nothing more than a matter of taste.
Most of us don't like bagpipe music. Very few of us call bagpipe players psychopaths.


This could be a textbook example of a strawman argument: You come up with an utterly wrong definition of psychopathy, and then you say that it isn't very good. Congratulations! It was never supposed to be any good because then you couldn't use it to criticize the concept, could you?!


'He's a psychopath, so I don't want him to lead me anywhere.'
That would be an excellent reason to write him off. There is nothing wrong with that at all.


Of course, it is.


As are all other mental disorders. The clue is in the word personality. When the corresponding traits aren't quite right, it becomes a personality disorder. The personality disorder psychopathy is the most dangerous one of them.


Show us any definition of any mental disorder and the paragraph in the Wikipedia article about it that says, 'All experts agree with this definiton 100%; no professional has ever criticized it and nobody ever will.'

I think it's worth repeating this.

Didn’t say it was a matter of taste. But that’s the problem with the term “psychopath.” It isn’t a diagnostic term. It’s not even well-defined. At best you can apply it to a person who ticks boxes on some checklist. What’s on the checklist? Traits considered psychopathic. What makes those traits psychopathic? They are common in people who are psychopaths. Circular.

The modern equivalent is Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Not the players...the people who enjoy hearing it.

Its not a strawman; it’s the definition you seem to be using. You (and the writer of the article you linked to) define a psychopath as one who scores X on the PCL. The PCL is a list of traits that most of us don’t like to see in a person.

Well, Bill Clinton was a a psychopath (he ticks off plenty of those boxes) and plenty of people wanted him to lead them.

The criteria on the PCL are completely subjective. What is an objective definition of glibness? Manipulativeness? Don’t know. But we all are glib and manipulative in certain situations. When do those normal human behaviors cross the line from normal to mental disorder? There is no such line.
Then you will have no problem finding it in the DSM. What page is it on?

If it’s a personality disorder, you would find it in the DSM. It’s not. You are thinking of APD. Strange how the author of your article didn’t use this accepted term and chose to use a controversial term like psychopathy. I wonder why that is?
I don’t usually refer to Wikipedia for such things. The DSM is the reference of choice. And no, there are no mental health diagnoses without controversy. The personality disorders are perhaps the most controversial. But the DSM represents as much of a consensus as possible and is always being revised.

The reason your author didn’t use the DSM terms is because those aren’t neat little checklists of traits like the PCL. He had to rely on a non-diagnostic term to make his case, which weakens it considerably.

You are the one who is being circular, and at the same time you make it obvious that you know nothing about anything.
Yes, of course the checklist contains "traits considered psychopathic." That's what makes it the psychopath checklist. The checklist for bipolar disorder contains a list of bipolar traits, and what makes those traits bipolar is that they are common in people who are bipolar.
You are actually on to something here, but you just don't get it.


Yes, it is, but APD is not exactly the same thing as psychopathy.


No, it's the definition that you would like to make people think that I am using because then you would be able to criticize it. As it is, you aren't.


No, it's not. It's a list of traits that characterize psychopaths. That most of also don't like psychopaths has nothing to do with that. Most of us also don't like people who don't have access to certain hygienic facilities and therefore smell awful, but for some reason that is not on the list. Why not? Because it's not a trait of psychopathy, obviously.
It is so annoying that no matter how many times this stupid argument is pointed out to you, nothing changes. You ignore it and repeat the argument as if you're hoping that it will mysteriously have improved in the meantime.


I hope you don't expect me to argue against you. Yes, Bill Clinton may be a psychopath. I don't know what his score would be on the checklist, but I wouldn't want him as a leader.




Many people aren't glib and manipulative in certain situations, and even more strive not to be so.
If you had actually read the article that you claim to have read, you would know where the line is.


If you had read the article, you wouldn't have to wonder why that is.


You know that there are no mental health diagnoses without controversy, and yet you made a big deal out of Wikipedia's article about psychopathy having a paragraph about criticism of the concept.


When using the DSM as your reference you depend on checklists just as much as you do when using the PCL:

Go to the site and see the rest for yourself.

