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 2 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=330170)

WilliamSeger 13th July 2018 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12360887)
Trump is so loud that Liberace once wore him for a concert appearance.

He's so loud that air raid sirens tell him to keep it down.

He's so loud that he cures a deaf person every time he speaks.

He's so loud that even Chuck Norris can't roundhouse kick him.

And yet Trump's "loudness" falls on many "deaf" ears.

theprestige 13th July 2018 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger (Post 12360900)
And yet Trump's "loudness" falls on many "deaf" ears.

Boring!

Trump's so loud that the only time Black Bolt speaks is to tell him to shut up.

Trump's loudness is the cause of the Fermi Paradox.

xjx388 13th July 2018 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger (Post 12360900)
And yet Trump's "loudness" falls on many "deaf" ears.

That isn't the case at all. None of us needed a medical opinion to form our opinions of his "loudness." If we didn't need it to form our opinion, then of what value is it?

Let me put it another way. Let's say that there had been a group of prominent psychiatrists who had come out saying Bill Clinton had Malignant Narcissism and that made him dangerous. Would you believe them?

WilliamSeger 13th July 2018 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12360928)
That isn't the case at all. None of us needed a medical opinion to form our opinions of his "loudness." If we didn't need it to form our opinion, then of what value is it?

Let me put it another way. Let's say that there had been a group of prominent psychiatrists who had come out saying Bill Clinton had Malignant Narcissism and that made him dangerous. Would you believe them?

If you can ask that, you illustrate my point.

xjx388 13th July 2018 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger (Post 12360931)
If you can ask that, you illustrate my point.

Nice dodge.

WilliamSeger 13th July 2018 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12360962)
Nice dodge.

Not a dodge: Any comparison between Trump and any other president illustrates how much you're willing to ignore in order to pretend that the Yale group's opinion lacks some secret science litmus test.

xjx388 13th July 2018 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger (Post 12360981)
Not a dodge: Any comparison between Trump and any other president illustrates how much you're willing to ignore in order to pretend that the Yale group's opinion lacks some secret science litmus test.

They do seem to be using some kind of secret science given that there is no support for remote diagnosis in any scientific journal or other publication. I'm going to assume that you agree that medical practice should be rooted in science, yes?

But that's neither here nor there. It's not about comparing Trump and Clinton, it's about illustrating the idea that the Yale group's proclamations have no actual effect on anyone's opinions. If you support any particular politician, it will be because you yourself have observed them, listened to them, agree with their policies and find them acceptable candidates.

So take out actual Presidents: If you support a future candidate or President, would a future "Yale group's" negative opinion sway you?

Bob001 13th July 2018 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12361042)
.....
So take out actual Presidents: If you support a future candidate or President, would a future "Yale group's" negative opinion sway you?

The issue isn't just anybody's opinion. The issue isn't "We say Trump is disturbed. Believe us." The issue is "We conclude that Trump is disturbed for these reasons [insert long list here], which are consistent with the established diagnostic criteria that support this conclusion. The evidence speaks for itself." And speaking for myself, yes, I would consider such evidence seriously in the case of any candidate.

xjx388 13th July 2018 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12361097)
The issue isn't just anybody's opinion. The issue isn't "We say Trump is disturbed. Believe us." The issue is "We conclude that Trump is disturbed for these reasons [insert long list here], which are consistent with the established diagnostic criteria that support this conclusion. The evidence speaks for itself." And speaking for myself, yes, I would consider such evidence seriously in the case of any candidate.

The hilited part is the problem. The DSM is not a checklist that you apply to people you've never met. There are guidelines for it's proper use by professionals that are obviously not being followed here. If they aren't following the guidelines, we cannot conclude that their analysis is valid and reliable. It's as simple as that.

