Had you actually read for comprehension you would understand I gave those analogies only to facilitate theprestige's struggle to understand what I was saying to begin with.







BS. Only yesterday you were whining about someone bringing up Trump's ignorance, saying it was irrelevant. Upon being told that it actually was relevant, you simply whined some more. :rolleyes:

They can be related, as Bob001 has already explained to you. You are not the policeman of the content of this thread.

Yes I totally want noted Internet personality Bob001 to explain to me the medical relationship between ignorance and mental disorder. Who needs Dr Lee and the Yale Group, when you have... Whatever the **** this is.

Oh, so this thread is only about Trump's mental illness, and as such, only medical doctors are qualified to post in this thread. :rolleyes:

How convenient for Trump bootlickers!

Don't appeal to Bob001's authority as a medical doctor, and you won't have to suffer the indignity of seeing your appeal challenged.

Just one problem, bro: I never appealed to Bob001's authority as a medical doctor.

You used Bob’s explanation as a rebuttal. Why should we accept that explanation? Bob isn’t a mental health professional.

On the other hand, actual MHPs have repeatedly warned against stigmatizing the mentally ill, which is what associating ignorance with mental illness is doing. Hell, even Dr. Lee herself has backed away from using “mental illness;” she insists that she’s only assessing his “dangerousness.”* But the fact remains that the core argument of the Yale Group (of which Dr Lee is a founding member) is that Trump has a mental illness and that makes him dangerous.

Such stigmatization is wrong and thus, mental illness should be left out of that argument. If one wants to argue that Trump’s ignorance (of history, of foreign affairs or even just general ignorance) makes him dangerous, that argument does not belong here.


*If one separates dangerousness from mental health, as Dr. Lee claims she has done, then one’s status as a MHP is entirely irrelevant and one shouldn’t be using that expertise as a basis from which to argue. And if Dr. Lee isn’t talking about his mental health...well, she sure does talk a lot about his mental health. She can’t have it both ways.

Not everything medically related requires an MD to discuss or understand. And I'm not demanding you accept the explanation, only that you finally shut up about allowing it to exist in this thread--You are not the thread police.

Why should we accept xjx388’s explanations? xjx388 is not a mental health professional.

They aren’t my explanations, as the part of my post you snipped makes clear.

OTOH, Bob001 seems to have pulled his explanation out of thin air.

The rest of that post doesn't really make any claims about a link (existence or non-existence) between mental illness and ignorance; it merely says we should avoid speaking of such links to avoid stigmatizing the mentally ill.

I'm more interested in facts, thanks.

And you claim "Bob001 seems to have pulled his explanation out of thin air" but you have yet to specify anything wrong with it.....That's all that really needs to be said about your "contribution".

It's interesting watching this debate, which has increasingly become xjx388 telling everyone else that 'they're not allowed to say that'.

The professional psyches? -- they're not allowed - goldwater
Anyone not a psyche doesn't have the right either, we've now learned. So that covers, er, everyone.
When that doesn't work it's 'Off topic!! Off topic!!

It's very telling

You are claiming that you have explained nothing in this thread? I am tempted to agree with that. But actually you have attempted to explain many things, without any qualifications or expertise of your own. Yet you criticize others for not being qualified. That is plain hypocrisy.

Please quote where I've said that someone isn't allowed to say something. The shrinks are ethically barred from speaking out but obviously they are allowed to -they are doing it. Non-professionals are allowed to say whatever they want about mental illness but it's meaningless.

It's like you only hear what you want and not what I actually say.

Again, I never used the words Off Topic. I said that discussions of Trump's ignorance are irrelevant to a thread about mental illness. And they quite plainly are. But I'm not attempting to police the thread; I'm pointing out bad arguments.

I have used the relevant citations to back up my positions. The APA, Dr. Frances, various papers, other professional commentary . . . throughout the years of this thread, I have supported every argument I make. Never have I represented myself as an expert. Never have I pulled an argument out of thin air because that's the way I think it is.

Bob001 did just that -pulled something out of the air and presented it as fact. I'd like to see him provide a professional source that says "delusion causes ignorance." I'll wait.

No, maybe you didn't.

Try this though:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post12942998

If you're not happy with that, I'll find more.


You're doing it again. Sure you don't use the words 'off topic' but it's what you mean.

your whole schtick in the this thread has been seeking to control the conversation to avoid the awkward bits you don't like.


But you carry on, chap.

No need because they will all be along the same lines: Steering people back to the relevant issues of the thread.

I don't mean it in a "I'm going to report your post" way; I mean it in a "make better, more relevant arguements way." You are free to ignore me of course, no skin off my back.

Ridiculous. What are these "awkward bits" you think I don't like?

I see it completely the opposite: I see many posters here wanting to avoid the topic of the ethics of what the Yale Group has done. Very few posters want to acknowledge the general ignorance of a statement like "Delusions cause ignorance," and how stigmatizing such labels and stereotypes can be to the mentally ill. Almost no one wants to address the dubious methodology by which the Yale Group has remotely diagnosed a person they've never met. Those issues are simply handwaved away with "Dunning-Kruger, Trump bootlicker, it's obvious!, the system is broken, they are professionals and they disagree with the ethics, blah, blah blah."

