|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
6th September 2022, 04:52 PM | #2161 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
|
__________________
Hello. |
|
6th September 2022, 05:32 PM | #2162 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
|
|
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
6th September 2022, 05:57 PM | #2163 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
|
6th September 2022, 06:22 PM | #2164 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
|
|
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
6th September 2022, 06:30 PM | #2165 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
So the folks you've been criticizing for giving that vague semi-number are no more wrong about this than one of the three fellows who, according to you, have been making the same points you made. I think we all can live with that resolution of that particular issue. He should be, but he hasn't been. He's been using Donald Trump as his chief example, even though he himself considers Trump's behavior to be so far from what normal people consider to be everyday behavior that he thinks Trump ranks right up there with Hitler, Stalin, Mao. Allen Frances published Saving Normal: An Insider's Revolt against Out-of-Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life in 2014. In 2017, Frances continued his crusade against DSM-V by publishing Twilight of American Sanity: A Psychiatrist Analyzes the Age of Trump. It looks to me as though, following upon a distinguished career, Allen Frances has become a cranky 80-year-old who is unhappy about what his colleagues did to one of his proudest achievements, the DSM-IV, when they replaced it with the DSM-V. Frances has been using Trump to keep his beef with his colleagues in the public eye. Despite all your talk about ethics, you don't seem to have a problem with Frances's exploitation of Trump's notoriety. If you are confused about that, then you never understood what I was saying back when you said I had laid out your position "pretty clearly", even if I "didn't mean to." That you now express confusion indicates improvement in your understanding of what others have been saying. Confusion is better than error. You continue to make that argument. It is such an excellent example of your approach to evidence that I will analyze the failure of your argument at considerable length in the spoiler immediately below. I don't think Dr Allen Frances is actually trying to normalize mass murder, just as I don't think his colleagues are actually trying to (in his phrase) "medicalize normality". What I do think is that a bunch of squabbling psychiatrists have been normalizing exploitation of a public figure for their own purposes in a professional contretemps that would be of little interest to the world at large if they weren't using Trump to publicize their brouhaha. If we ignore the squabbling psychiatrists, the following facts become slightly easier to discuss in a calm and rational way:
|
6th September 2022, 06:59 PM | #2166 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
6th September 2022, 08:15 PM | #2167 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
|
6th September 2022, 09:45 PM | #2168 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
I started off being critical of the specific “70,000” number. But I don’t see how any number can be given with any degree of confidence given the nature of change.org petitions.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Indeed, I made no claims about what the “popular vote,” tells us about the Yale Group’s influence. However, many posters here have said that the MHPs should be allowed to talk about Trump’s diagnosis because understanding that his behavior is caused by a mental illness would sway them not to vote for him. I think the numbers show that this particular idea likely isn’t true to any significant degree; Trump got more votes, plain and simple. It doesn’t matter that Biden got more votes than Clinton because I made no claims about what those votes might mean.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We laypeople don’t need to play doctor and use diagnostic terms to describe what’s happening. A discussion of the known facts does not need such terms to be valid. |
__________________
Hello. |
|
6th September 2022, 11:00 PM | #2169 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
6th September 2022, 11:41 PM | #2170 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
Oh, Lord. We have been talking about the two lawsuits MARY HAD/HAS AGAINST HER UNCLE. We were NOT talking about the only other lawsuit mentioned in the Wiki article which is the lawsuit DONALD has AGAINST Mary.
