IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


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.
Tags donald trump , mental illness issues , psychiatry incidents , psychiatry issues , Trump controversies

Closed Thread
Old 17th June 2018, 10:53 AM   #4401
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,671
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's dangerous in theory, but not in practice? How does that work?

If you accept the basic argument, doesn't that mean you're obliged to defend any exceptions you also wish to accept?

Or do you not accept the basic argument? You say it's a good argument, but do you actually accept it?
That is not what that post said.

"In general" doesn't mean, "in theory".

"In this case" doesn't mean "not in practice".
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th June 2018, 11:01 AM   #4402
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,164
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You don't know how psychiatric practice works. You read stuff on the internet.
Sure I did. I read the American Psychiatric Association's position papers. Are you alleging that the "stuff" they wrote is wrong?

Quote:
I'm not going to answer your other questions. HCG? Really? Like that's relevant.
Your silence says all that needs to be said.

HCG is a relevant analogy for the kind of "distant diagnosis" engaged in by the OP professionals. HCG for weight-loss has no scientific support and major medical organizations have spoken out against it's use. It's unethical for doctors to prescribe treatments they know are ineffective.

As a medical professional, how you feel about docs who prescribe HCG should be close to how you feel about docs who engage in "distant diagnosis." If you disagree with the former, how can you agree with the latter?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th June 2018, 11:04 AM   #4403
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,913
Which might afford better surety of assessment by a professional? An hour in person, not until then knowing of the subject? Or remote observation in the media over the course of years?

It seems to me that a pro who can suss out any attempts at guile in the context of an examination where the subject *knows* he's being critically probed could surely divine the basic aspects of a person's nature while in his environment, in a variety of situations, over many hours in the course of years/decades.

And for any such pro who already well knows of the subject because of his considerable exposure, would an hour in person really provide that much more additional insight? Or cause him in any notable way to revise his assessment?

I think Trump has very well revealed himself to us. He doesn't come across as particularly adept at guile. What we see is essentially who he is. I think a trained psychoanalyst will have much of what he needs already in gauging the nature of Trump. Aside from some little refinements that could be gleaned in a face to face meeting, the cut of this man's jib is well known.

Certainly to Putin. And Kim. And Ji.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th June 2018, 11:36 AM   #4404
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,164
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Those are certainly good arguments for the rule in general, but I don't see how those are dangers in this specific case.
It sets a precedent, for one thing. Once you unleash psychiatric commentary on political candidates, it will be hard to stop it. The next breach of ethics will be easier. This case has started a debate about whether or not the Goldwater Rule is still valid. The APA has stood firm thus far, but they also haven't really taken action against the docs who are stepping over the line.

If a rule is a good idea in general, that rule is weakened with every violation allowed.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th June 2018, 11:47 AM   #4405
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,164
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Which might afford better surety of assessment by a professional? An hour in person, not until then knowing of the subject? Or remote observation in the media over the course of years?

It seems to me that a pro who can suss out any attempts at guile in the context of an examination where the subject *knows* he's being critically probed could surely divine the basic aspects of a person's nature while in his environment, in a variety of situations, over many hours in the course of years/decades.

And for any such pro who already well knows of the subject because of his considerable exposure, would an hour in person really provide that much more additional insight? Or cause him in any notable way to revise his assessment?

I think Trump has very well revealed himself to us. He doesn't come across as particularly adept at guile. What we see is essentially who he is. I think a trained psychoanalyst will have much of what he needs already in gauging the nature of Trump. Aside from some little refinements that could be gleaned in a face to face meeting, the cut of this man's jib is well known.

Certainly to Putin. And Kim. And Ji.
The APA disagrees with you.

But beyond that, what you say here brings up another danger which I've discussed before: When a psychiatrist accepts a patient, they have an ethical obligation to treat their patient without bias and to the best of their ability. No such obligation exists for people they've never even met. You simply cannot eliminate the possibility that the psychiatrist is acting out of a bias when they comment on public figures they don't know. How is the public supposed to know the difference between a dispassionate analysis and a political attack? Do we really want a society where doctors are just another talking head on network news, slinging mud?

That's what ethical rules are for: to prevent such issues from arising.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th June 2018, 11:57 AM   #4406
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,671
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
....

That's what ethical rules are for: to prevent such issues from arising.
You keep citing a single position paper xjx, because you read it on the internet.

If all one needed to be able to diagnose a patient was to read a single position paper, follow a few rules, imagine how easy it would be to become a licensed practitioner.