John Mack, MD (deceased) was a Pulitzer Prize winning Harvard Professor of Psychiatry who believed that his patients, who describe being abducted by aliens, are actually encountering aliens either physically and/or through some kind of visionary, mystical but nonetheless real experience. The patients aren't mentally ill, he asserted. He used regression therapy to recover these memories along with other unproven methods. Why don't we believe him even though he is indeed a well qualified psychiatrist? Because his methods have no support in science and therefore his conclusions are suspect. The Yale group's method (distant diagnosis) also suffers from a lack of scientific support; why should we believe them?

kellyb 13th July 2018 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12360454)
I actually agree with you. I think that Trump probably is mentally unsound on some level.

The question to me then becomes...do we just ride this out and accept no one intervening at all?

If General Eisenhower (or someone like that) left a "In case a Hitler happens here" contingency plan for how the military should deal with it for future generations, is that ok if Trump's not really Commander in Chief?

Not to go all Q-anon-like with the "deep state", but the Navy has twice now behaved (and now tweeted!) in a way that looks to me like the military has probably temporarily almost completely detached itself from the executive branch. Like, they're just going to lay low and wait it out and then go back to normal with the next POTUS.

Yes, I know that sounds insane, but that's kinda how it looks, and I'm more than open to debunking.

Fudbucker 13th July 2018 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12361155)
The hilited part is the problem. The DSM is not a checklist that you apply to people you've never met. There are guidelines for it's proper use by professionals that are obviously not being followed here. If they aren't following the guidelines, we cannot conclude that their analysis is valid and reliable. It's as simple as that.

John Mack, MD (deceased) was a Pulitzer Prize winning Harvard Professor of Psychiatry who believed that his patients, who describe being abducted by aliens, are actually encountering aliens either physically and/or through some kind of visionary, mystical but nonetheless real experience. The patients aren't mentally ill, he asserted. He used regression therapy to recover these memories along with other unproven methods. Why don't we believe him even though he is indeed a well qualified psychiatrist? Because his methods have no support in science and therefore his conclusions are suspect. The Yale group's method (distant diagnosis) also suffers from a lack of scientific support; why should we believe them?

Like I side before, you don't need an MD to diagnose you have a compound fracture- The bone sticking out of your leg is evidence enough. Trump's NPD is so obvious only an idiot or cult member could deny it.

Fudbucker 13th July 2018 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellyb (Post 12361320)
The question to me then becomes...do we just ride this out and accept no one intervening at all?

If General Eisenhower (or someone like that) left a "In case a Hitler happens here" contingency plan for how the military should deal with it for future generations, is that ok if Trump's not really Commander in Chief?

Not to go all Q-anon-like with the "deep state", but the Navy has twice now behaved (and now tweeted!) in a way that looks to me like the military has probably temporarily almost completely detached itself from the executive branch. Like, they're just going to lay low and wait it out and then go back to normal with the next POTUS.

Yes, I know that sounds insane, but that's kinda how it looks, and I'm more than open to debunking.

If it's obvious to us it's obvious to them and I'm sure they have experts on the payroll that have concluded what we've concluded. Trump probably has some leeway when it comes to insignificant actions against states like Syria, but when it comes to any massive foreign interventions or attacks, the military is going to call the shots.

LSSBB 13th July 2018 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fudbucker (Post 12361347)
If it's obvious to us it's obvious to them and I'm sure they have experts on the payroll that have concluded what we've concluded. Trump probably has some leeway when it comes to insignificant actions against states like Syria, but when it comes to any massive foreign interventions or attacks, the military is going to call the shots.

Nods and winks happen.

kellyb 13th July 2018 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fudbucker (Post 12361347)
If it's obvious to us it's obvious to them and I'm sure they have experts on the payroll that have concluded what we've concluded. Trump probably has some leeway when it comes to insignificant actions against states like Syria, but when it comes to any massive foreign interventions or attacks, the military is going to call the shots.

Yeah, the creepy "our beautiful, glorious bombs" (paraphrased) media thing with Syria (where Russia was warned about what was up first, too) seemed like a sort of token gesture to psychologically soothe Trump. Or something like that.