This is yet another one of the many examples of your ignorance and superficiality when trying to argue against something:
1) You pretend to look into things that you actually don't look into.
2) You make obviously wrong claims because you don't look into things.
3) And you don't really care when you are proven wrong, you don't change your mind, you stubbornly insist that you know all about it and continue to repeat yourself.


ETA: I notice that you have no reservations about applying the term psychopath to Bill Clinton. You just balk at the term being used about your current president.

Posted this in the main Trump thread, but it bears repeating here:

I am not sure how it strikes you. I tend to agree with SezMe's interpretation in the other thread. One is Trump talking about his favourite theme, how fantastic he thinks he is. The other one is Trump reading from a teleprompter about something that doesn't interest him and that he knows nothing at all about.

Dear Leader's niece, his brother' daughter, is a clinical psychologist, and she has written a memoir: “Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...8bd_story.html

He really does have tiny hands.

Sure, dann, sure...
See what I mean? That's a circular argument. It's you who is not getting it. You keep using these kinds of circular arguments, like: "Here's an evil checklist. What's on it? Traits that make people evil, of course." You aren't asking the important questions: What makes those specific traits evil/psychopathic/bipolar? How do you differentiate between "psychopathic glibness" and "normal glibness?" It's not simply a matter of checking off boxes, there's a process involved that a professional uses to decide how to score each item. And the PCL that you keep referring to is not without controversy, despite what the author or your article argues. Finally, you keep sidestepping the central issue: psychopathy is not a diagnosis.

No, it's not. It's a more nuanced diagnostic term that has specific criteria which only a part of involves a list of observed traits. There is a whole host of tools which a clinician would use to elicit those traits over the course of diagnosis.

Nope, sorry. You have only provided one definition of psychopathy: a certain score on the PCL. As such, my criticisms stick. You are free to provide another definition, but that won't really help you much: there is no one definition of psychopathy.

Why do those traits characterize psychopaths? When is glibness a normal thing that shouldn't be counted in the score and when is it a sign of psychopathy that should be counted? Hmmmm . . . I would argue that most of us actually like psychopaths . . . except that we don't call the people we like "psychopaths." We call them "ambitious, driven, able to make tough, rational choices, etc." If we use the PCL as a mere checklist rather than it's true use, we would find a lot of our heroes are supposedly psychopaths. Why not? I would call that a "high level of irresponsibility," or possibly even, "poor behavioral controls." That's the problem: the criteria is so subjective that you can fit almost anything into it.
You, on the other hand, are so stuck on "psychopathy," that you can't see past it. So convinced of your correctness, you simply handwave away all the criticism that the PCL and the concept of psychopathy has received.

Plenty of Americans would elect him again, if they could. Like I said, we love psychopaths, we just don't call people we like, "psychopaths."

Those definitions you gave are the general definitions. Most politicians are glib and manipulative. Can you find a precise medical definition of those words? No, you can't because they don't exist.

The article does not elucidate any such thing. What it does elucidate (and then completely discards) is the following:

The situation is exactly as I described: this isn't a checklist in the way you keep saying it is. It requires, contrary to the position of so many here (and as I've been arguing from the get go), a semi-structured interview. You don't just see item 1: Glibness/superficial charm, and say, "Oh yeah, Trump gets a 2 for sure! Did you see that speech on TV?!" which is exactly what the author does.

Of course, the author then goes on to completely dismiss the need for a semi-structured interview. That this invalidates the use of the tool is of no concern, apparently.

I was being facetious. I know exactly why that is: The DSM description of APD would be difficult to make a case for as it's written. He couldn't handwave away the specific diagnostic language like he can the much simpler and more general PCL-R.
Uh no. I don't make a big deal about Wikipedia's article having a paragrph about criticism. It seems like if there's only one paragraph in wikipedia, you think this means there must not be much criticism. I've already linked to one article criticizing the utility of the concept of psychopathy; there are thousands more. It simply isn't what you say it is.