If medicine relied on clean little protocols instead of years of education and practice, why would we need doctors at all? We could all just go to the internet and apply a few rules and we could diagnose ourselves.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th June 2018, 12:31 PM   #4407
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
If a rule is a good idea in general, that rule is weakened with every violation allowed.
Okay, so your argument is just that since the rule is good in general we should stick to it in all cases.

I'm fine with that position, but you sure made it sound like you were arguing it would do a lot more than that.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th June 2018, 12:34 PM   #4408
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,164
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You keep citing a single position paper xjx, because you read it on the internet.
Well, I cite basically one organization and several of their position papers. But that one organization represents the vast majority of psychiatrists. The American Psychological Association has a similar position which they have also defended, representing the vast majority of psychologists.

Let's say we had a doctor who defended the use of HCG for weight-loss. Wouldn't it be appropriate to just cite the FDA's position on it's ineffectiveness? Wouldn't it be incumbent on the rouge doctor to show his work? In the same way, it's appropriate to cite the APA which is THE authority on psychiatric practice. If you want to say they are wrong, prove it.

Quote:
If all one needed to be able to diagnose a patient was to read a single position paper, follow a few rules, imagine how easy it would be to become a licensed practitioner.

If medicine relied on clean little protocols instead of years of education and practice, why would we need doctors at all? We could all just go to the internet and apply a few rules and we could diagnose ourselves.
This is a strawman. I have never said it was simple. In fact, I've stated that psychiatric diagnosis is a complex process.

Your argument there is also highly ironic. You have stated that your Family Nurse Practitioner training qualifies you to make psychiatric diagnosis -despite the fact that FNPs receive very little training in psychiatry. You use the DSM-V criteria as a checklist. You say Trump hits all the criteria; therefore, Trump has NPD. It's obvious, apparently. You are the one who has reduced psychiatric diagnosis to a "clean little protocol," and the application of "a few rules." The APA has stated -that isn't the way it works.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th June 2018, 12:46 PM   #4409
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,164
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Okay, so your argument is just that since the rule is good in general we should stick to it in all cases.

I'm fine with that position, but you sure made it sound like you were arguing it would do a lot more than that.
I don't even think it applies in all cases.

If there were a psychiatrist who had examined and was treating Trump found him to be a danger to the security of the world, this would be a very different discussion. I think you could argue that such a psychiatrist might have the correct information and have a duty to warn the public (and thereby breach ethics) about a pending unprovoked launch of nukes that Trump had talked about in therapy. But here we have no such case . . . just a bunch of professionals who aren't following professional standards. Thus, this situation is not enough to trigger a "duty to warn."
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th June 2018, 02:49 PM   #4410
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,138
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
That is not what that post said.

"In general" doesn't mean, "in theory".

"In this case" doesn't mean "not in practice".
Do you agree that it's a good argument in general?

Can you explain why?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 12:00 PM   #4411
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 17,109
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That isn't remotely what I said. It isn't even responsive to any of the actual arguments I've put forth. It's just a cleverly disguised ad hom.
No it isn't. It's neither clever nor disguised.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 12:03 PM   #4412
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 17,109
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
How a nation can just sit back and put up with this from their elected leader astonishes me.
Because he's Zaphod Beeblebrox. And at the end of the day, his *actual* role is not to lead, but to distract.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 12:06 PM   #4413
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 17,109
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You don't get to define my level of expertise because you read something on the internet.
No... but having read your own explanation of your areas of practice and the RCW I can make a fairly well-informed determination of your actual expertise, as opposed to your presumed expertise.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 12:11 PM   #4414
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 17,109
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
In what specific way is it dangerous? What specific problem is going to be caused by someone saying Trump has Narcissistic Personality Disorder as opposed to just listing off all of the specific behaviors he demonstrates that make people think he has NPD?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, I genuinely want to know - dangerous how?
In my opinion, it is dangerous because it sets a precedent that can (and if successful almost certainly will) be used against future presidents with even less supporting evidence.

We're setting a precedent that a very, very, very small number of mental health practitioners can claim that a politician has a mental disorder, without having followed the appropriate procedures to form a diagnosis... and can use that as a means to remove that politician from office.

