Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale conferenc

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'll add an analogy from a lay person. When I had an addition put on my house the gas guy installed a too small heater for the space then wanted to argue about it. I looked up the formula and did the calculation and showed the builder the gas guy was wrong. The builder decided to test the heating capacity. We turned it on full and in 30 minutes the temperature in the room actually dropped. I got my new heater. And I know I did the calculation correctly, lay person that I am.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what point you're arguing here. Are you implying that laypeople are just as qualified to render an expert opinion as the experts are? Or are you arguing that the opinion of an expert without appropriate supporting work in compliance with standards lacks credibility? Or something else altogether?
 
All we need to know about anyone who has anything to say about Trump's mental health is simple: Did that professional conduct a personal examination of Trump and follow the professional and ethical standards? No? Then they can be dismissed, just as we would dismiss any other expert in any other field who did not follow the standards of their profession.
 
xjx388 said:
All we need to know about anyone who has anything to say about Trump's mental health is simple: Did that professional conduct a personal examination of Trump and follow the professional and ethical standards? No? Then they can be dismissed, just as we would dismiss any other expert in any other field who did not follow the standards of their profession.
Click to expand...
So says one of the people here who admittedly doesn't understand the basics of diagnosing a narcissistic personality disorder.

:rolleyes:
 
theprestige said:
Ugh. Argument by analogy always fails.
Click to expand...

Er, ********?

I'm not making any claims about this particular argument by analogy, but argument by analogy is a perfectly acceptable inductive argument. I've seen thirty-two cars of this make and year with a bad alternator, your car has a dead battery, therefore I suppose it's likely an alternator issue. Perfectly good and strong argument by analogy.

This comment is slightly off-topic, but you raised the ludicrous claim that arguments by analogy are suspect.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So says one of the people here who admittedly doesn't understand the basics of diagnosing a narcissistic personality disorder.



:rolleyes:
Click to expand...



Don't need to as I'm not claiming to diagnose anyone. However, I do expect those who "wear the white coat," to follow the standards and ethics of their profession. Not sure why anyone would want them NOT to do this.

ETA: OK, in the present case, I do have an idea as to why people want these doctors to speak out: It confirms/legitimizes their political bias.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
Which disorder exactly?
Click to expand...

Skeptic Ginger said:
So says one of the people here who admittedly doesn't understand the basics of diagnosing a narcissistic personality disorder.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Narcissistic personality disorder it is. The diagnostic criteria for NPD include the exclusion of the symptoms being due to a medical condition (for example head trauma). Can you show us the results of the medical examination which excludes this?

I mean, surely this is an actual credible diagnosis, not just psychiatry as a political tool?
 
caveman1917 said:
Narcissistic personality disorder it is. The diagnostic criteria for NPD include the exclusion of the symptoms being due to a medical condition (for example head trauma). Can you show us the results of the medical examination which excludes this?

I mean, surely this is an actual credible diagnosis, not just psychiatry as a political tool?
Click to expand...

Why not both?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So says one of the people here who admittedly doesn't understand the basics of diagnosing a narcissistic personality disorder.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So says the person who claims it's easy to recognize and diagnose epilepsy.

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, it's a bit more complicated than you think to properly diagnose complex medical issues that you've never dealt with?
 
phiwum said:
Er, ********?

I'm not making any claims about this particular argument by analogy, but argument by analogy is a perfectly acceptable inductive argument. I've seen thirty-two cars of this make and year with a bad alternator, your car has a dead battery, therefore I suppose it's likely an alternator issue. Perfectly good and strong argument by analogy.

This comment is slightly off-topic, but you raised the ludicrous claim that arguments by analogy are suspect.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was saying that argument by analogy was invalid. I think it was more a claim that on ISF, arguments by analogy are almost always rejected, regardless of how good an analogy they are.
 
Emily's Cat said:
So says the person who claims it's easy to recognize and diagnose epilepsy.

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, it's a bit more complicated than you think to properly diagnose complex medical issues that you've never dealt with?
Click to expand...