I have done that. You conveniently left out some crucial bits of the definition which make it much harder to apply to Trump. Which is why your author didn't use APD, which is more specific and not as controversial in it's use.

Look . . . you really need to stop being so insulting and uncivil.

This is baseless. Pure well-poisoning. You are operating on the basis of one article, repreatedly linked, refusing to dig even a little past that one view and you have the gall to accuse me of not looking into things? Please.
Well . . . you'd have to prove me wrong for any of that to be true.

Psychopathy has always captured the public imagination but it has found disfavor in modern mental health. So much so that it is excluded from the DSM in favor of APD. It is used primarily in legal contexts and it's application to the general population has not been studied. All of that is true. Your insistence otherwise does not change anything.

I have no reservations using your framing to expose the flaws in your argument, no. If you put so much stock in the PCL-R as a measure of a President's fitness, then you shouldn't have much problem with me extending that to other Presidents. If other Presidents, who were widely viewed as "good" Presidents, score in the "psychopath" range, then the score itself and the label derived from the score doesn't really tell us much, does it?

As for myself, I put no stock in such things. I view each candidate as we all do -as a layperson- and make my own judgements. I certainly didn't need psychiatric labels and tests to know that Trump would not make a good President, which is why I didn't vote for him.

A brief summary for those of us who aren't subscribers?

Try clearing your cookies. Same reports by other outlets:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/presi...ns/ar-BB15x8AI

https://www.usatoday.com/story/enter...ok/3191031001/

Forget his obvious other mental health issues, but XJX388 do you disagree that there is something obviously wrong with Trump's mental capacity, which is also spilling over into his physical capability?

And that he has got worse than even 2 years ago?

ETA: Anyone want to predict whether Trump will be able to manage any TV debate this election campaign?

I know it's not mental but that walk down the stairs was particularly feeble.

I predict he will fall back on his much used rhetoric, things he can remember and is comfortable with. He'll do a lot of Obama bashing that he'll tie to Biden and brag about his wonderful economy and handling of the pandemic. There will also be a lot of accusations against the "fake media" and all the "witch hunts". He'll just recycle his usual rally type rhetoric since he has that down pat.

I gave you the definition and there is no such thing as psychopathic glibness versus 'normal' glibness. If the only trait on the list you have is glibness, then you're not a psychpath. If you have glibness and several others, then you are. And again: This is not a principle that is different from any other checklist. Can you distinguish a Covid-19 cough from an ordinary cold cough, flu cough, lungcancer cough or tuberculosis cough. Probably not. Nevertheless, a cough is one of the symptoms of Covid-19, but it takes more than one symptom to be sure.
This is at least the third time that I explain this to you, and I no longer expect you understand why your contradiction is plain wrong.


No, it's not without controversy. Very few things are. And psychopathy is a diagnosis. Currently it's favored by some psychiatrists, others prefer ASPD.


There are tools that you can use to confirm or refute a diagnosis of psychopathy. Brain scans, for instance. Or this:
Of course, Trump would never agree to the the interview, but there is more than enough of the rest to go by. Much more, in fact, than you could possibly dig up about most ordinary psychopaths.


There is more than one definition of psychopathy:
The definitions of psychopathy have varied over time, which is not very different from ASPD (Wikipedia), except that it's a more recent concept.
It also isn't very interesting since the Psychopathy Checklist gives a much more comprehensive idea of how to diagnose a psychopath than a mere definition ever would.


Again: It should always be counted! But two points on the scale doth not a psychopath make. It takes many more than that. Which you would know if you had read the article, which you obviously haven't.


No, most of us don't like psychopaths, but many can be ensnared by them. However, what they like is the illusion that the psychopaths are very good at creating. (Glibness, remember?!) But since the impression that psychopaths are able to make on people is based on lies, you can't really say that people like psychopaths. Ask any of the women or men who have been ensnared on the internet by people who created the illusion of being interested in or even love them. What they like is the illusion, but only because they believe the illusion. When they discover the reality behind that illusion, they don't like it at all.
Besides, Trump didn't win the popular vote, so even though you may have liked him, most people didn't. And fewer do now.


