International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Continuation Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness' say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 3 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341507)

Cabbage 10th February 2020 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12985118)
"I agree that he's selfish, ignorant, and incompetent, but not to the degree his haters imagine. I think the institutions of the federal government will be sufficient to keep him within the norms of presidenting."


1. I don't think that's a given.

2. "He won't break the country" is not a good reason to justify anyone voting for someone like Trump.

Cabbage 10th February 2020 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12985118)

"I agree that he's selfish, ignorant, and incompetent, but not to the degree his haters imagine. I think the institutions of the federal government will be sufficient to keep him within the norms of presidenting."


...and, of course, an insurgence of alt-right hate groups which, for example, resulted in the murder of Heather Heyer--Just how does that play in your calculus?

theprestige 10th February 2020 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12985158)
In that case, I guess I'm trying to help you finally get around to addressing that.

Not really your job, but okay.

Quote:

Like I just said in a previous post, I think a narcissistic personality disorder manifests itself in his inability to acknowledge, learn from, or atone for his mistakes. I find that dangerous in a president.
And I don't object to any of that. My only objection is that you'd be saying he was unable to learn from his mistakes, and that was too dangerous for you, even if NPD had never been brought up. And even without the Yale Group, it would still be a valid thing for you to say.

Quote:

I'm not even sure what that question means. I supported his removal through impeachment, if you'll take that as answer enough. It didn't happen, so I don't see how removal via 25th Amendment could be possible at this moment, either. But yeah, I'd prefer he not be in office.
Dr Lee publicly called on the Cabinet to remove President Trump under the 25th Amendment. Specifically on account of the dangerous mental illness she saw in him. Do you think she's right to call for that?

Cabbage 10th February 2020 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12985121)
That would make him about as dangerous as Bill Clinton, who presided over the dot-com crash, and George W Bush, who presided over the "great recession" (or whatever we're calling it). This is hardly a 25th Amendment scenario. Or even a manifestation of mental illness.


I think you're on shaky logic ground here.

To complete your analogy, show me what Clinton or Bush did that is comparable to Trump's tariff war. Recessions happen. They're not always the fault of the president. I can easily see the next one being the fault of Trump's tariff war.

Cabbage 10th February 2020 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12985168)
Not really your job, but okay.

Actually, it is my job if we're in a debate and you conveniently don't bring up points that falsify your statement--I'll falsify your statement for you.


Quote:

And I don't object to any of that. My only objection is that you'd be saying he was unable to learn from his mistakes, and that was too dangerous for you, even if NPD had never been brought up. And even without the Yale Group, it would still be a valid thing for you to say.

I do think it carries more weight to present it as a symptom of NPD.


Quote:

Dr Lee publicly called on the Cabinet to remove President Trump under the 25th Amendment. Specifically on account of the dangerous mental illness she saw in him. Do you think she's right to call for that?

Sure, I really am fine with it. We still have freedom of speech. I'm glad to see people speak against Trump in any capacity.

theprestige 10th February 2020 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12985172)
I think you're on shaky logic ground here.

To complete your analogy, show me what Clinton or Bush did that is comparable to Trump's tariff war. Recessions happen. They're not always the fault of the president. I can easily see the next one being the fault of Trump's tariff war.

Fair enough. To synthesize:

The Yale Group: "Donald Trump has a dangerous mental illness..."

Cabbage: "... and that danger could well manifest itself as a disastrous recession resulting from his tariff war..."

The Yale Group: "... and that's why the Cabinet needs to remove Trump from office immediately."

Between you and the Yale Group, we seem to have the risk, the remedy, and the underlying cause. Is there anything above that you don't agree with?

theprestige 10th February 2020 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12985175)
Sure, I really am fine with it. We still have freedom of speech. I'm glad to see people speak against Trump in any capacity.

It wasn't a free speech question. It was a reasonable idea question.

To avoid any more wasted effort on your part: Nothing in this conversation is about freedom of speech. You can safely set that issue aside for now, and focus on other aspects of the discussion.

Skeptic Ginger 10th February 2020 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12985121)
That would make him about as dangerous as Bill Clinton, who presided over the dot-com crash, and George W Bush, who presided over the "great recession" (or whatever we're calling it). This is hardly a 25th Amendment scenario. Or even a manifestation of mental illness.

This false equivalence/whataboutism (take your pick) belongs in another thread.

Skeptic Ginger 10th February 2020 04:40 PM

Re dangerous:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Trump
“We have the cleanest air in the world in the United States, and it’s gotten better since I’m president. We have the cleanest water. It’s crystal clean and I always say I want crystal clean water and air. ... We’re setting records environmentally.”

He has proposed a 26% cut in the EPA budget.

It's one thing if this is just a horrendous policy difference. But it's quite another when the reason he wants this cut is because he has a delusion of grandeur there that magically he created: "We have the cleanest water. It’s crystal clean and I always say I want crystal clean water and air. ... We’re setting records environmentally.”

xjx388 10th February 2020 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12985143)
I can't speak for Gilligan. I am merely speaking for myself when I say that a president can be dangerous without being violent.

Fair enough; but, this thread isn't about "Donald Trump has a 'dangerous mental illness' says Cabbage." Dr. Gilligan was part of the Yale Group and he wasn't talking about "dangerousness" in the context you are.