Glad to know you agree, and I'm not, in fact, just a left wing Q-anoner on this. LOL

xjx388 14th July 2018 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fudbucker (Post 12361338)
Like I side before, you don't need an MD to diagnose you have a compound fracture- The bone sticking out of your leg is evidence enough. Trump's NPD is so obvious only an idiot or cult member could deny it.


I will grant that many physical problems - like broken bones, open wounds, large growths on the skin- are obvious problems. Mental health is a teeny bit more complex than that. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that I grant that NPD can be obvious. Ok, so what? Most people who have NPD are not dangerous and perform well in many aspects-narcissism can be helpful in business and politics, after all. But the Yale group is going a big step further here, declaring that Trump is a danger to the world. “Dangerousness,” is not obvious; hell, it’s not even a diagnostic term. It’s a prediction of future likely behavior and that isn’t something you can glean simply by watching someone on TV and reading their tweets.

xjx388 14th July 2018 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellyb (Post 12361320)
The question to me then becomes...do we just ride this out and accept no one intervening at all?

Pretty much, at least until he does something worth intervening for.

Quote:

If General Eisenhower (or someone like that) left a "In case a Hitler happens here" contingency plan for how the military should deal with it for future generations, is that ok if Trump's not really Commander in Chief?

Not to go all Q-anon-like with the "deep state", but the Navy has twice now behaved (and now tweeted!) in a way that looks to me like the military has probably temporarily almost completely detached itself from the executive branch. Like, they're just going to lay low and wait it out and then go back to normal with the next POTUS.

Yes, I know that sounds insane, but that's kinda how it looks, and I'm more than open to debunking.

If you are on the right track, then you have little to worry about; the military won’t listen to insane orders. But we aren’t even anywhere close to such a situation. What can you point to in Trump’s actual actions that indicate he is likely to order unprovoked strikes or illogical military action? This kind of talk strikes me as equivalent to the loony rhetoric we had coming from the right during the Obama years.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

theprestige 14th July 2018 08:35 AM

The Yale group goes even farther than that: They say, on the strength of their "diagnosis", that Trump is so dangerous that the Cabinet should take steps to remove him from office.

theprestige 14th July 2018 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fudbucker (Post 12351327)
So, knowing what you know now, would you still have voted for him?

Yep. So far, it working out pretty much as I expected. Which is to say, it's a **** show, but not a catastrophic or intolerable **** show.

And in the context of this thread, "knowing what I know now", is the same stuff I already knew. The Yale group hasn't actually provided any new information, certainly nothing that would change my mind about removing him from office. On that point, their whole gambit is a complete no-op for me. All that's really left to discuss, in my opinion, is whether the Yale group is doing their profession any favors. I say no. What do you say?

The Norseman 14th July 2018 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12359384)
So political danger then. This is a political argument.

Like I said, "PARTISAN POLITICS!!!"


Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12359562)
Can you be sure that the exchange happened exactly as Scarborough reported or that it even happened at all? I ask because I keep hearing in this thread that an in-person exam is unreliable because the subject can be deceptive and fool the psychiatrist. Yet here we have a reporter sharing an unsourced anecdote that is unverifiable and this is supposed to be counted as evidence that Trump is dangerous.

So: Right, Politics!

PPPPPAAAAARRRRRTTTTIIISSSSAAAANNNNN PPPPOOLLOOLKOITOEASJ;FOIASO;FREHJAS;OEFHNHLDOV/IU;sdb

That's right. According to you and the other conservative defenders, it couldn't POSSIBLY be something other than politics.

I guess it makes it a hell of a lot easier to dismiss when you keep trying to frame it that way.


Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12361155)
The hilited part is the problem. The DSM is not a checklist that you apply to people you've never met. There are guidelines for it's proper use by professionals that are obviously not being followed here. If they aren't following the guidelines, we cannot conclude that their analysis is valid and reliable. It's as simple as that.