Sorry, I'm not included in your "our". My heroes aren't psychopaths.
Besides, that you can come up with all kinds of subjective things to call psychopaths doesn't make them any more or less psychopathic. You did a similar thing in the thread about people who get off on sex with partners who don't consent.


Unlike you, I don't "handwave" anything away. I take a good look at the criticism to see if it's correct, and I dismiss it if it isn't. You don't even get to the take-a-good-look-at-it part.


Yes, plenty of Americans believed in Uri Geller, too, and plenty of Americans still do. That you love Trump and therefore don't recognize that he's a psychopath is not a particularly good argument against the concept. That you object to the diagnosis of Trump as a psychopath but are eager to acknowledge that Clinton is one is telling


I don't need a precise definition. The general definitions are fine! And when we have enough of those traits in a person, we are dealing with a psychopath.


No, it's not at all what you described, and if you had read the article, you would have noticed that he argues why you can diagnose Trump without the "semi-structured interview".
By the way, Trump's glibness and superficial charm is bloody obvious to "most of us". We can see how he flatters you, how he takes you in. In fact, it isn't very different from talking with somebody who has been taken in by a romance scam: It's usually obvious to everybody else with just a tiny bit of information about what's going on, but the victim of the scam is hooked and wants and needs to believe in the lie and the liar.


Oh, you did actually see his argument for why the interview isn't needed? But then you would also know why dismissing it does't invalidate anything.


Anybody can hand wave anything away. I see you do so all the time. Besides, he doesn't hand wave away anything of the kind. His argument is about Trump: Why he is a psychopath - rather than a narcissist or a sociopath.
But let's take a look at the relationship between the DSM and the concept of psychopathy:


Interesting, isn't it? ASPD includes psychopathy. And the author of the article explains why psychopathy is a more precise diagnosis of Trump than ASPD or narcissism.


Much criticism? That is not really the way that I look at criticism: 'There's much of it, so I guess it must be true!' That there is much criticism of the DSM also would't be my reason for dismissing or accepting it.


I didn't leave out anything at all! I included all of the first seven traits followed by:

"Other possible symptoms of ASPD can include:"

And then I asked you to look at those for yourself!
Why do you lie about this? Don't you think your lies are already obvious enough?


No, I don't.


I have done so several times at this point. I can't force you or anybody to acknowledge it.


As I showed above, psychopathy is included in DSM's concept of ASPD. It is a more narrow, more precise concept than both ASPD and narcissism, and the author argues why it is so.


I have no problem with you "extending" the concept of psychopathy "to other presidents". On the contrary, you are the one who has a problem with the concept when we are talking about Trump where the diagnosis is much more obvious. That some people viewed Clinton as "good" doesn't mean a thing in that context. Some people view Trump as good, too.


How uninteresting and how pretentious! You make your own judgements? Really?! You don't buy them at Tesco? What an extraordinary idea! I never though of that!
Yes, nowadays many people never voted for Trump. I think the attitude is trending.

He might manage that, I suppose, but equally, he might end up saying something is perfect, and getting stuck in the rut with the phone call.

Just like using the middle suggested word on your phone to make sentences.

They need a way to get politicians to actually answer questions in debates. There should be a panel of independent judges or something who can warn and then cut them off if they go off topic. And when that happens, the question should be posed to them again, and again, until they give a responsive answer or refuse to answer.

Yes, of course it was, but also rather uninteresting if he himself hadn't blown any kind of weakness out of proportions: So he doesn't move like a 30-year-old? (or even many 70-year-olds) So his hands shake when is drinking from a glass? So he is more or less bald underneath the hairsprayed whatever on his head? So his hands are small? So he's obese?

All of those things would be irrelevant if the psychopath didn't point out similar things (or make them up) about his opponents - or anybody who doesn't worship him
Roosevelt was in a wheelchair during an actual world-scale war! But probably of sound mind (if not body).

I guess he won't repeat his criticism of Obama for spending too much time playing golf.