Dude, nurses know everything better than everyone. Haven't you been paying attention?
 
Emily's Cat said:
I don't think he was saying that argument by analogy was invalid. I think it was more a claim that on ISF, arguments by analogy are almost always rejected, regardless of how good an analogy they are.
Click to expand...

Could be that was his claim, but I'll let him make it rather than rely on your say so. No offense intended.
 
phiwum said:
Could be that was his claim, but I'll let him make it rather than rely on your say so. No offense intended.
Click to expand...

First, I concede that if you craft your analogy so tightly that there can be no question that the elements being compared are properly analogous for the purpose of your argument, then your argument may not fail for being an analogy. In your hypothetical, you have made the comparison practically tautological. It's more an argument by example than by analogy.

Second, your hypothetical argument is an inductive prediction from observations of like things. Which is fine. I'm not claiming that these kinds of predictions always fail.

The kinds of arguments I'm talking about are attempts at logical proof by analogy. They're not predictions or estimates, but claims of fact. "Because X is true, Y is true by analogy with X. Therefore you must accept my claim that Y is true."

Those are the kinds of arguments we see here: Attempts to induce acceptance of one claim, by making an analogy to another claim that is (assumed to be) already accepted.

And they fail for two reasons. One is that arguments by analogy (of the kind I'm talking about) are open to dispute about whether the elements being compared are properly analogous. Is X really analogous to Y in the way necessary to prove your claim?

The other is that the analogy moves away from thing itself. Any truth you may express via the analogy is only a shadow cast by whatever truth is in the original thing itself, in its own terms. Analogies are good for introducing neophytes to an unfamiliar concept, opening the door to new ideas by means of an idea already familiar to them. But true mastery must come from understanding the new idea on its own terms.

The moment you start arguing the analogy, you have moved away from arguing the thing you had intended to prove. This is a mistake.

If the claimant cannot express and prove their claim in its own terms, they have failed themselves and their audience. Therefore I maintain that arguments by analogy always fail, in the context of rational debate. If your goal is to convince your audience of the truth of your proposition, you must prove that truth itself, in its own terms. Not in terms of some other allegedly analogous truth.

But that's just my opinion. And you know what they say: Opinions are like bicycles--women have 'em, and fish don't need 'em.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
First, I concede that if you craft your analogy so tightly that there can be no question that the elements being compared are properly analogous for the purpose of your argument, then your argument may not fail for being an analogy. In your hypothetical, you have made the comparison practically tautological. It's more an argument by example than by analogy.

Second, your hypothetical argument is an inductive prediction from observations of like things. Which is fine. I'm not claiming that these kinds of predictions always fail.

The kinds of arguments I'm talking about are attempts at logical proof by analogy. They're not predictions or estimates, but claims of fact. "Because X is true, Y is true by analogy with X. Therefore you must accept my claim that Y is true."

Those are the kinds of arguments we see here: Attempts to induce acceptance of one claim, by making an analogy to another claim that is (assumed to be) already accepted.

And they fail for two reasons. One is that arguments by analogy (of the kind I'm talking about) are open to dispute about whether the elements being compared are properly analogous. Is X really analogous to Y in the way necessary to prove your claim?

The other is that the analogy moves away from thing itself. Any truth you may express via the analogy is only a shadow cast by whatever truth is in the original thing itself, in its own terms. Analogies are good for introducing neophytes to an unfamiliar concept, opening the door to new ideas by means of an idea already familiar to them. But true mastery must come from understanding the new idea on its own terms.

The moment you start arguing the analogy, you have moved away from arguing the thing you had intended to prove. This is a mistake.

If the claimant cannot express and prove their claim in its own terms, they have failed themselves and their audience. Therefore I maintain that arguments by analogy always fail, in the context of rational debate. If your goal is to convince your audience of the truth of your proposition, you must prove that truth itself, in its own terms. Not in terms of some other allegedly analogous truth.

But that's just my opinion. And you know what they say: Opinions are like bicycles--women have 'em, and fish don't need 'em.
Click to expand...