Quote:

I'm struggling to find a point in any of that. I can't think of any individual behavioral trait that is uniquely associated with mental illness, so yes, I agree with your last question.
Here's the point - I think we are actually mostly in agreement, except for our view of the proper public role of medical professionals. See, you have a problem with Trump's behavior regardless of whether or not that behavior is due to mental illnesss and regardless whether or not his actions are dangerous in a mental health context. I have same problems with Trump that you do.

Since we agree on that much, what are we gaining by the unethical actions of the Yale Group? I think the answer is clear: Nothing. And if we've gained nothing, then it should be equally clear that the breach of ethics was unwarranted. Just as we'd like to hold POTUS to higher standards of behavior, I think we should hold the medical profession to a higher standard; indeed, that's what medical ethics is all about. Medical professionals have a duty to act ethically when they deliver information to the public. In order to justify a breach of ethics like this, there should be a real, specific danger to the country. In this case, I think it's pretty clear that there isn't such a danger and that these professionals are doing a disservice not only to the public but to patients who have been diagnosed with mental illnesses.

Quote:

However, I can think of many behavioral traits that are far more common among the mentally ill, so I also believe it to be far more relevant than you seem prepared to admit. Putting out a warning that a president is mentally ill because he is exhibiting those traits commonly associated with mental illness is simply a choice that I do not have a problem with in this case.
I understand you but I don't agree with you. When a medical professional issues a professional opinion, they should act ethically and according to the standards of practice of the profession. The Yale Group has not.

Cabbage 10th February 2020 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12985178)
Fair enough. To synthesize:

The Yale Group: "Donald Trump has a dangerous mental illness..."

Cabbage: "... and that danger could well manifest itself as a disastrous recession resulting from his tariff war..."

The Yale Group: "... and that's why the Cabinet needs to remove Trump from office immediately."

Between you and the Yale Group, we seem to have the risk, the remedy, and the underlying cause. Is there anything above that you don't agree with?


The only issues I can think of that I might take with that:

1) Understand that I don't think the danger is limited to a disastrous recession, and

2) I don't know that the Yale group would agree that the reference to a disastrous recession specifically is why he should be removed from office.

Cabbage 10th February 2020 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12985182)
It wasn't a free speech question. It was a reasonable idea question.


I don't know what you mean by "reasonable" idea. Yes, I think it's reasonable for Dr Lee to call for his removal. No, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the Cabinet/Congress to follow through on it.

Cabbage 10th February 2020 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12985213)
Re dangerous:

He has proposed a 26% cut in the EPA budget.

It's one thing if this is just a horrendous policy difference. But it's quite another when the reason he wants this cut is because he has a delusion of grandeur there that magically he created: "We have the cleanest water. Itís crystal clean and I always say I want crystal clean water and air. ... Weíre setting records environmentally.Ē


Agreed.

Speaking as a layman, I would expect one of the major problems for those having NPD is a complete inability to imagine oneself ever making a mistake.

Cabbage 10th February 2020 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12985246)
Fair enough; but, this thread isn't about "Donald Trump has a 'dangerous mental illness' says Cabbage." Dr. Gilligan was part of the Yale Group and he wasn't talking about "dangerousness" in the context you are.


Honestly, I think you are being far too presumptuous here. You can't speak for Dr Gilligan for the same reason I can't; unlike me, however, that doesn't seem to stop you from trying.

Quote:

Here's the point - I think we are actually mostly in agreement, except for our view of the proper public role of medical professionals. See, you have a problem with Trump's behavior regardless of whether or not that behavior is due to mental illnesss and regardless whether or not his actions are dangerous in a mental health context. I have same problems with Trump that you do.

Since we agree on that much, what are we gaining by the unethical actions of the Yale Group? I think the answer is clear: Nothing. And if we've gained nothing, then it should be equally clear that the breach of ethics was unwarranted. Just as we'd like to hold POTUS to higher standards of behavior, I think we should hold the medical profession to a higher standard; indeed, that's what medical ethics is all about. Medical professionals have a duty to act ethically when they deliver information to the public. In order to justify a breach of ethics like this, there should be a real, specific danger to the country. In this case, I think it's pretty clear that there isn't such a danger and that these professionals are doing a disservice not only to the public but to patients who have been diagnosed with mental illnesses.

You're being presumptuous again. I don't agree it was unethical. I don't agree we gained nothing. You should probably work harder at speaking for yourself and just give up on speaking for others.

Quote:

I understand you but I don't agree with you. When a medical professional issues a professional opinion, they should act ethically and according to the standards of practice of the profession. The Yale Group has not.

In this thread I am aware of at least two objections:

1. Trump can't be diagnosed without a one-on-one clinical observation.

2. It is unethical to paint Trump as mentally ill because we don't want to portray mental illness as dangerous.

You certainly fall under category 2. Am I correct in thinking that you do, indeed, believe Trump is mentally ill, but you are simply concerned with ethics violations here? Just curious.