1. 2. Note your use of "two" and my use of the singular "the other" and "it", not "others" and "they". 3. 4. 5. And you claim I'm moving the goalposts and misrepresenting what you said. |
7th September 2022, 12:01 AM | #2171 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
Be that as it may, the salient point is that she is involved in too many acrimonious entanglements with her subject to present an unbiased, professional opinion. You may argue that she actually doesn’t because she stops short of proffering a “formal diagnosis,” but she goes far enough in her analysis of his mental state and the causes of it that it’s still problematic. She has enough insight, intelligence and personal experience of DJT that she really doesn’t need to go there. |
__________________
Hello. |
|
7th September 2022, 12:16 AM | #2172 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
Oh, no, no, no and hell no. NONE of them "fit" what I requested: not one said Trump "behaves in a normal way" or has that his "behavior is normal". I already pointed that out to you before:
Frances: "Trump is as destructive a person in this century as Hitler, Stalin and Mao were in the last century." Lieberman: "It is not just the odd behaviors that have become so common: his obsessive tweeting; his shocking, often contradictory statements; and his instances of confusion (for example, not recognizing Rudy Giuliani sitting across from him at a White House meeting or appearing not to remember the words to the national anthem at a sport event)." "It’s entirely possible that he simply has certain personal qualities we don’t find ideal in a leader, like being a narcissistic bully who lacks basic civility and common courtesies. That he is, in a word, a jerk." Reisner: "Is his insanity simply self-evident because he deviates from what any child would recognize as normal?" He says about Trump's behavior, "It is time to call it out for what it is: evil." |
7th September 2022, 12:29 AM | #2173 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
|
__________________
Hello. |
|
7th September 2022, 12:49 AM | #2174 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
I repeat: her personal and legal problems with her uncle do not mean that her professional opinion is wrong. What you are doing is implying that she is incapable of giving an accurate professional opinion due to their history. There is no evidence of that. As I said, there are plenty of qualified mental health professionals who agree with her.
Quote:
That means if individual experts want to share their thoughts about the President’s behavior, for example, they are free to do so as “APsaA does not consider political commentary by its individual members an ethical matter. APsaA’s ethical code concerns clinical practice, not public commentary,” the memo states."
Quote:
It's also not up to you to decide where she can "go" with her professional opinion on her uncle. |
7th September 2022, 01:04 AM | #2175 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
Perhaps you need not to give your own spin to what I said. I think I was clear enough: "But find me some mental health professionals who say Trump acts in a normal way and we'll talk".
Ironically, all three of your examples are actually doing exactly what you and they say you shouldn't do: discuss someone's mental health without having first examined them personally. As the APA says: “member psychiatrists should not give professional opinions about the mental state of someone they have not personally evaluated." Yet that is exactly what they are doing. |
7th September 2022, 05:31 AM | #2176 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
For readability, I put some of the even less important stuff in spoilers.
I certainly agree that the popular vote tells us nothing at all about the influence of the Yale group. No one with any respect for evidence would even try to use the change in popular vote from 2016 to 2020 as evidence for the Yale group's lack of influence. Which explains why xjx388 has been trying to do precisely that, repeatedly, starting just three days after the election. Your list is an alternative interpretation of the facts, not a correction of my list. The reason this matters is that, over time, people become emotionally invested in causes they have been promoting, and possibly even arguing about, for months or years. I'm sure many of those who read this paragraph can think of specific examples, some of which might even be drawn from contributors to this very thread. Many Trump voters will reject your list out of hand, because to accept your list is to accept that they have been conned by a cunning con artist. My list gives them an alternative explanation that (as can already be seen in recent events, polls, and elections) some of them will find easier to accept: They placed their trust in a fellow who, as has recently become clear, was mentally ill all along, as evidenced by the delusions that led him not only to believe he won the election but also to retain government documents, even highly classified documents, in haphazard storage at his club, while using his lawyers to lie to the National Archives and FBI about his continued possession of those documents, and eventually to invent ludicrous excuses such as his mythical blanket declassification order. It is also true that some Trump voters who would reject my list out of hand would accept your alternative interpretation. When it comes to giving Trump voters a psychologically (sorry!) acceptable reason to turn against Trump, both lists will be of some use. Neither list will change many minds, but it takes only a few changed minds to sway a close election. Which of the two lists is actually closer to the truth is a factual question. It might be nice if qualified professionals were allowed to inform our opinions on that factual question, but you have consistently argued they should not be allowed to do that. Where you and I diverge is your apparent insistence that, in the absence of professional input into that factual question, we must accept your list as the default. |
7th September 2022, 05:59 AM | #2177 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
|
7th September 2022, 06:09 AM | #2178 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
No, We were not talking about that. Here is my simple claim below, with the missing words "of dollars" I mistakenly omitted.