Okay, everyone has opinions, but not every opinion is equally well supported.

Here's the simple facts. Argument by analogy can be a strong (inductive) argument, given that the analogous situation is similar in relevant ways and not dissimilar in relevant ways. If situation X is similar to Y and P is true of X, then we may conclude that P is likely true of Y as well.

Now, it could be that folks on this forum tend to abuse argument by analogy. I haven't noticed it myself, but maybe that's so. If so, we should be careful in evaluating each such argument. We don't get to dismiss such arguments wholesale (that would be a kind of meta-inductive argument), but surely we should exercise some care.

And that's all. That's it. You don't get to pretend that argument by analogy is a fallacy.
 
Trying to compare diagnosing personality disorders which depends on observed behavior to diagnosing epilepsy (EC's latest nonsense) which depends heavily on clinical tests like EEGs and brain scans is an example of a failed analogy.

My 2 cents. :)
 
phiwum said:
Okay, everyone has opinions, but not every opinion is equally well supported.

Here's the simple facts. Argument by analogy can be a strong (inductive) argument, given that the analogous situation is similar in relevant ways and not dissimilar in relevant ways. If situation X is similar to Y and P is true of X, then we may conclude that P is likely true of Y as well.
Click to expand...
And that's where the inevitable failure enters the argument. See what happened? Instead of arguing that P is true of Y in terms of Y itself, you're derailed into arguing that X is sufficiently analogous to Y to support your conclusion that P is true of Y. You're bogged down in questions of "similar" and "relevant".

If P really is true of Y, then you should be able to simply argue that in terms of Y itself, without having to appeal to--and then also defend--some similarity with X.

[...] And that's all. That's it. You don't get to pretend that argument by analogy is a fallacy.
Click to expand...
I'm not pretending anything. I'm not claiming that argument by analogy is a logical fallacy in any formal sense. I'm saying it's a simple failure of communication to begin with, and probably also a failure of understanding. If there's any logical fallacy involved, the most likely one is probably begging the question that X is sufficiently analogous to Y to support conclusion P in Y.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Trying to compare diagnosing personality disorders which depends on observed behavior to diagnosing epilepsy (EC's latest nonsense) which depends heavily on clinical tests like EEGs and brain scans is an example of a failed analogy.

My 2 cents. :)
Click to expand...



Personality disorder diagnosis is not solely dependent on matching observed behavior to a checklist. Like any other medical condition, it has its own diagnostic methodology. I've already linked to the kinds of tools that the APA, et al, have created for PD diagnosis, so I'm not sure why you keep repeating this nonsense as if it's a well established truth.

A medical professional has to follow proper procedure. Certifications, licenses, experience , etc don't make people omniscient.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
theprestige said:
And that's where the inevitable failure enters the argument. See what happened? Instead of arguing that P is true of Y in terms of Y itself, you're derailed into arguing that X is sufficiently analogous to Y to support your conclusion that P is true of Y. You're bogged down in questions of "similar" and "relevant".

If P really is true of Y, then you should be able to simply argue that in terms of Y itself, without having to appeal to--and then also defend--some similarity with X.
Click to expand...

Except that direct evidence involving Y may not be a available. Prior to our ability to detect extra-solar planets, our expectation that stars like ours are likely to have planets was a perfectly reasonable argument by analogy.


I'm not pretending anything. I'm not claiming that argument by analogy is a logical fallacy in any formal sense. I'm saying it's a simple failure of communication to begin with, and probably also a failure of understanding. If there's any logical fallacy involved, the most likely one is probably begging the question that X is sufficiently analogous to Y to support conclusion P in Y.
Click to expand...

You just said that argument by analogy inevitably fails, but you aren't claiming that it's fallacious. Weird.