:thumbsup:

Bad idea. The debates are seen by many millions of voters. If a candidate evades a question, we all see it for ourselves. Comments are already limited to around two minutes; cutting them off would let them play the "I was getting to that before the Fake Media cut me off!" card. On the other hand, nothing would prevent the commentators from asking the question again, maybe in a different more direct form.

The real place for reporters to tag-team is a press conference. When somebody dances past a question, his colleagues should pick up the baton and ask the same question. At least once at a press conference, reporters started to look out for each other and Trump just walked off.

I 100% agree that there is something obviously wrong with Trump’s mental capacity.

What I object to is the medicalization of whatever is wrong with him.

I think a lot of people actually don't recognize it as it's happening. That's why this tactic is used so often. People often only realize it after the fact (if then) or when it's pointed out. It needs to be pointed out directly as it's happening during the debate to force the candidate to either answer the question or refuse to do so.

To avoid the "I was getting to that before the Fake Media cut me off!" allegation, the candidate should then be given one more chance to actually answer the question. If they again resort to obfuscating, the moderator would then point that out and go on to asking the next question.

This I agree with. Reporters need to refuse to let him (or anyone) pull this trick by backing each other up.

One would thinks so. A normal person would recognize the stupidity in doing so. But we aren't talking about a normal person. We're talking about someone who continued to claim his inauguration crowd was the largest in history even after being proved wrong. Several times.

Oh it was much worse than that. His elderly age was very apparent.

But you're right. My thoughts went right to the campaign to make Clinton look feeble.

Says the layperson. :cool:

Not only that, but you have many debates where both/all candidates actually answer a very small number of questions. It reveals to us nothing about their ideas and positions related to the questions, only related to those few areas where they know they're strong and have prepared well beforehand. So even if the viewers recognize it as it is happening, it's still quite pointless.

Candidates see either committing to a position (in many cases) or admitting that they need to do more research or have no position as more harmful than being seen to deflect and go off topic repeatedly. I'm no expert, but since almost all of them do it most of the time, I'll assume they know what they're doing and that it works.

I did hear an interview with Schwarzenegger before he became governor where he answered almost every question with some version of "I don't know. I will consult experts who know". That was a rarity. I didn't see his debate.

Consider what he could have done with it if he weren't who he is. The elderly, slightly frail statesman, old and not as strong as he used to be, but so much more wise and self-secure because he doesn't have to prove himself anymore. The Morgan Freeman kind of president, concerned about the welfare of his country and its citizens. (Which is an ideal! They only exist in fiction.)

Biden can probably outperform Trump in youthful appearance, but as a strategy I'm not sure if he wouldn't be more successful if he owns his age, which will make the one who is trying desperately to look strong and fit look much more ridiculous than he already does.

You're expecting Trump of the dyed hair and skin and of the wife young enough to be his daughter to age gracefully? You dreamer!

On the contrary. I'm expecting him to get even worse. I think you confuse what I wrote about Trump with what I wrote about Biden. Not that I have any high hopes there, either. But I can see how they can become conflated when I write "he" after having mentioned both Biden and Trump

I was being tongue in cheek. Sorry...should have used the :rolleyes:

Why the hell not? It is almost certainly a medical issue. It is going to get more obvious as his decline accelerates.

People were warning of it in 2016, but there was plausible deniability - now that figleaf is getting shredded.

The 25th is the only way that Trump can be removed until November. Why are you against this - when we agree he is unfit?

He is going to get worse - at a time of national and international crisis, the US is led by someone who probably wears nappies, and has a mental state commensurate with that.

To be fair - I don't think Trump is playing too much golf at the moment.

Trump Golf Count - probably the place where he does the least damage.

I like the joke about how he mentions Obama! :)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

This morning, President Trump claimed that no one had heard of Juneteenth until he made it famous by scheduling a rally on that date before pushing the rally back one day.

Juneteenth has been a State holiday in Texas since 1980. Forty-eight states acknowledge it as an official or a ceremonial holiday.

But no one had ever heard of it.

.
Don’t we have enough evidence to say, “Let’s sit him down with a panel of psychiatrists and see what conclusion they come to”?