And then I later specified that there were three lawsuits since you repeatedly failed to count them and kept trying to dismiss them with ridiculous inane criteria that have nothing to do with the point just like you're doing now. |
7th September 2022, 06:15 AM | #2179 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
Right, It doesn't even matter which side each person was on in in the trial or that there was more than one. But nevertheless the record is clear that when I made my statement it didn't say an exact number or place any restrictions on who brought the suit. Again, because those things are completely beside the point that Stacyhs is trying to bury. The statement was the two of them had been involved in lawsuits, plural, and later it was added that the exact number is three. And these are easily verified facts.
|
7th September 2022, 07:32 AM | #2180 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
They do mean that it’s reasonable to conclude that any such opinion is clouded by bias. See, it’s not really about whether she is right or wrong but whether or not she should recuse herself from speaking out as a professional.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Hello. |
|
7th September 2022, 11:06 AM | #2181 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
|
|
7th September 2022, 11:15 AM | #2182 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
|
A new portrait of Doc Lee. I didn't know that she has spent most of her career studying and treating violent felons. She's not a "worried well" shrink.
Some bits:
Quote:
Also (sounds like she's channeling xjx388):
Quote:
And:
Quote:
|
7th September 2022, 11:42 AM | #2183 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
7th September 2022, 11:52 AM | #2184 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
Yes, of course…but contextualize that.
Quote:
Do you believe Dr Oz has a greater command of the fact that your zodiac sign can influence your health or do you accept that even a doctor with the experience and credentials can be wrong about the facts because of bias?
Quote:
But we are talking about their professional opinions here. I understand that even under the best of circumstances, a doctor’s opinion can be wrong. As you deviate from the standards of the profession, the error rate climbs. |
__________________
Hello. |
|
7th September 2022, 12:07 PM | #2185 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
|
That's a silly example. Dr. Oz, as far as I know, claims no special insight regarding zodiac signs, which have no basis as facts anyway. However, before he became a TV huckster, he was an eminent heart surgeon. I would be inclined to believe what he says about treating heart disease, especially if it's consistent with what other experts are saying. Mary Trump and the Yale shrinks aren't talking about Zodiac signs.
|
7th September 2022, 12:12 PM | #2186 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
"Do facts exists" is one of those things that if you put a "but" after it you are saying "No."
|
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
7th September 2022, 12:33 PM | #2187 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
You ignore the quoted discussion between us where I specifically stated multiple times the lawsuits brought by Mary T against her uncle. Not once was the lawsuit brought by Donald against Mary brought up or discussed until well after it had been established which TWO lawsuits were the topic.
Exactly! You only "later" brought up the third lawsuit. Your claim that I 'repeatedly failed to count them' is blatantly false. I made it clear...at least to anyone who doesn't have a reading comprehension problem... that I was talking about Mary's CURRENT lawsuit by using the present tense. I never denied there was a PAST lawsuit settled over 20 years ago. You admitted here that we were discussing the two lawsuits brought by Mary: Again, you acknowledge we are talking only about the two brought by Mary. Additionally, the "entry right freaking below the one you know about" is her earlier, 1999 lawsuit against her uncle, NOT the lawsuit brought by DJT. That lawsuit was mentioned below the two brought by Mary. Your revisionist history is noted. You are now desperately resorting to a ridiculous excuse because you have nothing else. You'd rather die on your hill than admit you misread what I was saying. |
7th September 2022, 12:37 PM | #2188 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
No. In context he is simply saying that Nancy Trump can't be trusted to get the facts right because of her obvious potential bias.
She too is a product of the extremely toxic family, her words, that produced Donald. She absolutely hates the person she is commenting on. This particular point about Mary Trump is a "the sky is blue" fact. There should be no push back on the idea that her diagnosis shouldn't be entertained. |
7th September 2022, 12:51 PM | #2189 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
Nope. You're trying to rewrite history here. The record is clear that you acknowledged yourself that we were discussing only the TWO lawsuits brought by Mary and NOT the one brought by DJT:
Quote:
I give further evidence of your acknowledgment of that fact in my previous post addressing your misrepresentation. You only trotted out the "third lawsuit" excuse "later" by your own admission long after it was established that we were talking only about those brought by Mary. It was a pathetic attempt and easily verified by reading our exchange. Just stop. |
7th September 2022, 12:55 PM | #2190 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
Oh, Jesus. In the first place I said "two that I know of". That isn't an acknowledgement that there are only two. Give this crap a rest for god sakes.