Some arguments by analogy are strong. Some are weak. We ought to point out the weak ones. We ought not pretend that all arguments by analogy beg the question. The simple argument I gave about the alternator was an example of a strong argument by analogy. Like all inductive arguments, the conclusion might be false, but like all good inductive arguments, given that the premises are true, the conclusion is probable.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Trying to compare diagnosing personality disorders which depends on observed behavior to diagnosing epilepsy (EC's latest nonsense) which depends heavily on clinical tests like EEGs and brain scans is an example of a failed analogy.

My 2 cents. :)
Click to expand...

If we do want to go down that line of analogy, a bystander might not be able to diagnose epilepsy but they would probably be able to identify a tonic clonic seizure as some sort of fit.

An absence seizure might go unnoticed.

Trump's behaviour is sufficiently abnormal that it's pretty obvious that *something* is "wrong". It doesn't take much of a stretch to believe that a clinician would be able to narrow it down to a fairly small range of... abnormalities.


You don't need to identify precisely what is wrong to know that something is wrong.

Similarly, if someone has an obvious fever, you don't need to know whether it is Ebola or Flu (or any other illness) in order to know that they are ill and probably should get medical advice.
 
jimbob said:
If we do want to go down that line of analogy, a bystander might not be able to diagnose epilepsy but they would probably be able to identify a tonic clonic seizure as some sort of fit.
Click to expand...

Tonic clonic seizure? Is that what did Dr. Suess in?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
phiwum said:
Except that direct evidence involving Y may not be a available. Prior to our ability to detect extra-solar planets, our expectation that stars like ours are likely to have planets was a perfectly reasonable argument by analogy.
Click to expand...
Again, I'm not disputing the value of such inductive reasoning to a prediction. Later, of course, the prediction will be tested in terms of the thing itself, and not its analogue.

You just said that argument by analogy inevitably fails, but you aren't claiming that it's fallacious. Weird.
Click to expand...
To a robot, maybe. Natural language isn't usually difficult for mature human beings to navigate.

Some arguments by analogy are strong. Some are weak. We ought to point out the weak ones. We ought not pretend that all arguments by analogy beg the question. The simple argument I gave about the alternator was an example of a strong argument by analogy. Like all inductive arguments, the conclusion might be false, but like all good inductive arguments, given that the premises are true, the conclusion is probable.
Click to expand...
"Given that the premises are true" is the problem.

Again, there's a difference between trying to get a good prediction of outcome A by inductive analogy to outcome B, and trying to prove A by appealing to the allegedly analogous proof of B.

The arguments I'm talking about aren't inductive predictions of testable physical phenomena. They're claims of truth by substitution. And no, I don't pretend that all such claims beg the question. I inductively predict that they are likely to beg the question.

The scenario I'm referring to is a scenario in which you have claimed that A is true, but have not yet proven it. I ask you to prove A. Instead, you point to a proof of B, and ask me to agree that B is sufficiently analogous to A, for the proof of B to meet your burden of proof for A.

But that is foolishness. If you understand A well enough to determine it is a proper analog to B, then you understand A well enough to prove it directly, without reference to B. Arguing B at that point becomes a waste of your time and mine.
 
jimbob said:
If we do want to go down that line of analogy, a bystander might not be able to diagnose epilepsy but they would probably be able to identify a tonic clonic seizure as some sort of fit.



An absence seizure might go unnoticed.



Trump's behaviour is sufficiently abnormal that it's pretty obvious that *something* is "wrong". It doesn't take much of a stretch to believe that a clinician would be able to narrow it down to a fairly small range of... abnormalities.





You don't need to identify precisely what is wrong to know that something is wrong.



Similarly, if someone has an obvious fever, you don't need to know whether it is Ebola or Flu (or any other illness) in order to know that they are ill and probably should get medical advice.
Click to expand...



If we as laypeople see a Presidential candidate having a fit or seizure of some sort on TV, we can make our own judgements as to whether or not that disqualifies them from office. The same with any observed symptom or behavior. No medical diagnosis is necessary.

Further, if the candidate happens to be one we support, we will probably tend to judge such behavior/symptoms according to that bias. This election proves that beyond any doubt.