Stacyhs 11th February 2020 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12984594)
The underlying idea is that people with mental illness are not suited to be President. I think that's overbroad and unfair to the vast majority of people with mental illness. We shouldn't be judging people based on a diagonsis; we should be judging people based on their actions and temperment. To say someone is dangerous simply because they've been diagnosed with a mental illness and therefore shouldn't be "a person in his position," is discriminatory.

Indeed, it's not even a standard that anyone has applied in the past (with one notable exception which lead to the Goldwater Rule) nor is it a standard anyone is actually going to apply going forward. One in five people have been diagnosed with a mental illness in the US; the actual prevalence is probably higher due to the stigma attached to it and people not seeking treatment. This means that among the 11 still active Democratic Party POTUS candidates, 2 or 3 of them probably have been diagnosed with a mental illness. Where's Duty to Warn when you need them? ;)

I think it depends on the kind and severity of mental illness a person is diagnosed with. Should a paranoid schizophrenic be POTUS? Or someone with bi-polar disorder? Or major depression? I certainly don't think so.

One in five people may have been diagnosed with a mental disorder, but most of those are not in the 'severe' category. A president who feels compelled to check if the kitchen light is off 4 times before going to bed is certainly not in the same category as one who thinks his Chief of Staff is trying to poison him or who goes manic and starts calling heads of state at all hours of the night rambling on about how he has a great plan to end world hunger by giving Girl Scout cookies away for free.

Stacyhs 11th February 2020 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12984862)
"Mental illness" covers a lot of ground, and includes a lot of attitudes and behaviors that don't interfere with rational thought or functioning. But mental health is a legitimate requirement for many jobs. Law enforcement applicants are usually required to pass a psychological screening, and are subject to monitoring throughout their careers. Psychological screening is a basic part of applying for and keeping a government security clearance. Many employers administer the MMPI or other screening tools. And the officers who control nuclear weapons are subject to the most intense screening and continuous monitoring.

Trump couldn't pass any of it. That might not matter for a NYC real estate hustler or a TV reality star. But that's not where Trump sits today.

Exactly. I don't think Trump could pass a psychological screening test.

Stacyhs 11th February 2020 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12985094)
What do you think "dangerous" means when a mental health professional says someone is dangerous?

I don't know and neither do you. We'd have to ask the professional.


Quote:

Recall that Dr. James Gilligan is an expert in violence. He works with dangerous criminals and wrote a series of books about violence. At the Yale conference in the OP, he said, regarding Trump: "I know dangerousness when I see it." Do you think he was talking about the kinds of things you mentioned?
As previously said, 'dangerousness' does not always equate to violence. Just because Gilligan is an expert in violence doesn't mean he thinks being a danger is restricted to being violent.

Quote:

To be sure, the things you listed are bad things to have in a POTUS and I agree with your assessment of Trump. However, I don't see how any of that has any bearing at all on whether or not he is mentally ill. I'm sure you'd agree that it isn't necessary for him to be mentally ill in order for those things to still be true, yes?
Trump checks almost every box under the diagnosis for narcissistic personality disorder which is classified as a mental illness.

TragicMonkey 11th February 2020 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12985480)
Exactly. I don't think Trump could pass a psychological screening test.

I don't think he could pass the Marshmallow Test. He'd eat it immediately then accuse the tester of eating it themselves, then demand a thousand more marshmallows at Mexico's expense.

xjx388 11th February 2020 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12985400)
Honestly, I think you are being far too presumptuous here. You can't speak for Dr Gilligan for the same reason I can't; unlike me, however, that doesn't seem to stop you from trying.

. I donít need to speak for him. He has adequately spoken for himself on the record.



Quote:

You're being presumptuous again. I don't agree it was unethical.
Ah. Then before I presume too much, are you familiar with the American Psychiatric Association? They have an ethical rule nicknamed the Goldwater Rule that prohibits diagnosing or speaking about the mental health of people they havenít examined. Now do you agree that itís an ethical breach?


Quote:

I don't agree we gained nothing. You should probably work harder at speaking for yourself and just give up on speaking for others.
Iím not attempting to speak for you. If you think weíve gained something, Iíd like to know what you think weíve gained.









Quote:

In this thread I am aware of at least two objections:



1. Trump can't be diagnosed without a one-on-one clinical observation.



2. It is unethical to paint Trump as mentally ill because we don't want to portray mental illness as dangerous.



You certainly fall under category 2. Am I correct in thinking that you do, indeed, believe Trump is mentally ill, but you are simply concerned with ethics violations here? Just curious.

While I am concerned with medical ethics, it isnít as simple as that. Itís not the end-all-be-all of my objections. Whether or not Trump is mentally ill is a question that is not for me to answer or ponder. A medical diagnosis does not give a layperson useful information. For one thing, we arenít treating him; diagnosis itself is useful only for designing a treatment program. For another, we donít have any real idea what a particular diagnosis implies as to a personís future behavior or fitness for any particular task. We can all see his behavior and judge it for what it is without knowing anything about his mental state.

Ultimately, my main objection is this:
Medicine is a science that deals with healing people. Standards of practice and ethical codes provide a structure to ensure that scientific core mission. Why should laypeople trust doctors that act this way? And if all doctors acted this way, where would the profession be?

xjx388 11th February 2020 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12985484)
I don't know and neither do you. We'd have to ask the professional.