ONE lawsuit is more than enough to support the actual point you are trying bury. ETA: Just to state the obvious: Not calling out every mistake you make does not mean I'm acknowledging them or agreeing to them. |
7th September 2022, 12:55 PM | #2191 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
Well, no. Facts exist. Full stop. Bob’s question, though, was devoid of context. Which specific facts is he asking me about? And let’s not forget that we are talking about Psychiatry and Psychology here, where there are few established facts. The DSM isn’t a “book of facts.” There’s no neurobiological explanation for NPD or any other personality disorder. We don’t even understand the way the brain works, where our consciousness and personalities arise from etc etc. Those are nowhere near facts, they are theories based around our best current understanding. NPD isn’t a “fact.” The observed behavior is a fact; interpretation of the observed behavior is not. The map is not the territory. NPD is a “map” professionals use to describe the “territory” of certain behaviors in certain contexts in order to guide treatment. They are called “professional opinions” for a reason. For those reasons, I dispute the idea that mental health professionals have a better handle on “facts.” At best, when they follow evidence based procedures, their opinions about a certain set of facts are far more reliable than a layperson’s. |
__________________
Hello. |
|
7th September 2022, 01:01 PM | #2192 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
I disagree 100%. It doesn't matter that she's family, or that she is involved in a lawsuit with him. She does not hide those facts. When she gives her opinions...not diagnosis... she supports them with evidence. There is no evidence that her opinions are incorrect as many mental health officials agree with her.
|
7th September 2022, 01:04 PM | #2193 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
7th September 2022, 01:47 PM | #2194 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
Speaking of giving crap a rest, you just admitted you didn't know about the third lawsuit when you made your original post. Now that we've established that, it becomes even more clear that you were discussing only the TWO lawsuits you 'knew' about.
Quote:
Quote:
I'm willing to drop this if you are but I will respond to any further posts misrepresenting what I say. |
7th September 2022, 01:59 PM | #2195 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
|
7th September 2022, 02:52 PM | #2196 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
Sure. That's why you "didn't bother to look it up" for 24 hours from the 5th at 03:07 PM until the 6th at 02:52 despite having made
six (6) posts between the two arguing about it. I see you want to continue this. Can't say I didn't try.
Quote:
Quote:
Once again, I'm willing to drop this if you are. |
7th September 2022, 02:58 PM | #2197 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
I don't have how a clue how I'm misrepresenting what happened or anything you said.
I didn't look it up because it didn't matter. And I really don't understand why you can't understand that. The first time it actually became interesting to me was when you said you were using the "present tense, not the preterit" and I wondered "WTF is this person going on about?" and I went and read the Wikipedia article for myself. |
7th September 2022, 03:29 PM | #2198 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
I've quoted our exchange explicitly pointing out how you are being dishonest. More than once. I'm not going to re-post them again as it obviously doesn't get through to you.
If you cannot understand how use of the present tense as in " What other lawsuits does Mary have against her uncle" means current lawsuits, not ones 21 years old, especially after having it clarified for you, then I can't help you. I asked specifically for current lawsuits by Mary twice in post #2138, again in #2142, and quoted both again in post #2170. Maybe the third time is the charm: I'm willing to drop this is you are. All you have to do is post "Agreed" or "Ok" or 'Fine with me", etc. |
7th September 2022, 03:45 PM | #2199 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
That makes no sense. You asking me a question does not equate to me misrepresenting you and neither does me quoting you. And I mostly ignored those question because they had no relevance to what I said. And ignoring you is not misrepresenting you either or being dishonest.
So how about a relevant explanation for why it matters if the lawsuits are current or not? Especially in light of that fact that there are both. If there is any sense in your tangent, please say it. If this whole tangent was sincere on your part then explain why you think my simple point should be contingent on when the lawsuits are or were. I'm drawing a complete blank on that. |
7th September 2022, 04:15 PM | #2200 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|