Doctors and health care providers are subject to the same biases because they are only human. This thread proves that beyond any doubt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
xjx388 said:
If we as laypeople see a Presidential candidate having a fit or seizure of some sort on TV, we can make our own judgements as to whether or not that disqualifies them from office. The same with any observed symptom or behavior. No medical diagnosis is necessary.

Further, if the candidate happens to be one we support, we will probably tend to judge such behavior/symptoms according to that bias. This election proves that beyond any doubt.

Doctors and health care providers are subject to the same biases because they are only human. This thread proves that beyond any doubt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes they are. That fact alone provides no evidence that an opinion provided by one of them is incorrect.
 
Steve said:
Yes they are. That fact alone provides no evidence that an opinion provided by one of them is incorrect.
Click to expand...



Correct. We hope that in a clinical setting those providers put their biases aside and treat their patients with professionalism.

Here though, there are other factors which argue towards bias:
1) This is not a clinical setting. That's one of the best reasons, IMO, for insisting upon an in person evaluation. If a doctor cannot be unbiased, then they should not accept a patient for treatment. Trump is not their patient, thus, we cannot rule out bias.

2) Trump is a divisive political figure. Our own SG is obviously biased against him, which means we have to factor that into her opinions. Same thing for these other docs. Just reading what they say about him doesn't sound very clinical and it reveals a potential bias.

3) These people are giving a professional opinion without following professional standards. Why would they do that if they were not biased against him? There is no real, specific threat that they can articulate ; it seems they just don't like his policies and don't think he's "fit."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
theprestige said:
Again, I'm not disputing the value of such inductive reasoning to a prediction. Later, of course, the prediction will be tested in terms of the thing itself, and not its analogue.


To a robot, maybe. Natural language isn't usually difficult for mature human beings to navigate.
Click to expand...

Kind sir, mature beings with a lick of sense don't claim that argument by analogy "always fails". That's what you said. It was a damned stupid statement.

You could, of course, admit the gross overstatement. Or you could pretend that you didn't mean what you explicitly said and see if you can't make the claim less stupid by pretending that it was a different claim altogether.

Good luck with that.

"Given that the premises are true" is the problem.
Click to expand...

Such is the nature of argumentation generally. If'n you want to argue about the truth of the premises, do so. That's rather different than claiming that argument by analogy "always fails".

Again, there's a difference between trying to get a good prediction of outcome A by inductive analogy to outcome B, and trying to prove A by appealing to the allegedly analogous proof of B.

The arguments I'm talking about aren't inductive predictions of testable physical phenomena. They're claims of truth by substitution. And no, I don't pretend that all such claims beg the question. I inductively predict that they are likely to beg the question.

The scenario I'm referring to is a scenario in which you have claimed that A is true, but have not yet proven it. I ask you to prove A. Instead, you point to a proof of B, and ask me to agree that B is sufficiently analogous to A, for the proof of B to meet your burden of proof for A.

But that is foolishness. If you understand A well enough to determine it is a proper analog to B, then you understand A well enough to prove it directly, without reference to B. Arguing B at that point becomes a waste of your time and mine.
Click to expand...
Your final claims is utter ********, of course. I might know a lot about alternators in this make and model, but not about this particular alternator. Thus, argument by analogy is a perfectly reasonable approach.

I might also know a lot about this particular star and reckon that stars that are like it in observable ways are similar in non-observable ways. Perfectly reasonable application of argument by analogy.

Now, I tell you what: Just as soon as you find someone pretending that argument by analogy is a deductive, rather than inductive, argument, why you just point it out to me. You and I will have a dickens of a time mocking that fool. But in the meantime, when you say that argument by analogy "always fails", I reckon you're the one who deserves a sound mocking.
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
Trump will probably respond to this in a manner that proves him right.

But yeah, Trump at the very least has a severe personality disorder.
Click to expand...

If you think he's bad, check out Hillary the sociopath; takes blood money donations from oppressive regimes that stone women and gays to death and more.
 
jakesteele said:
If you think he's bad, check out Hillary the sociopath; takes blood money donations from oppressive regimes that stone women and gays to death and more.
Click to expand...