If we donít know, how do we know if the professional is giving us good information? Surely, an appeal to their authority isnít sufficient?

Quote:

As previously said, 'dangerousness' does not always equate to violence. Just because Gilligan is an expert in violence doesn't mean he thinks being a danger is restricted to being violent.
He is specifically talking about violence. Heís been extensively quoted in the thread. Hereís a snippet from his contribution to the book Lee edited:
Quote:

However, while all psychiatrists, by definition, have studied mental illness, most have not specialized in studying the causes, consequences, prediction, and prevention of violence, considered as a problem in public health and preventive medicine. Nor have most studied the principles on which the assessment of current and future dangerousness is based, regardless of whether or not any particular individual is mentally ill, and regardless of what diagnosis or diagnoses, if any, he may or may not merit according to the criteria outlined in DSM-V.


That is why it is so important and so appropriate for those few of us who have done so, whether by investigating the psychology of Nazi doctors and Japanese terrorists, as Robert Lifton has done, or by studying sexual violence (rape, incest, etc.), as Judith Herman has done, or by examining murderers and rapists in prisons and jails throughout the world (including those who have committed ďwar crimesĒ), as I have done, while working with the World Health Organizationís Department of Injuries and Violence Prevention on the epidemiology and prevention of violence -- to warn the potential victims, in the interests of public health, when we have recognized and identified signs and symptoms that indicate that someone is dangerous to the public health.
Obviously, he is talking about violence.

Quote:

Trump checks almost every box under the diagnosis for narcissistic personality disorder which is classified as a mental illness.
Medicine is not the practice of filling in checkboxes in books. Itís the practice of assessing each patient as an individual whole person, using a variety of tools, to arrive at a plan that will help to effect healing. These professionals have subverted that noble goal into a weapon to attack politicians.

Skeptic Ginger 11th February 2020 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12985484)
...

Trump checks almost every box under the diagnosis for narcissistic personality disorder which is classified as a mental illness.

ftfy :)


Anyone remember the old days when a POTUS candidate that had seen a psych for mild depression was threatened with disqualification by the voters if it got out?

theprestige 11th February 2020 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12985192)
This false equivalence/whataboutism (take your pick) belongs in another thread.

It's not whataboutism to examine this administration in the context of previous administrations. It's also not whataboutism to point out special pleading in your arguments. Your claim is that Trump poses a special danger. But economic downturn is not a special danger. It's a commonplace danger that has actually come to pass recently and often. If that's the danger Trump poses, then let it ride, I say.

The whole problem is not that Trump is crazy. The problem is that you want him removed on whatever basis you can manage. "He might cause an economic downturn" isn't working, so you're trying "he might cause an economic downturn because he's crazy". Which also isn't working.

The whole point of the Yale group's "diagnosis" is to try to establish a basis for the special pleading about Trump. Clinton and Bush both presided over economic downturns. Clinton and Bush both contributed to 9/11. Bush prosecuted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - wars that entangle US troops and take lives even today. Obama fomented turmoil and unrest across North Africa and the Middle East. Compared to the kind of suffering, death, and destruction his predecessors have presided over, President Trump looks positively benign. A tariff war with China? The horror!

You keep telling me Trump is especially dangerous. And that's why you don't want to let me compare and contrast him with other recent presidents. Because I might conclude that he's not especially dangerous.

xjx388 11th February 2020 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12985865)
ftfy :)


Anyone remember the old days when a POTUS candidate that had seen a psych for mild depression was threatened with disqualification by the voters if it got out?

I do indeed. Do you want a return to those old days or would you like to see some progress on our understanding of mental illness?

TragicMonkey 11th February 2020 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12985918)
I do indeed. Do you want a return to those old days or would you like to see some progress on our understanding of mental illness?

How about a nice middle ground where complaining that a president is crazy when he's caught licking the windows isn't seen as an attack on all mental patients?

jimbob 11th February 2020 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12985885)
It's not whataboutism to examine this administration in the context of previous administrations. It's also not whataboutism to point out special pleading in your arguments. Your claim is that Trump poses a special danger. But economic downturn is not a special danger. It's a commonplace danger that has actually come to pass recently and often. If that's the danger Trump poses, then let it ride, I say.

Well the closest parallel is Nixon, with his alcohol problems and his dangerously erratic behaviour.

ETA: https://www.businessinsider.com/drun...17-1?r=US&IR=T Although possibly it shows that Kissinger *did* deserve the Nobel Peace Prize after all


Quote:

The whole problem is not that Trump is crazy. The problem is that you want him removed on whatever basis you can manage. "He might cause an economic downturn" isn't working, so you're trying "he might cause an economic downturn because he's crazy". Which also isn't working.
No, the problem is that Trump is now publicly demonstrating childlike behaviour - except for his highly inappropriate comments about his daughter.

You seem to think that it's fine to have a senile* person in charge of the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet. I'd beg to differ.

Quote:

The whole point of the Yale group's "diagnosis" is to try to establish a basis for the special pleading about Trump. Clinton and Bush both presided over economic downturns. Clinton and Bush both contributed to 9/11. Bush prosecuted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - wars that entangle US troops and take lives even today. Obama fomented turmoil and unrest across North Africa and the Middle East. Compared to the kind of suffering, death, and destruction his predecessors have presided over, President Trump looks positively benign. A tariff war with China? The horror!

You keep telling me Trump is especially dangerous. And that's why you don't want to let me compare and contrast him with other recent presidents. Because I might conclude that he's not especially dangerous.
Basically this is "Trump is safe" until proven a disaster. That's a stupid approach.

And it isn't just the trade war with China, as you well know.


*I am not a medic, but there's no reasonable explanation for his behaviour that is doesn't involve serious cogitative decline since 2016.

Stacyhs 11th February 2020 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12985811)
If we donít know, how do we know if the professional is giving us good information? Surely, an appeal to their authority isnít sufficient?

He is specifically talking about violence. Heís been extensively quoted in the thread. Hereís a snippet from his contribution to the book Lee edited:

Obviously, he is talking about violence.

I will concede that Gilligan was talking about violence. He also gives a good case for his fear that Trump exhibits tendencies toward it just before the quote you provided:

Quote:

Sometimes a personís dangerousness is so obvious that one does not need
professional training in either psychiatry or criminology to recognize it. One does not
need to have had fifty years of professional experience in assessing the dangerousness of
violent criminals, to recognize the dangerousness of a president who:

1. Asks what the point of having thermonuclear weapons is if we cannot use
them.
2. Urges our government to use torture or worse against our prisoners of
war.
3. Urged that five innocent African American youths be given the death
penalty for a sexual assault even years after it had been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt to have been committed by someone else.
4. Boasts about his ability to get away with sexually assaulting women
himself because of his celebrity and power.
5. Urges his followers at political rallies to punch protestors in the face
and beat them up so badly that they will have to be taken out on
stretchers.
6. Suggests that his followers could always assassinate his political rival, Hillary
Clinton, if she were elected President, or, at the very least, throw her in prison.
7. Believes that he can always get away with whatever violence he does
commit. He said ďI could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and
I wouldnít lose votersĒ (remark made during rally on Jan. 23, 2016).
Quote:

Medicine is not the practice of filling in checkboxes in books. Itís the practice of assessing each patient as an individual whole person, using a variety of tools, to arrive at a plan that will help to effect healing.
I agree partly. Yes, each patient must be assessed individually, but you are minimizing the use of the DSM as a diagnostic tool. That checklist was created after input from many mental health professionals after years of research.

Quote:

These professionals have subverted that noble goal into a weapon to attack politicians.
That alleged motivation by the authors is an opinion, not a fact. They are not "attacking politicians". They are concerned with the danger they believe Trump poses.

theprestige 11th February 2020 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12986118)
I will concede that Gilligan was talking about violence. He also gives a good case for his fear that Trump exhibits tendencies toward it just before the quote you provided

Remember when fuelair would regularly go off on these graphically violent sado-sexual revenge fantasies? And no amount of remonstration or sanction could convince him to moderate that behavior?

Did you think he really had a dangerous mental illness, and might explode into actual violence at any moment? I don't. And I don't think Trump does, either. Not on the evidence Gilligan cites, anyway.

jimbob 11th February 2020 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12986136)
Remember when fuelair would regularly go off on these graphically violent sado-sexual revenge fantasies? And no amount of remonstration or sanction could convince him to moderate that behavior?

Did you think he really had a dangerous mental illness, and might explode into actual violence at any moment? I don't. And I don't think Trump does, either. Not on the evidence Gilligan cites, anyway.

What about Ivana's sworn deposition that he raped her because he didn't like the scalp job done on her recommendation?

theprestige 11th February 2020 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 12986217)
What about Ivana's sworn deposition that he raped her because he didn't like the scalp job done on her recommendation?

One allegation, thirty years ago, later withdrawn. Serious enough in its own right, but definitely not an escalating trend of violent outbursts by President Trump.

My prediction was that if Trump's 'dangerous mental illness' is supposed to manifest as violent action, then we should see a trend of violent action, probably worsening as his condition worsens, etc.

A single data point from thirty years ago is not that trend. In my opinion, it falsifies the prediction.

(Also, not evidence of a 'dangerous mental illness'.)

Cabbage 11th February 2020 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12985798)
. I donít need to speak for him. He has adequately spoken for himself on the record.

Then quote him, don't simply paraphrase him.

Simple!



Quote:

Ah. Then before I presume too much, are you familiar with the American Psychiatric Association? They have an ethical rule nicknamed the Goldwater Rule that prohibits diagnosing or speaking about the mental health of people they havenít examined. Now do you agree that itís an ethical breach?
Yes, I'm familiar with it. No, I don't agree with it.


Quote:

Iím not attempting to speak for you. If you think weíve gained something, Iíd like to know what you think weíve gained.

The knowledge that professional psychiatrists think Trump is dangerously mentally ill.




Quote:

A medical diagnosis does not give a layperson useful information.


What utter rubbish.

xjx388 11th February 2020 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12986118)
I will concede that Gilligan was talking about violence. He also gives a good case for his fear that Trump exhibits tendencies toward it just before the quote you provided:

I don't know that it's a good case. Dr. Gilligan is an expert in violence, an expertise gained by his years of working with violent criminals. Trump is catagorically different from the type of patient Dr. Gilligan has worked with. He hasn't done any research on people like Trump, he hasn't worked with patients like Trump and he certainly hasn't ever worked with Trump himself.

Let's take the first item in the list: Trump reportedly asked why we couldn't use nukes if we had them. This story is solely sourced to an unnamed source NBC's Joe Scarborough spoke to before Trump was elected:

Quote:

Originally Posted by https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html
ďSeveral months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why canít we use them,Ē Scarborough said on his ďMorning JoeĒ program.

That does not sound to me like ample evidence to base a sound professional opinion on. It is, however, perfectly fine for a concerned citizen to speak out -there's no need to invoke the medical profession to do so.

Quote:

I agree partly. Yes, each patient must be assessed individually, but you are minimizing the use of the DSM as a diagnostic tool. That checklist was created after input from many mental health professionals after years of research.
I'm not minimizing it; I'm putting it in it's proper place -it's a tool for professionals to use as a part of arriving at a diagnosis. One tool of many that includes semi-structured interviews, review of medical records, etc. When used as part of a complete assessment it's a well validated tool. When it's used as the only thing you are looking at, not so much.

Quote:

That alleged motivation by the authors is an opinion, not a fact. They are not "attacking politicians". They are concerned with the danger they believe Trump poses.
It's criticism of a politician in order to convince people to remove that politician from office. It is by it's very nature a political attack.

xjx388 11th February 2020 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12986311)
Then quote him, don't simply paraphrase him.

Simple!

Been done many times in the thread. Most recently about 3 or 4 posts up.
Quote:

Yes, I'm familiar with it. No, I don't agree with it.
You don't agree with the Goldwater rule? That's fine. Your disagreement with the rule doesn't change the fact that it's a rule and that the Yale Group is in violation of it. The rule has been challenged and upheld by the APA so that's the relevant thing here.
Quote:

The knowledge that professional psychiatrists think Trump is dangerously mentally ill.
That's a mere restatement of terms. What is gained by such knowledge? What are we supposed to do with that?
Quote:

What utter rubbish.
What useful information do you derive from a diagnosis? Are you going to treat the President?

Cabbage 11th February 2020 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12986361)
Been done many times in the thread. Most recently about 3 or 4 posts up.


I'll grant you that he's concerned with dangerous violence tendencies in Trump. In no way does that imply that he has no other concerns (like the ones I mentioned).


Quote:

You don't agree with the Goldwater rule? That's fine. Your disagreement with the rule doesn't change the fact that it's a rule and that the Yale Group is in violation of it. The rule has been challenged and upheld by the APA so that's the relevant thing here.
'K. On the other hand, that's irrelevant to the question of what I consider (un)ethical. But thanks for trying.

Quote:

That's a mere restatement of terms. What is gained by such knowledge? What are we supposed to do with that?
Haven't we been through this aspect of the discussion before? As long as there is the potential for more Americans to become aware of the danger of Trump, I consider that a gain.


Quote:

What useful information do you derive from a diagnosis?

For examples: If a patient receives a diagnosis that he has a poor heart, he has the useful information that he should go easier in his lifestyle: Eat more healthy. Moderate physical activity.

If someone close to me is diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, the mere fact of that useful information allows me to be more cautious and aware around the individual with the correlation for violent behavior.

Seriously, I can't believe you need to ask this question. Really.

Quote:

Are you going to treat the President?

Do you think I should? Someone certainly should, and not one of his typical Kiss-Ass-Quacks, neither.

I'll get right on it, if you need me to.

Skeptic Ginger 11th February 2020 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12986136)
Remember when fuelair would regularly go off on these graphically violent sado-sexual revenge fantasies? And no amount of remonstration or sanction could convince him to moderate that behavior?

Did you think he really had a dangerous mental illness, and might explode into actual violence at any moment? ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12986236)
One allegation, thirty years ago, later withdrawn. Serious enough in its own right, but definitely not an escalating trend of violent outbursts by President Trump.

I don't suppose you see the contradiction there.

Your analogy is a fail.

Your example of fuelair has nothing in common with the issues here.

xjx388 11th February 2020 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12986452)
I'll grant you that he's concerned with dangerous violence tendencies in Trump. In no way does that imply that he has no other concerns (like the ones I mentioned).

The only concerns we are ...uh, concerned with are those that he has actually made a part of his professional opinion.

Quote:

'K. On the other hand, that's irrelevant to the question of what I consider (un)ethical. But thanks for trying.
No problem. The answer to the question I asked, it seems, is: ďYes they breached the ethical code, but Iím ok with that.Ē

And thatís the difference between us. I donít know why you think that way because you havenít told me. I can only say that I strongly disagree because adhering to an ethical code is fundamental to ensuring good practice of medicine. If a professional breaches ethics, how can we be sure they are actually acting professionally? Iím sure you would have a problem with ethical breaches in most other medical contexts (Doctors dating patients? Breaking confidentiality? Advocating unproven treatments?), so Iím not sure what makes this different. Or maybe you donít think ethics in medicine is a big deal?


Haven't we been through this aspect of the discussion before? As long as there is the potential for more Americans to become aware of the danger of Trump, I consider that a gain.