Do you not see the danger in that precedent?
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 18th June 2018 at 12:27 PM.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 12:12 PM   #4415
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 17,109
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Trump is no Goldwater. The mental illness is a bit more definitive in this case than it ever was with Goldwater.
On what professional criteria do you base this assessment?
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 12:20 PM   #4416
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 17,109
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I am not responsible to give you a medical education. That's your problem.
I strongly object to this. You've repeatedly claimed that your own personal expertise allows you to determine that Trump has severe NPD, malignant narcissism, and is dangerous. You're the one who has made the claim, and your only support for your claim is that you're an NP in a non-mental-health field so you definitely know. You claim to be your own expert witness, for a field in which you have no particular training. The only other support you can claim is that a very small handful of other people in the mental health field agree with you. Or more to the point, you agree with them and thus you accept their views in confirmation of your bias.

You've repeatedly cast aspersions on other people in this thread, insisting that they can't identify bad methodology when presented with it, because they've only read something on the internet.

And when challenged to support your own claim, you insist you don't have to... because you're an expert and they're not.

It is dodging the question, shifting the goal posts, ad hominem, and well-poisoning... and so far there's been no application of logic or skepticism in any of your posts in this thread.

If you would like you professional opinion to carry weight with respect to this topic, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that your opinion is sound and that you actually know what you're talking about by describing what medically accepted methods you've used to arrive at your diagnosis.

Failure to do so, while not perfectly conclusive, would strongly indicate that your opinion is not medical in nature, but is overwhelmingly partisan and emotional in nature.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 12:21 PM   #4417
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 17,109
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You don't know how psychiatric practice works.
NEITHER DO YOU
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 12:39 PM   #4418
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,052
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
NEITHER DO YOU
This seems totally fair to me. The Ginger simply relies on her general medical training when convenient and implies that others don't know anything about psychiatric diagnoses when her own expertise is more than a stone's throw away.

Yes, she is, I presume, a medical professional. So what?
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 01:07 PM   #4419
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,671
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
This seems totally fair to me. The Ginger simply relies on her general medical training when convenient and implies that others don't know anything about psychiatric diagnoses when her own expertise is more than a stone's throw away.

Yes, she is, I presume, a medical professional. So what?
To be clear, this is a BS assessment of my expertise, but so what? Look at the thread title: "... say psychiatry experts at Yale conferenc[e]". This thread is about what highly respected psychiatric experts have publicly stated.

Certain people in the thread are using things they read on the internet to assert those professionals are wrong.

As for the "neither do you" comment, it's wrong as well.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 18th June 2018 at 01:09 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 02:17 PM   #4420
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,164
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
To be clear, this is a BS assessment of my expertise, but so what? Look at the thread title: "... say psychiatry experts at Yale conferenc[e]". This thread is about what highly respected psychiatric experts have publicly stated.

Certain people in the thread are using things they read on the internet to assert those professionals are wrong.

As for the "neither do you" comment, it's wrong as well.
You have made this about your own expertise. Well, you can easily prove up your expertise. Present your training and experience -your license is irrelevant. What courses/training specifically in psychiatry did you take? What experience do you have in diagnosing psychiatric illnesses?

In any case, focusing solely on the OP psychs . . . what I "read on the internet" is that both APAs have an ethical rule against the stuff those OP psychs are doing. What I also found in my research is that there is no professional standard that excludes a personal examination and uses public domain information as the sole information in reaching a clinical diagnosis. It's undoubtedly true that I found those items on the internet -more specifically, on the websites of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. Those sites are perfectly legitimate sources for information about psychiatry/psychology practice and ethics.

Your argument is that those rules and standards don't always apply but you haven't really made a good case that they shouldn't apply in this case. What is obvious is that you don't think they should apply so you agree with the OP professionals. What I'm asking you to do is take yourself out of this specific situation: would you support this kind of speculation about a candidate you like and support? If not, why is it OK with Trump?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 02:35 PM   #4421
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,671
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
You have made this about your own expertise. ...
Let's see: or ?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 02:50 PM   #4422
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,164
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Let's see: or ?
Is that an implication that I have made this about my expertise? Bull. I have specifically said that I have no expertise; therefore, I defer to those that do: In this case the APAs ethics and standards.

ETA: You very much want this to be about my expertise because you cannot credibly refute the expertise of the professionals who make up the professional organizations that create the ethics and standards.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 18th June 2018 at 02:51 PM.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 04:34 PM   #4423
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,138
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Yes, she is, I presume, a medical professional. So what?
So if we laypeople are competent to reject her opinion, it opens up the possibility that we're competent to reject the opinion of the Yale group.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th June 2018, 08:40 AM   #4424
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 50,415
Mod InfoThread closed due to size, continued here.
Posted By:zooterkin
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.