But I'm the one avoiding the "awkward bits." :rolleyes:


I shall.

You're just being silly. Nobody says ignorance and mental illness are the same things. But it should be self-evident that delusional thinking -- rejection of reality -- is one explanation for ignorance -- lack of knowledge and deficits in the ability to grasp facts and process information.

Like Dunning-Kruger syndrome:
https://www.verywellmind.com/an-over...effect-4160740

And:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markmur.../#5b9f2c315d7c

Of course, there's always this:
https://www.verywellmind.com/how-to-...issist-4164528

Of course, if you want to insist that delusional thinking and willful rejection of reality are no different from ordinary lack of education, have at it.

Meanwhile, the latest chilling revelation:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...f6d_story.html

Sleep well.

Trump is the poster boy for that malignant narcissism description. So much so that you'd think they had Trump in mind when it was written.

I watched about 30 seconds of a FOX News show this morning (it was all I could stomach). The GOP pundit (don't know his name) was repeated that the impeachment 'hoax' is just the Dems wanting to 'negate' the 2016 election. I'm so sick of that stupid and lazy excuse.

A person who has an inability to process information and has a delusional view of reality due to mental illness is not ignorant, they are mentally ill. That's the difference. You cannot use ignorance as evidence of a mental illness. A person with intellectual disabilities is not ignorant, their brains simply can't process information correctly. ETA: It's this conflation of ignorance with mental illness that is the problem.

There is no such thing as D-K "syndrome." It has nothing to do with mental illness, so I'm not sure why you brought it up (well, I might have some idea). D-K effect is a cognitive bias, not a cognitive dysfunction. And the effect works across the spectrum of intellegence and functioning: A Family Medicine doctor can exhibit D-K when he thinks he knows everything about medicine simply because he has "MD" after his name and a license to practice medicine.

I didn't see "ignorance" in that description. I didn't see anything about delusions causing ignorance. I also reject the idea that using examples of Trump's ignorance is a valid method of evaluating whether or not he has a mental illness. So, no support for your "delusions can cause ignorance," idea.

Not sure how you got that. . . delusional thinking is a result of a dysfunctional brain. Ignorance and willful rejection of reality are not. A person with schizophrenia might have delusions but it would be terribly unfair to call them ignorant as a result.

I will grant that as evidence that Trump is an *******. But Mental illness =/= being an *******.

Again, you don't seem willing to acknowledge that being an ******* can be evidence of a severe psychiatric disorder. It's way more than a social infraction.

Ok, let's grant that being an ******* can be a sign of mental disorder (which I think is a very unfair and stigmatizing way of putting it: "Man, that autistic kid is a bit of an *******, isn't he?" seems a bit of a dick move, but whatever). It does not follow that evidence of being an ******* is therefore evidence of a mental disorder. It can also be -and is most of the time- evidence of a normal person who is an *******.

Dr. Allen Frances writes alot about medicalizing normality -the inflation of diagnostic categories so that normal grief becomes Major Depression, just about everyone would qualify as ADD etc. That's a problem he sees with psychiatry as an institution. However, I see a much bigger problem amongst the lay audience: Using mental health terms to describe people and behavior one simply doesn't like. I think it's something we've all done and you are doing it here. Something that needs to change in society, I think.

How about his stating that the wheel was invented in the US? That's abnormal.

Nice summary. :thumbsup:

That seems like a profoundly disingenuous reading of that statement.

Now more than ever I want to see the Yale group's methodology and data set.

Dang, I have to agree with you. Here's the quote: It's stupid enough without having to add to it.



You could get the book. Libraries have it if you don't want to pay for it.

The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President

Be sure to get the updated 2019 edition.
https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Cas.../dp/1250212863

I put it on hold at my library. When I get it I can post if there is supporting evidence or just op-ed summaries.

What makes you think that? He was discussing US innovation and mentioned some examples, including the wheel. Obviously it wasn't as bad as if he was deliberately talking about that, but it is telling that he's losing his train of thought an within a few seconds d ends up just listing inventions - I'd guess by word association.


His speech is getting more like the, " presss the middle word in your autosuggest" game

His obvious deterioration has been widely noted and discussed:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...-dorian-2019-9


https://www.newyorker.com/news/lette...august-twitter

More from the Business Insider link:

My copy of the book is now at the library. I'll pick it up tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the House hearing discussing the second article shows Trump's classic narcissism.

I’m more concerned by “he does good at rockets.”

Actually, more seriously, I’m more concerned with his completely lack of self-awareness.

Leading up to the impeachment he told Republican Congressfolk, you may be up for a tough re-election, the RNC can provide you with needed funds if, you know, you are, shall we say, part of the team.
But when Bloomberg says that if he doesn’t get the nomination, he’ll donate money to the person who does get nominated, President Trump complains that such an offer is a problem because now the other candidates will go easy on Bloomberg in debates. And secondarily, the President has a hard time grasping the concept that someone might make an offer to one or more rival nomination candidates and then follow through with the offer even though the winning candidate said harsh things about the person making the offer. I’ve met thirteen-year-olds who understand cooperation, teamwork, grace, and honor better than President Trump.

And if I can quote Bill Maher.

Try to imagine President Trump losing the election and saying, “The people have spoken and they have chosen my opponent. I offer my sincere congratulations and look forward to working with the transition team. I want to thank all the people who worked long hours on my re-election campaign.”

Is there even an iota of evidence that President Trump would ever say those words?

But don’t say he’s mentally unbalanced!
He may be constitutionally incapable of admitting even the tiniest of errors or admitting that he failed at something (he still describes himself as a great casino owner); he may respond to any criticism by insisting that his actions are literally perfect, but whatever you do don’t speculate about how he may be suffering from a mental disorder.

Well that is truish. Space-X has some impressive competences in spaceflight.

So he does good at financing rockets. No actual knowledge of rockets required.

I actually think that's unfair on Trump. :jaw-dropp

Musk has utilised some of his wealth to develop a company that is competitive in the space business. I can accept Trump thinking that is "good with rockets"

Kennedy was instrumental in getting the US to the Moon, but he had zero rocketry knowledge as far as I am aware.

However his comment about the wheel, to me looks like he started listing US inventions and then his mind drifted and finished listing inventions. That's not normal, but could be expected if Trump is mentally declining.

Not sure how I should read this so I will just clarify. Musk is the one who finances rockets and who does not need practical knowledge of.

Yes, but he has used his wealth to create an aerospace company with expertise that BAe or Northrop, for example don't have (Boeing's X37 is probably ahead of it).

If you're not being written by Aaron Sorkin, it's evidence of mental illness?

---

Meanwhile, it's funny how the DSM is something any layperson can read and apply, but the APA's ethical guidelines are inscrutable to the lay audience and should only be interpreted by healthcare professionals.

Now that seems like a profoundly disingenuous reading of the arguments in this thread. Meanwhile, can you explain why you thought my statement in the conversation below was "profoundly disingenuous"?

The only thing that question demonstrates is that you are quite adept at strawmanning the positions of others.

Kudos!

I have a copy. It's quite long and will take some time to read.

Essentially it consists of 27 separate essays by different professionals, each with a fairly thorough bibliography and citations.

It is a professional work with some popular titles like "Trump's Daddy Issues". I'm going to read that one first. :p

I wasn’t focusing on Musk’s competencies, I was focusing on “he does good at.”

As for our president, I think considering oneself a stable genius who never makes mistakes, who can’t even admit that one’s typos are errors, who screams at people who point out mistakes, who believes one is the most populat president in US history despite having net approval value that has never been positive, and who asserts one knows more about everything than anyone else in the country, is reason enough to swing by the doctor’s office and get some testing done.

You've got the original version. The 2019 revision includes 10 additional essays and other updates based on what Trump has actually done during his first two years in office.
https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Cas...63/ref=sr_1_1?
https://dangerouscase.org/

It’s not a professional work; it’s a popular work. It isn’t designed for professionals; it’s designed for lay audiences.

The bibliography and citations? There are some references to peer reviewed journals or studies but absolutely none that support the scientific basis behind the non-existent methodology of diagnosing people based on public domain information. You will find a lot of references to the popular press, blogs, online news outlets, etc. A lot of them quoting each other, as if that’s meaningful.

We are told in one essay that it isn’t about mental illness; in many other essays, it’s all about mental illness. A lot of question begging on that subject. A lot of using the public record to make their case. A lot of reference to checklists for psychopathy, propensity to violence, etc.

In short, a lot of exactly the kinds of things the APA has stood firm against.

It’s a political hatchet job in the guise of psychological analysis.

Perhaps the “best” chapter in the book is the one I mentioned before: it’s about dangerousness, not mental illness, by Dr Gilligan. It almost works as a professional speaking as a concerned citizen but there are too many references to the expertise of the author and his colleagues. And I shouldn’t forget to mention the Godwinning.

That “Trump’s Daddy issues” chapter? Written by a guy who is, perhaps a great storyteller (he is noted as “an accomplished singer-songwriter and storyteller”) but I can’t imagine his MD makes him a mind reader. The extensive data he reviewed? Two essays from the New York Times and the Guardian.

That's your opinion and you haven't even seen it. No it's not a peer reviewed journal article. That doesn't invalidate it unless you already have an extreme bias about it.

I own that book, so I have indeed seen it.

And yes, I do have a bias against the book. Likewise. your own opinion (if you find it favorable) won’t validate the book because of your bias in favoring the premise.

The best we can do is attempt to recognize those biases and be fair.

Ah, I'd just thought of that as informal use of language. I only get concerned about language ability when the intent is hidden - for example several conspiracy theorists whose grammar lead me to think they have some disorder in thinking.

What Crank.net used to describe as "illucid".

Agreed.