Quote:

For examples: If a patient receives a diagnosis that he has a poor heart, he has the useful information that he should go easier in his lifestyle: Eat more healthy. Moderate physical activity.



If someone close to me is diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, the mere fact of that useful information allows me to be more cautious and aware around the individual with the correlation for violent behavior.
There, you are talking about situations where someone has been personally diagnosed in the traditional way by a professional who has spent time assessing the person and going through the diagnostic process. That isnít what we are talking about here. In those situations, a diagnosis is useful for treatment.

And as to your second example, the diagnosis itself isnít telling you anything, if they really are close to you. Youíve already observed their behaviors and know that you have to be wary. The diagnosis will facilitate their treatment and thatís about it.

Youíve observed Trump. You already came to a conclusion about him before the Yale Group existed. Iím quite sure you didnít vote for him. What did the Yale Group tell you that fundamentally changed your view of him?


Quote:

Seriously, I can't believe you need to ask this question. Really.
Uh...because in order to have a conversation I need to find out what you think and the best way to do that is ask?



Quote:

Do you think I should? Someone certainly should, and not one of his typical Kiss-Ass-Quacks, neither.



I'll get right on it, if you need me to.
Exactly, you arenít treating him so thereís no useful information in a diagnosis for you.

Stacyhs 12th February 2020 12:48 AM

We've gone round and round and round on this issue ad nauseam. I don't really give a **** about the Goldwater rule, whether or not Lee's book is 'ethical', whether or not Trump has been seen in person by a mental health professional, whether he is going to be violent or whether he wears pink undies with lace. I do know what I've seen of the man and what his behavior leads me to conclude is that there is something seriously wrong with him. He is not stable. He is an extreme narcissist who can never, ever admit he's wrong, thinks he's above the law, who never learns because he thinks he knows better than anyone else, who has the emotional maturity of a child, is a bully and pathological liar. That makes him unfit to hold the most powerful position in the world. People here can continue to nit pick about semantics and get all huffy about 'ethics' till the cows come home. It doesn't change what I see and why over 70,000 mental health officials are so concerned about that they signed a petition warning about how dangerous he is.

Skeptic Ginger 12th February 2020 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12986639)
We've gone round and round and round on this issue ad nauseam. I don't really give a **** about the Goldwater rule, whether or not Lee's book is 'ethical', whether or not Trump has been seen in person by a mental health professional, whether he is going to be violent or whether he wears pink undies with lace. I do know what I've seen of the man and what his behavior leads me to conclude is that there is something seriously wrong with him. He is not stable. He is an extreme narcissist who can never, ever admit he's wrong, thinks he's above the law, who never learns because he thinks he knows better than anyone else, who has the emotional maturity of a child, is a bully and pathological liar. That makes him unfit to hold the most powerful position in the world. People here can continue to nit pick about semantics and get all huffy about 'ethics' till the cows come home. It doesn't change what I see and why over 70,000 mental health officials are so concerned about that they signed a petition warning about how dangerous he is.

Nominated. :thumbsup:

The Great Zaganza 12th February 2020 02:28 AM

People being selected for positions that require decision making of vast consequence are not discriminated against for having mental illnesses; they are discriminated for not being exceptional at dealing with stress, distraction, lack of information and emotional impact.

It is utterly bizarre to claim that we cannot ask more of the President in terms of competency for the job than we could for a Wallmart worker stacking shelves.

xjx388 12th February 2020 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12986639)
We've gone round and round and round on this issue ad nauseam. I don't really give a **** about the Goldwater rule, whether or not Lee's book is 'ethical', whether or not Trump has been seen in person by a mental health professional, whether he is going to be violent or whether he wears pink undies with lace. I do know what I've seen of the man and what his behavior leads me to conclude is that there is something seriously wrong with him. He is not stable. He is an extreme narcissist who can never, ever admit he's wrong, thinks he's above the law, who never learns because he thinks he knows better than anyone else, who has the emotional maturity of a child, is a bully and pathological liar. That makes him unfit to hold the most powerful position in the world. People here can continue to nit pick about semantics and get all huffy about 'ethics' till the cows come home. It doesn't change what I see and why over 70,000 mental health officials are so concerned about that they signed a petition warning about how dangerous he is.



I was with you until that bit about 70k mental health officials -that part simply isnít true. Otherwise, bravo! You have summed up my position quite well when it comes to my view of Trump. Where I disagree is the importance of ethics.

Iím getting huffy about ethics because I manage doctors. It is very important to me that ethics remain a cornerstone of the profession. From a societal view, I would think we all want ethics in medicine. What the Yale Group is doing is a gross violation of ethics for all the reasons weíve gone round and round about. I canít understand why so many here fight me on that point.

xjx388 12th February 2020 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12986683)
People being selected for positions that require decision making of vast consequence are not discriminated against for having mental illnesses; they are discriminated for not being exceptional at dealing with stress, distraction, lack of information and emotional impact.

If that were true, Trump wouldnít have been elected.

Quote:

It is utterly bizarre to claim that we cannot ask more of the President in terms of competency for the job than we could for a Wallmart worker stacking shelves.
You are right, it would be bizarre for someone to make that claim.