Simple, and wrong.



Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12361876)
Yep. So far, it working out pretty much as I expected. Which is to say, it's a **** show, but not a catastrophic or intolerable **** show.

Pretty *********** disgusting and a contemptible attitude to take.

Leftus 14th July 2018 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellyb (Post 12356320)
Has anyone at any point in either of these thread provided any evidence that he's not personality disordered?

If the objection is that you can't fairly diagnose someone without direct contact, how could they?

But since it's a disorder, and by definition must be causing some sort of hindrance to their life, the man is President of the United States so I'm not seeing the hindrance that it should have been created in a man that is so obviously afflicted that it can be diagnosed without any interaction.

He beat the Clinton political machine, and a press system that was very negative towards his candidacy, treating it as a joke. Take a look at the election day coverage on the MSM. They were shocked. So maybe his grandiose thinking isn't a mental disorder but an outcome of beating the world.

So if he actually does have NPD, how has it hurt him?

NoahFence 14th July 2018 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12361810)
The Yale group goes even farther than that: They say, on the strength of their "diagnosis", that Trump is so dangerous that the Cabinet should take steps to remove him from office.

And they're absolutely right.

WilliamSeger 14th July 2018 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12361155)
... The Yale group's method (distant diagnosis) also suffers from a lack of scientific support; why should we believe them?

Because it is your position that lacks scientific support!

Experts challenge the science behind ban on psychiatrists discussing politicians’ mental health

Quote:

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) defends its “Goldwater rule” by arguing that an in-person psychiatric examination is the gold standard for diagnosing mental illness and psychological traits — given that there are no blood tests or brain scans for psychiatric disorders. In fact, however, numerous studies suggest that the interview-based exam can be misleading, psychologist Scott Lilienfeld of Emory University and colleagues argue in the paper, which will appear in an upcoming issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science.

Patients lie or hide facts, they often have poor self-insight, and psychiatrists err, the authors write. In contrast, the accounts of people who know the individual, plus his or her public behavior, writing, speech — and, yes, tweets — can provide more accurate insights into a public figure’s mind, they contend.

The flaws of psychiatric exams and the usefulness of other data make the Goldwater rule “scientifically indefensible,” said Dr. Leonard Glass, a psychiatrist at McLean Hospital and Harvard Medical School who was not involved in the new analysis and is a critic of the rule. “I sort of believed” that interviews offer the clearest window into someone’s mind, he said. “But I believe that a whole lot less now that I’ve read this paper,” which he called “thoughtful, thorough, and a major contribution.”

Dr. Glass was one of 22 signers of a recent letter to the APA (not the one discussed before) that says the Goldwater rule is "antiquated, illogical, without scientific foundation, and intrinsically undermining of mental health professionals’ efforts to protect the public’s well-being.”

Quote:

Twenty-two psychiatrists and psychologists, including some of the field’s most prominent thinkers, are calling on the American Psychiatric Association on Thursday to substantially revise its controversial Goldwater rule, which bars APA members from offering their views of a public figure’s apparent psychological traits or mental status.

In a letter to be delivered to the APA, Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, one of the world’s leading experts on the psychological effects of war and political violence; Philip Zimbardo of the “Stanford prison experiment”; violence expert Dr. James Gilligan; and their colleagues argued that the Goldwater rule, which the APA adopted in 1973, deprives the public of expert opinion on crucial questions, such as the mental health and stability of elected officials.
...
Glass said the signers believe they have not only ethics but also science on their side. The scientific rationale for the Goldwater rule is the idea that only an in-person mental health evaluation (always done via interview; there are no blood tests or brain scans for psychiatric disorders) can yield insights into someone’s motivations, insecurities, emotions, and other psychological traits. A study last year, however, found both that the interview-based exam can be misleading — because patients lie or obfuscate or have poor self-insight, and because psychiatrists err — and that public behavior, writing, and speech can provide more accurate insights.
And here's the abstract from the APS journal paper:

