It seems you're still not aware of this, but there is no secret science litmus test for personality disorders: It's always an opinion. It appears you want to dismiss expert opinion simply because you don't want it to be true. But I do believe that there is a reason your efforts to turn your own beliefs into facts have been such a miserable failure: The Yale group's opinion is very well founded, whereas yours seems to be politically biased pseudo-science and irrational devotion to dogma.

Why exactly? He could be pandering to his base or messing with his critics. It could be a deliberate distraction to keep the media focused on frivolities. Seems to be working . . .

Of course there is a difference. The question here is: who cares? What extra knowledge are you gaining by slapping a "sick" label on Trump? Does being mentally ill automatically disqualify someone from the Presidency? A look at past Presidents would indicate the answer to that is, "no."

Things are often not as they seem...

Wow. I came to this exact same conclusion all on my own and I didn't need a white coat, fancy titles and a book of diagnosis to do it!

I don't expect him to act differently because this has been the way he has acted the whole time I've known about him and he's 70 years old now. He's an old dog and he has no new tricks. So, I'm confused: of what use is that "pathology" label again?

Who's expecting him to act differently? As far as I can tell, everyone - right, left, fans, foes, heil trumpers and never trumpers - everyone seems to agree that he's acting pretty much exactly as they expected him to act, and everybody seems to agree he'll continue to act this way.

Is that supposed to be the Yale group's big insight? "Hey guys, you know the way Trump is? Well, that's the way he is!"

Well, no duh! Of course it's always an opinion. Usually, it's an objective opinion formed by several sessions of interaction with a patient, interviews with family, etc. That's what the standards of practice call for. You are, of course, free to cite an alternative standard that I've missed, but I won't hold my breath. That's an uncharitable misreading of my posts. If you think the standards and ethics of Psychiatry and Psychology are pseudoscience and an insistence on adhering to sound, ethical practice is "irrational devotion to dogma," well, that's an interesting opinion.

I've never used the "Yale group" to support my belief because I don't need to. Trump's narcissism is on display for everyone to see.

Yes, trying to buttress your arguments by insisting that an ethics rule is based on imaginary science is definitely pseudo-science. It's one thing to have a different opinion about the ethics here, but simply refusing to acknowledge any ethical dilemma here is either irrational devotion to a dogma that won't allow any such thing, or it's ordinary disingenuous argument, so I'm actually giving you the benefit of a doubt. On the one hand, you can't credibly deny that the Yale group is right -- anyone (with the possible exception of theprestige) can see that if Trump isn't NPD, then there's no such thing -- but on the other you want to claim that it's just politically motivated so it doesn't really mean anything. I have to wonder why you are so concerned about protecting a profession if you really don't really believe it serves any useful purpose.

Tell me that Trump/Putin press conference didn't demonstrate a pathologic obsession with the Mueller investigation. That is what pathology looks like.

No, that was not playing to any base.

Even some people on Fox News are stunned.

It was stunning. This is another clear case of a line being drawn: if you're with Trump after this, you're now a traitor. There's no way around it.

The DSM is a diagnostic reference, it isn't practice standards.

And why should any of us believe your "diagnosis"?

You might want to look at a few pages. :rolleyes:

Do you also consider the CPT-4 and the ICD-10 to be "practice standards"?

Do you still think it's possible Trump DOESN'T have some severe personality disorder?

That was never the question.

Yes.

I think it's possible that he does have a "severe" personality disorder. I also think it's possible that he has a mild personality disorder. I also think it's possible that he doesn't have a personality disorder at all, and is just an average run of the mill narcissist (in the colloquial sense), who is also a rich, entitled, jerk and an *******.

I think all of those are possible.

I take it you didn't look at the DSM.

Well, actually it was despite xjx claiming it wasn't.

Based on the evidence and links in this very thread SG's "diagnosis" (as you designate it) is very believable. Solid evidence that Trump's ongoing bizarre behavior is *not* the result of a mental disorder is sadly lacking in this thread. Even many of those here who argue against the psychiatric professionals ethics in publicly releasing their opinion accept that there is something seriously wrong with the man.

It wasn't the question because it was never in dispute. You're getting broad agreement from everyone here that Trump has some kind of personality flaw, regardless of how you refer to it.