3point14 12th February 2020 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12986358)
It's criticism of a politician in order to convince people to remove that politician from office. It is by it's very nature a political attack.

In what way would it look different if it wasn't politically motivated?

theprestige 12th February 2020 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12986960)
In what way would it look different if it wasn't politically motivated?

It would make sense, for one thing.

3point14 12th February 2020 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12986968)
It would make sense, for one thing.

That's subjective.

Is there anything at all that the accusers could say that would convince you and XJ that this is not political?

I only ask, because if there isn't, then any discussion with either of you is pointless.

xjx388 12th February 2020 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12986960)
In what way would it look different if it wasn't politically motivated?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12986972)
That's subjective.

Is there anything at all that the accusers could say that would convince you and XJ that this is not political?

I only ask, because if there isn't, then any discussion with either of you is pointless.

The truth is, this particular situation would not look at all different if it were a sincere concern. It's the inability of the lay audience to tell the difference between a political attack and a sincere concern that is a core problem.

It's kind of like when a doctor recommends a treatment that doesn't have good science behind it. Is the doctor recommending it because he truly believes in the treatment or because he makes money off of it? The patient isn't equipped to tell the difference.

However, I can see a couple of scenarios in which mental health professionals can and should speak out:

1)They speak as citizens without any of the trappings of their profession. Sure, their expertise and experience will inform what they say, but they should leave out any mention of diagnosis or dangerous mental illness. Include a clear disclaimer -something like, "I've never met him and I'm not diagnosing him but I have to speak out as a citizen . . ." Dr. Francis almost hits the mark but his "He's not mentally ill; he's the worst person ever," schtick is a bit over the top.

2)His actual therapist breaches confidentiality because Trump has spoken in session about his desire to nuke NK/Syria/wherever, his desire to purge certain ethnicities, a threat to shoot someone on 5th Avenue to see if he still has support, etc -actual specific dangers. I could see other professionals rallying in support. Then it would be based on sound medical practice and invoke a true Duty to Warn as spelled out by law.

3point14 12th February 2020 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12987008)
The truth is, this particular situation would not look at all different if it were a sincere concern. It's the inability of the lay audience to tell the difference between a political attack and a sincere concern that is a core problem.

Do you count yourself as one of the 'lay audience' that you mention?

Cabbage 12th February 2020 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12986968)
It would make sense, for one thing.


It doesn't make sense to you that Trump just might be mentally ill?????

theprestige 12th February 2020 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12986972)
That's subjective.

You're asking what would convince me it isn't political. Obviously that's a question that can only be answered by my subjective judgement.

For example, the "duty to warn" argument doesn't make sense to me in this context. The real "duty to warn" is a narrowly-scoped legal exception to the legal requirement for medical confidentiality. It applies when a medical professional has reason to believe their patient poses an imminent risk to themselves or others. It's so that law enforcement can act immediately to prevent tragedy.

It doesn't make sense here. It's inappropriate here. In my opinion, it's being used to try to paper over the ethical breach of going public with what should be confidential patient information. There is no imminent danger. There is no public safety objective that depends on revealing this information for immediate police action.

Either the Yale group doesn't know what the duty to warn actually is, in which case they're bad doctors; or they do know, but are misusing it here on purpose, which makes them evil doctors.

That's just one example. The call for a 25th Amendment solution, the citation of the "what good are nukes" anecdote as medical evidence, and others, all signal that this is an unserious and unethical effort.

Quote:

Is there anything at all that the accusers could say that would convince you and XJ that this is not political?

I only ask, because if there isn't, then any discussion with either of you is pointless.
These particular accusers? Probably not. I don't think they have standing to make the kinds of medical accusations they're making.

If a doctor who was actually treating Trump believed the president posed an imminent risk to himself and others, consistent with the actual letter and spirit of the duty to warn, and issued that warning directly to the Secret Service, I'd probably take it seriously.

---

I'd take the Yale group more seriously if, instead of a book, they'd published peer-reviewed articles citing specific data sets and methodologies for their novel techniques of remote diagnosis.

xjx388 12th February 2020 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12987033)
Do you count yourself as one of the 'lay audience' that you mention?

Of course. And I don't know for sure if it's a sincere concern or a political attack. It looks and sounds, to my eyes and ears, like a political attack, the same kinds of things being said in other threads and media pundit opinion pieces, just with a long white coat lending it more gravitas.

I do know, because of my position and research on the subject, that medical ethics and standards of practice are important to the profession. I also know that the professionals here aren't following either. That leans me more to the political attack side than the sober analysis side.

3point14 12th February 2020 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12987054)
You're asking what would convince me it isn't political. Obviously that's a question that can only be answered by my subjective judgement.

Thanks.

That leaves me believing you're utterly unconvincable. regardless of any current or new evidence.

3point14 12th February 2020 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12987093)
Of course.


Then how are you making your judgement? If you are, self confessedly one of the lay audience, about which you say this:


Quote:

inability of the lay audience to tell the difference between a political attack and a sincere concern that is a core problem.
How are you managing to discern the difference between a sincere concern and a political attack when you put yourself in the group of people that you say are unable to tell the difference between a political attack and a sincere concern?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.