The Goldwater Rule: Perspectives From, and Implications for, Psychological Science

Quote:

Abstract

When, if ever, should psychological scientists be permitted to offer professional opinions concerning the mental health of public figures they have never directly examined? This contentious question, which attracted widespread public attention during the 1964 U.S. presidential election involving Barry Goldwater, received renewed scrutiny during and after the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, when many mental health professionals raised pointed questions concerning the psychiatric status of Donald Trump. Although the Goldwater Rule prohibits psychiatrists from offering diagnostic opinions on individuals they have never examined, no comparable rule exists for psychologists. We contend that, owing largely to the Goldwater Rule’s origins in psychiatry, a substantial body of psychological research on assessment and clinical judgment, including work on the questionable validity of unstructured interviews, the psychology of cognitive biases, and the validity of informant reports and of L (lifetime) data, has been overlooked in discussions of its merits. We conclude that although the Goldwater Rule may have been defensible several decades ago, it is outdated and premised on dubious scientific assumptions. We further contend that there are select cases in which psychological scientists with suitable expertise may harbor a “duty to inform,” allowing them to offer informed opinions concerning public figures’ mental health with appropriate caveats.

kellyb 14th July 2018 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12361920)

So if he actually does have NPD, how has it hurt him?

If he ends up in jail over illegal activities because he thought he was above the law, would that count, hypothetically?

Fudbucker 14th July 2018 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12361876)
Yep. So far, it working out pretty much as I expected. Which is to say, it's a **** show, but not a catastrophic or intolerable **** show.

And in the context of this thread, "knowing what I know now", is the same stuff I already knew. The Yale group hasn't actually provided any new information, certainly nothing that would change my mind about removing him from office. On that point, their whole gambit is a complete no-op for me. All that's really left to discuss, in my opinion, is whether the Yale group is doing their profession any favors. I say no. What do you say?

So I guess your response begs an obvious question: why did you want a **** show?

Leftus 14th July 2018 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellyb (Post 12361964)
If he ends up in jail over illegal activities because he thought he was above the law, would that count, hypothetically?

If you could directly link the NPD to the actions, sure. Not everyone who thinks they are above the law aren't suffering from NPD, are they? Is Above the Law-ism only caused by NPD?

Skeptic Ginger 14th July 2018 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12361920)
.... So if he actually does have NPD, how has it hurt him?

It's a fallacy that because Trump is rich and he won the Presidency that he can't be suffering from a mental disorder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12362033)
If you could directly link the NPD to the actions, sure. Not everyone who thinks they are above the law aren't suffering from NPD, are they? Is Above the Law-ism only caused by NPD?

I have posted a number of examples in the thread where Trump's actions only make sense in light of pathologic self absorption.

xjx388 14th July 2018 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12362111)
It's a fallacy that because Trump is rich and he won the Presidency that he can't be suffering from a mental disorder.

I have posted a number of examples in the thread where Trump's actions only make sense in light of pathologic self absorption.

It's also a fallacy to say that Trump's actions can ONLY be explained by a "pathologic self absorption."

xjx388 14th July 2018 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Norseman (Post 12361912)
Like I said, "PARTISAN POLITICS!!!"



PPPPPAAAAARRRRRTTTTIIISSSSAAAANNNNN PPPPOOLLOOLKOITOEASJ;FOIASO;FREHJAS;OEFHNHLDOV/IU;sdb

That's right. According to you and the other conservative defenders, it couldn't POSSIBLY be something other than politics.

According to me? No. He could very well be a malignant narcissist. He could be a garden variety narcissist. He could be alot of things. The only ones making a definitive statement about his mental state are the OP Psychs and their supporters. It's that certainty that I am arguing against.

Quote:

I guess it makes it a hell of a lot easier to dismiss when you keep trying to frame it that way.