The things in dispute are:

... Whether the Yale group can actually diagnose personality disorders remotely.
... Whether the Yale group acted ethically in publishing their diagnosis.
... Whether the Cabinet should act on the Yale group's recommendation to start 25th Amendment proceedings against the president, on the strength of the group's remote diagnosis.

We know you and xjx agree that Trump is in some sense, "crazy".

We know that you are convinced that remote diagnosis is possible, and that the Yale group acted ethically in publishing their diagnosis.

I guess the only point left to discuss, really, is whether the Cabinet should act on the Yale group's recommendation and try to remove the President from office. What do you think?

I did. It provides diagnostic criteria. It doesn't provide practice standards. Unless your idea of practice standards is somewhat different from what I understand it to be.

When you actually do look at the manual, I'll be curious to hear how you spin what you mean by practice standards.

Yes.

Whatever a "borderline danger to themselves and others" is, that's not what I said or meant. We already have a system that eliminates too many qualified leaders, whether due to lack of pay, lack of interest, or overly-intrusive background vetting. If we start to police "borderline" personality disorders we would only make it worse.


Study - 1/2 of all US Presidents had mental illness.

Yes, why have any standards at all. That's exactly my point. :rolleyes:

A diagnose by a doctor who actually evaluated him in person. Of course, they could never come out and say it. HIPAA and all that.

Not from armchair doctors and nurse with an agenda.

We've addressed each of these points in the thread already.

Do you think what you're seeing regarding Trump is normal behavior?

That was never the question.

A doc who evaluates him in person cannot talk about it. A doc who evaluates his public behavior you call "armchair" and do not believe. Quite convenient that there is no way that you could ever think Trump's narcissism goes way beyond "garden variety self-absorption". Hope you enjoy what your country has become.

Seems to be now. Fudbucker just asked it.

Why is it so important to you to get agreement about the exact medical degree of Trump's narcissism?

Do you think the Cabinet should act on the Yale group's recommendation, and try to remove him from office?

It's my question. Isn't there some conservative you should be distancing yourself from? Maybe Trump? Are you still pleased with the **** show you voted for?

Not very important to me at all. That agreement will never happen. I am more curious about why some posters here are so quick to deny that the man is a raving lunatic (with short periods of apparent lucidity).

The internal affairs of the US government are not my concern. US Republicans as a group seem to be determined to retain a lunatic as their president so I think it is likely that he will stay in office, to the detriment of most of the rest of the world, Russia and NK being the exceptions.

Fudbucker is pretending that point is in dispute for some reason.

:)

There are several posters in this thread who seem to dispute the point in question. Leftus, to whom the question was directed, seems to be one of them IMO.

There are several points in dispute, and that indeed has been one of them, whether or not by you. Another is whether or not this mental illness that you and I, but not everyone, acknowledges makes him a danger to the country in his current position. And then, of course, there is the dispute over whether or not qualified professionals who think he is dangerous should just keep their mouths shut because of an ethics rule that most psychologists today think should be changed -- largely due to Donald Trump.

Your position seems to be that everyone knew he was crazy when they voted for him, so now we just have to suffer the consequences. I have to seriously doubt the premise, but it doesn't matter; you're right about the consequences. But even though the 25th will not be invoked on Trump, it's still an issue because (assuming there will be presidents after Trump) we NEED a debate about the Goldwater rule.

Hold on, you think it's a character flaw that theprestige isn't an evangelical christian? One more time, he's not happy it's a **** show, he just doesn't care that much, he's happy about other aspects of the outcome. He was very clear about that.

Normal? By what standard? I don't see it as dangerous.

I do see what the Yale group is trying to accomplish as dangerous.

I'm not saying that it is "normal" as I really have no idea what that means in the context of mental health. What I am saying is that having a diagnoses and then forcing the evidence to fit is not the best way to determine the sanity of a person. That X number of people offering an unsolicited medical opinion without any professional standards is not something we should rely on to shape our government.

Belief in a god is "Normal"
Right handed is "Normal"

You can function in the world being abnormal.

I think any Trump support these days is a character flaw. A rather large one.


I'm not sure he doesn't care that much. Theprestige, you care what went down yesterday? Did that bother you at all? I think it did.

By whatever standard you've come up with as you've gone through life. Is Trump normal? It's not a hard question to answer. He's not.