You realize, I presume, that this is a wild non-sequitur, yes? Even if we take as granted your claim, the subject is whether Trump has a dangerous mental illness and, bear with me now, Hillary Clinton is not Donald Trump.

I say this not because I believe we have good evidence that Trump is mentally ill. We have good evidence that he's an *******, yes, but diagnosis is another matter. So my response is not in support of Stark and others, but merely to point out that your post is wildly irrelevant. We ain't talking about Hillary.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Trying to compare diagnosing personality disorders which depends on observed behavior to diagnosing epilepsy (EC's latest nonsense) which depends heavily on clinical tests like EEGs and brain scans is an example of a failed analogy.

My 2 cents. :)
Click to expand...

Yes well, it's based on SG's nonsense that SG's vast experience would make it really easy to identify pre-seizure behavior in an epileptic.

Or did you forget that you made that claim?

Also, epilepsy is NOT diagnosed via EEGs or brain scans. In fact, epilepsy is diagnosed when there is no other identifiable cause present in EEGs or brain scans. Epilepsy is a diagnosis reached by ruling out other causes, not by finding one in a clinical test. And it's heavily driven by observation and patient history, much of which is fairly subjective. At best, an EEG can help identify certain types of triggers in a subset of epileptics, but is not by itself evidence of epilepsy. A person can have a condition that causes seizures, and be photosensitive (for example), and not be epileptic.

But of course, given all of the many cases of epilepsy that you';ve treated, alongside your vast experience with complex personality disorders, I'm sure you already knew that. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
Tonic clonic seizure? Is that what did Dr. Suess in?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Previously called Gran Mal. But seizure disorders are quite complex, and can express in many different ways. Tonic-clonic specifically refers to the repeated pattern of clenching and relaxing muscles. A Clonic seizure can occur all by itself - the person goes rigid, although it can also be localized to just one area of the body, depending on what part of the brain is involved. Tonic seizures can also occur by themselves, where a person just goes completely limp and falls down. These often get overlooked as a person tripping or being clumsy, or fainting. There's a whole host of partial seizures, including absence seizures, that can be very difficult to identify.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Also, epilepsy is NOT diagnosed via EEGs or brain scans.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/neurologic-disorders/seizure-disorders/seizure-disorders said:
EEG is critical in the diagnosis of epileptic seizures, particularly of complex partial or absence status epilepticus, when EEG may be the most definitive indication of a seizure. EEG may detect epileptiform abnormalities (spikes, sharp waves, spike and slow-wave complexes, polyspike and slow-wave complexes).
Click to expand...
Ruling out potential alternatives is part of the process of diagnosis.

More to the point misses entirely the significance of observation vs EEG as a diagnostic necessity.
 
Shadowdweller said:
Wrong.

Ruling out potential alternatives is part of the process of diagnosis.

More to the point misses entirely the significance of observation vs EEG as a diagnostic necessity.
Click to expand...

I am epileptic. My EEGs were clean. A positive response to an EEG trigger can confirm a diagnosis of epilepsy; a lack of positive response doesn't negate it. Additionally, you can get a positive EEG response from an identifiable non-eplieptic cause.

However, normal EEG cannot exclude the diagnosis of epileptic seizures, which must be made clinically.
Click to expand...

Nomenclature may vary. My neurologist reserves a diagnosis of epilepsy specifically for idiopathic epilepsy. If a cause is identifiable, then the cause is the diagnosis, and the seizure is a side-effect of the underlying diagnosed cause. In my case, there is no underlying cause. Neither lights nor sounds trigger my seizures, although sounds can occasionally induce aura-like symptoms.
 
xjx388 said:
Personality disorder diagnosis is not solely dependent on matching observed behavior to a checklist. Like any other medical condition, it has its own diagnostic methodology. I've already linked to the kinds of tools that the APA, et al, have created for PD diagnosis, so I'm not sure why you keep repeating this nonsense as if it's a well established truth.