Simple, and wrong.
Wrong how, exactly? Are you saying that if they aren't following standards we can still somehow be sure they are right? Or are you saying that they are following standards and I'm wrong about that?

Fudbucker 14th July 2018 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12362162)
It's also a fallacy to say that Trump's actions can ONLY be explained by a "pathologic self absorption."

There's racism and misogyny too. It's all a rich stew of deplorable impulses, but the thing about narcissists is that it all comes back to the ego.

xjx388 14th July 2018 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger (Post 12361962)
Because it is your position that lacks scientific support!

Experts challenge the science behind ban on psychiatrists discussing politicians’ mental health




Dr. Glass was one of 22 signers of a recent letter to the APA (not the one discussed before) that says the Goldwater rule is "antiquated, illogical, without scientific foundation, and intrinsically undermining of mental health professionals’ efforts to protect the public’s well-being.”



And here's the abstract from the APS journal paper:

The Goldwater Rule: Perspectives From, and Implications for, Psychological Science

Does distant diagnosis have more scientific support than the psychiatric interview? If not, then the point is moot; the personal interview is still the best tool psychiatrists have, even if it's imperfect. There is support in the literature for the semi-structured interview, for example. In any case, personal evaluation has been the gold-standard since the inception of the profession and if psychiatrists want to replace it, they should have sound science behind the new method.

SOdhner 14th July 2018 03:48 PM

Man, I really cannot imagine any psychological insight that could possibly be gained from an in-person session with Trump.

We have decades of interviews, public statements, documented behavior, testimonies from people that know him in any way you could ask for, legal depositions, you name it. It's a MASSIVE amount of data.

Leftus 14th July 2018 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12362111)
It's a fallacy that because Trump is rich and he won the Presidency that he can't be suffering from a mental disorder.

Never said it was because he was rich, but because he won the presidency. Were he really suffering from this mental disorder, he wouldn't have ran as a populist. Can't be a populist and a narcissist as well.

Quote:

I have posted a number of examples in the thread where Trump's actions only make sense in light of pathologic self absorption.
Creationist have done the same. You have your solution and you force the evidence to fit. Underwhelming.

WilliamSeger 14th July 2018 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12362181)
Does distant diagnosis have more scientific support than the psychiatric interview? If not, then the point is moot; the personal interview is still the best tool psychiatrists have, even if it's imperfect. There is support in the literature for the semi-structured interview, for example. In any case, personal evaluation has been the gold-standard since the inception of the profession and if psychiatrists want to replace it, they should have sound science behind the new method.

The results of the studies mentioned in the articles say otherwise, and they not at all surprising. I agree with Dr. Glass: Your position is both unscientific and illogical.

theprestige 14th July 2018 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOdhner (Post 12362197)
Man, I really cannot imagine any psychological insight that could possibly be gained from an in-person session with Trump.

We have decades of interviews, public statements, documented behavior, testimonies from people that know him in any way you could ask for, legal depositions, you name it. It's a MASSIVE amount of data.

It is truly massive. You know what would be interesting? If the Yale group published the dataset they actually used to make their remote diagnosis. And the methodology they used to evaluate it.

Minoosh 14th July 2018 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12361920)
So if he actually does have NPD, how has it hurt him?

I think a general premise is that narcissists suffer because they can never get enough adulation. I don't believe that, 100 percent, when it comes to non-NPD narcissists; the ones I've know seem to tick along pretty nicely.

One of them was a doctor who kept going broke because he kept marrying women who ended up hating him and taking him to the cleaners. Still, he had a good income so I don't know if he really suffered.

theprestige 14th July 2018 04:17 PM

Suffering is not a function of income, once your basic needs have been met.

Skeptic Ginger 14th July 2018 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12362162)
It's also a fallacy to say that Trump's actions can ONLY be explained by a "pathologic self absorption."

No one made this straw argument.

Skeptic Ginger 14th July 2018 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12362181)
Does distant diagnosis have more scientific support than the psychiatric interview? If not, then the point is moot; the personal interview is still the best tool psychiatrists have, even if it's imperfect. There is support in the literature for the semi-structured interview, for example. In any case, personal evaluation has been the gold-standard since the inception of the profession and if psychiatrists want to replace it, they should have sound science behind the new method.

Listen to you. Spouting off like you have significant expertise: "the gold-standard since the inception of the profession". :rolleyes: :sdl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12362207)
Never said it was because he was rich, but because he won the presidency. Were he really suffering from this mental disorder, he wouldn't have ran as a populist. Can't be a populist and a narcissist as well.

He won because of two things, Russian help we are hearing more and more about, and the ability to convince people he's the magic man. His narcissism has a lot to do with how skilled of a conman he is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12362207)
Creationist have done the same. You have your solution and you force the evidence to fit. Underwhelming.

Not even close.

Skeptic Ginger 14th July 2018 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOdhner (Post 12362197)
Man, I really cannot imagine any psychological insight that could possibly be gained from an in-person session with Trump.

We have decades of interviews, public statements, documented behavior, testimonies from people that know him in any way you could ask for, legal depositions, you name it. It's a MASSIVE amount of data.

Exactly and more than a few experts agree.

Skeptic Ginger 14th July 2018 08:16 PM

Going back to do some cleanup, it's been busy over there in the USA politics threads and I missed a few of these I wanted to reply to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12357994)
.... You have somehow managed to miss the ultimate book of guidelines that covers every mental health condition. You know . . . the DSM-V, the bible of the profession?

OK let's trim this up. Do you even remember what you posted? You seem to have drifted quite a bit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx
Med students do rotations through all the specialties and then, in 4th year, in the electives they choose to do. They get some exposure to practice standards but this exposure is superficial.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx
Medical school has very little exposure to practice standards.

You think med schools and schools of psychiatry don't use the DSM-5? :boggled:

I don't get it why you would think physicians don't really learn practice standards until their internships. But you aren't following your own discussion so I'm done with this argument.

As for the AP publishing the DSM, that doesn't mean the organization sets practice standards. Everyone in the profession is involved in setting practice standards to one degree or another.

The APA published the DSM but the manual was developed by a task force that included people from all over the world. And there have been objections including formal petitions:

DSM 5 Is Guide Not Bible—Ignore Its Ten Worst Changes. APA approval of DSM-5 is a sad day for psychiatry.

I can't comprehend where you got this odd idea and I think we're done with this sidetrack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12361155)
The hilited part is the problem. The DSM is not a checklist that you apply to people you've never met. There are guidelines for it's proper use by professionals that are obviously not being followed here. If they aren't following the guidelines, we cannot conclude that their analysis is valid and reliable. It's as simple as that.

:sdl: How can you conclude anything about an analysis you know so little about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx
John Mack, MD (deceased) was a Pulitzer Prize winning Harvard Professor of Psychiatry who believed that his patients, who describe being abducted by aliens, are actually encountering aliens either physically and/or through some kind of visionary, mystical but nonetheless real experience. The patients aren't mentally ill, he asserted. He used regression therapy to recover these memories along with other unproven methods. Why don't we believe him even though he is indeed a well qualified psychiatrist? Because his methods have no support in science and therefore his conclusions are suspect. The Yale group's method (distant diagnosis) also suffers from a lack of scientific support; why should we believe them?

Is there a point here? :rolleyes:



Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12361920)
If the objection is that you can't fairly diagnose someone without direct contact, how could they?

How could who what?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12362033)
If you could directly link the NPD to the actions, sure. Not everyone who thinks they are above the law aren't suffering from NPD, are they? Is Above the Law-ism only caused by NPD?

I think you're off track here. I've posted numerous examples here of Trump behavior specifically tied to his pathology.

He is obsessed with himself, it shows in his behavior practically every time we see him.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:27 AM.

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