A medical professional has to follow proper procedure. Certifications, licenses, experience , etc don't make people omniscient....
Click to expand...
Says the poster with no medical experience or education. :rolleyes:
 
jimbob said:
If we do want to go down that line of analogy, a bystander might not be able to diagnose epilepsy but they would probably be able to identify a tonic clonic seizure as some sort of fit.

An absence seizure might go unnoticed.

Trump's behaviour is sufficiently abnormal that it's pretty obvious that *something* is "wrong". It doesn't take much of a stretch to believe that a clinician would be able to narrow it down to a fairly small range of... abnormalities.


You don't need to identify precisely what is wrong to know that something is wrong.

Similarly, if someone has an obvious fever, you don't need to know whether it is Ebola or Flu (or any other illness) in order to know that they are ill and probably should get medical advice.
Click to expand...
I agree one with a little knowledge can recognize a grand mal seizure. But that is a symptom, not a diagnosis. A grand mal seizure might indicate any number of possible diagnoses from a high fever, to a head injury, to a drug withdrawal, to epilepsy and more.

In addition there are other kinds of seizures not as easily recognized.

So one does not diagnose epilepsy nor the cause of a seizure from observing the seizure alone.

A narcissistic personality disorder, on the other hand, can be diagnosed with a sufficient data base of observed behaviors. Sure, you might want to do some brain tests to rule out other causes, but with decades of observations, some other etiology like an acute brain injury or defect becomes extremely unlikely.
 
Let me try . . .

Skeptic Ginger said:
A narcissistic personality disorder, on the other hand, can be diagnosed with a sufficient data base of observed behaviors. Sure, you might want to do some brain tests to rule out other causes, but with decades of observations, some other etiology like an acute brain injury or defect becomes extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...

Says the poster with no certification or expertise in psychiatric conditions . . .

Nah, not very satisfying. How about you just link to practice standards or another authoritative source that specifies how PDs can be diagnosed without a ever meeting the subject?
 
xjx388 said:
Was something I said there wrong or are you just trying to win by ad homming me to death?
Click to expand...
Yes, what you said was wrong.

For starters, you can't cite the nebulous 'tools' you claim the diagnosis is based on. You can't cite what needs to happen in person that cannot be observed from the decades of data we have on Trump.
 
xjx388 said:
Let me try . . .

Says the poster with no certification or expertise in psychiatric conditions . . .
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm sure it suits your confirmation bias to keep repeating this BS and not addressing the citations I posted that psychiatric diagnoses were within the scope of family practice.

Over and over and over you repeat refuted arguments while never addressing the citations.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yes, what you said was wrong.

For starters, you can't cite the nebulous 'tools' you claim the diagnosis is based on.
Click to expand...
I guess the APA practice standards, SCID-5-PD, ethical opinions regarding the issue etc are just a bunch of meaningless fluff, huh?


You can't cite what needs to happen in person that cannot be observed from the decades of data we have on Trump.
Click to expand...
I have cited it. You have not cited any authoritative source whatsoever regarding diagnosis at a distance. It should be easy if it's such a well established psychiatric practice.
 
As mentally ill as Trump may appear to be, he hasn't been committed yet, obviously, and a significant number of US Americans, almost 40 %, still seem to find him 'presidential' enough to be in office, so couldn't it be that even a US president who is so adamant about sharing with the public that he is 'saddened' by the (alleged) bad ratings for the Emmy Awards show isn't that aberrant if you take his background and environment into account?
The German political quarterly GegenStandpunkt has tried to do so in two articles about Trump published in June 2017, Ein Sieg des ‚Populismus‘ im Herzen der Demokratie: Donald Trump und sein Volk – zu ihrem Glück vereint and Donald Trump und die Welt (about the foreign policy of the Trump Administration).
The first one has been translated into English: Donald Trump and his nation – united in the pursuit of happiness , and I hope that the one about foreign policy will appear at the Ruthless Criticism website soon.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom