ISF Logo   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

Reply
Old 4th June 2019, 02:44 PM   #1921
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,178
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
No! I was ridiculing a psychic named "liverpoolmiss" who diagnosed Trump with fear of falling from a god damn video on youtube.
I'm not heavily invested in the argument about whether it's possible or ethical to diagnose a personality disorder based solely on public behavior. But he did not look good in that video. I think I watched it after reading liverpoolmiss's comment, so maybe I was primed to see more pathology than he was actually exhibiting. But what I think I saw was him captured in a low-energy moment. And usually he doesn't let that show. He usually compensates with highly repetitious patter and a brash demeanor, and neither mechanism was really available to him in that context.

He was able to recover enough to make it through a protocol-heavy state dinner and offer an appropriate toast, all after flying thousands of miles and shifting through several time zones, all while not being a terribly fit guy in his 70s, which is more than I could do. Maybe the prayer helped him focus

I think not drinking has served him well. Treating fatigue with alcohol may seem to work in the moment but I think it extracts a heavier toll as people age. At least in my experience.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 11:27 PM   #1922
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,510
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
There is precedent here. The republicans did everything they could to keep a man with dementia in the oval office. This means one of two things:

1. Mental illness is no hindrance to becoming/remaining a prominent republican politician.
2. Republicans are incapable of recognizing mental illness when it is staring them in the face.

Either way, no republican is ever going to do anything to remove the man from office.
While Reagan was still in office, I can remember by mother often saying "There is something wrong with that man!" She noticed that Nancy was never far from his side and watched him like a hawk, often intervening*. After it was revealed that he had Alzheimer's, she said that explained a lot.

*
Quote:
At a 1984 photo session at the president's Santa Barbara ranch, a reporter called out a question about arms control. Reagan answered: "Well, we uh, well . . . I guess, uh, well, we uh . . ." His wife, Nancy, came to rescue, prompting him with a quiet, "We're doing the best we can."

Smiling, Reagan called out loudly, "We're doing the best we can!"

Quote:
"My father . . . floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with notes, uncharacteristically lost for words," the president's son Ron Reagan Jr., said of a 1984 debate with Walter Mondale. "He looked tired, bewildered."

Lesley Stahl, former CBS White House correspondent, described meeting with the president in 1986: "Reagan didn't seem to know who I was. He gave me a distant look with those milky eyes and shook my hand weakly. . . . Oh, my, he's gonzo, I thought." Then, Reagan regained his alertness and Stahl thought, "I had come that close to reporting that Reagan was senile."
https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blog...president.html
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 05:47 AM   #1923
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,761
A new interview with Dr. Lee:
Quote:
The ability to distinguish what is real from what is unreal is very important. With mental pathology, the afflicted person starts to see delusions and hallucinations as real. This mentally unwell person will actually do whatever they can to bulldoze over reality as it actually exists and the people who believe in it. This is why a sick, delusional person will force family members and those around them to abandon their own sense of reality and espouse the sick person's delusions and conspiracy theories.
https://www.salon.com/2019/06/14/yal...bal-emergency/
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 06:37 AM   #1924
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,777
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The foremost peer reviewed journal of psychiatric medicine, Salon.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 06:43 AM   #1925
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,072
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The foremost peer reviewed journal of psychiatric medicine, Salon.
Does it matter where Dr. Lee's words are printed as long as they are printed accurately?
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 07:04 AM   #1926
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,777
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Does it matter where Dr. Lee's words are printed as long as they are printed accurately?
It matters that Dr Lee is happy to write books for the lay audience and give interviews in Salon, but has yet to publish her data set or any details of her method in a peer-reviewed journal in her field of scientific inquiry.

She's basically just preaching to the choir, telling them things they've already decided for themselves anyway. Trump overrides reality with his fantasies? People have been saying the exact same thing on this forum for the past two years. Why even bother putting "Dr" in front of her name, if that's the level of insight she's offering?

Anyway, she's free to publish what she wants wherever she wants. Just like I'm free to point out that she's choosing not to publish any real science on the issue. This is a shame, because she's claiming medical authority and ethical obligation, to justify an undocumented methodology that is at odds with the standards of psychiatric research and practice, and a disclosure that is at odds with the ethical guidelines of her profession.

So the Yale group publishes another pronouncement about Trump's mental health, and I point out that they published it in Salon.

Last edited by theprestige; 14th June 2019 at 07:06 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 07:34 AM   #1927
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,972
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Does it matter where Dr. Lee's words are printed as long as they are printed accurately?


I think it matters that this was in Salon and not, say, the Psychiatry Unbound podcast or Psychiatric News or any other media targeted at mental health professionals.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 07:44 AM   #1928
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,090
If it had been published by a more respected publication would it have carried more weight? From what I recall of the previous discussion the same posters objecting to this particular publication also reject the authority of more prestigious journals, and anything written by psychologists who haven't personally examined the person in question anyway. Seems disingenuous to quibble about the publication when one has a more fundamental objection that would reject the article anyway no matter where it appears.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 07:52 AM   #1929
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,777
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
If it had been published by a more respected publication would it have carried more weight? From what I recall of the previous discussion the same posters objecting to this particular publication also reject the authority of more prestigious journals, and anything written by psychologists who haven't personally examined the person in question anyway. Seems disingenuous to quibble about the publication when one has a more fundamental objection that would reject the article anyway no matter where it appears.
You recall incorrectly, at least in my case. The kind of scientific analysis I'm looking for can really only be published in a peer-reviewed journal. But it's the content, not the outlet, that I'm interested in. I don't concur with xjx's position that a more 'reputable' outlet would make Dr Lee's current publications more reputable.

I do, however, think it's significant that she's publishing in Salon. She's selling a book, and she's giving Salon an interview because that's where her customers are. She's not publishing to other psychiatrists and mental health professionals, because they aren't her customers for the book. And she's not publishing in peer-reviewed journals, because she isn't actually doing any real science.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 08:56 AM   #1930
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,072
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It matters that Dr Lee is happy to write books for the lay audience and give interviews in Salon, but has yet to publish her data set or any details of her method in a peer-reviewed journal in her field of scientific inquiry.

She's basically just preaching to the choir, telling them things they've already decided for themselves anyway. Trump overrides reality with his fantasies? People have been saying the exact same thing on this forum for the past two years. Why even bother putting "Dr" in front of her name, if that's the level of insight she's offering?

Anyway, she's free to publish what she wants wherever she wants. Just like I'm free to point out that she's choosing not to publish any real science on the issue. This is a shame, because she's claiming medical authority and ethical obligation, to justify an undocumented methodology that is at odds with the standards of psychiatric research and practice, and a disclosure that is at odds with the ethical guidelines of her profession.

So the Yale group publishes another pronouncement about Trump's mental health, and I point out that they published it in Salon.
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You recall incorrectly, at least in my case. The kind of scientific analysis I'm looking for can really only be published in a peer-reviewed journal. But it's the content, not the outlet, that I'm interested in. I don't concur with xjx's position that a more 'reputable' outlet would make Dr Lee's current publications more reputable.

I do, however, think it's significant that she's publishing in Salon. She's selling a book, and she's giving Salon an interview because that's where her customers are. She's not publishing to other psychiatrists and mental health professionals, because they aren't her customers for the book. And she's not publishing in peer-reviewed journals, because she isn't actually doing any real science.
I think I understand now that you are critical of the publication in Salon because it does not provide the type of information that you are looking for. I have no issue with your position there. I also agree that for the publication in question the use of "Dr." does not carry the authority that it would if published in a professional journal.

Regardless of that my opinion is that "Ms." Lee is a person who has considerable experience in her field. She is also not a lone voice. There are other professionals publicly agreeing with her. Because of that her words, to me, carry more authority that the opinions of those who have not studied extensively in the field. ie; I can accept an argument from authority where the authority is valid.

True, my opinion may be considered somewhat naive. I just do not have the drive to do extensive background research on every authority on every topic who offers an opinion, especially on matters that are not very important to me. Sometimes when an authority offers a reasonable opinion, even if it is not rigidly accurate, I have no problem accepting it. Besides, there are always enough contrary opinions provided in this forum to enable a person to see both all 16 sides of a given issue.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 10:19 AM   #1931
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 777
Does every mental health professional have to publish every one of their diagnoses in a peer reviewed journal? If not, and in cases where not, does that *perforce* render diagnoses/opinions as open to question--to even the lay public?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 10:37 AM   #1932
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,777
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Does every mental health professional have to publish every one of their diagnoses in a peer reviewed journal? If not, and in cases where not, does that *perforce* render diagnoses/opinions as open to question--to even the lay public?
In general, the APA expects diagnoses to be recorded confidentially and communicated privately to the patient and other authorized healthcare practitioners.

But I'm not asking for the diagnosis to be published in a peer reviewed journal. I'm asking for the science behind this novel diagnostic method - a method repudiated by the standards bodies governing this field - to be published in a peer reviewed journal.

I am, as always, open to the argument that not even the APA-approved methodologies have a scientific basis founded on reputable peer review. But that doesn't seem to do much to help the claim that Dr Lee's method is somehow authoritative. Quite the opposite.

On the other hand, one recurring theme in this thread is that Dr Lee isn't actually doing anything that an observant and thoughtful layperson can't do, so she doesn't need any special authority to make her "diagnosis". But again, this seems to have the opposite effect from shoring up her credibility by appeal to her credentials. If the credentials of psychiatry don't matter, then why is it at all significant that a handful of psychiatrists happen to share your opinion? I'm sure we could easily find ten times as many jackasses in this country who happen to share your opinion. Not that you are a jackass, of course.

Psychiatry is, at least notionally, a science. Dr Lee is claiming to be doing a novel kind of psychiatry, at odds with the standards of her profession. Alright then, let's see the science.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 10:51 AM   #1933
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,197
No, the difference is that Lee and others aren't going to treat Trump's mental problems, only diagnose them.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 11:10 AM   #1934
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,777
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
No, the difference is that Lee and others aren't going to treat Trump's mental problems, only diagnose them.
That's not a difference at all, it's a non sequitur. The debate all along has been about the propriety of their diagnostic method and disclosure. The question of treatment isn't relevant here, and as far I know hasn't been raised.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 11:44 AM   #1935
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,016
I'm just glad that we are all still alive, and the economy is kicking butt, 2.5 years into the crazy person taking over the White House.


In all seriousness, if we REALLY had a 'dangerous' mentally ill person in the White House, the stock market would let us know.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 11:48 AM   #1936
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,777
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
I'm just glad that we are all still alive, and the economy is kicking butt, 2.5 years into the crazy person taking over the White House.


In all seriousness, if we REALLY had a 'dangerous' mentally ill person in the White House, the stock market would let us know.
It's an interesting question. Who has a better grasp of the true risk Trump represents? Wall Street? Or the Yale group?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 12:00 PM   #1937
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,207
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's an interesting question. Who has a better grasp of the true risk Trump represents? Wall Street? Or the Yale group?
Depends on which risk we're talking about.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 12:06 PM   #1938
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,777
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Depends on which risk we're talking about.
Another good question. Which risk *are* we talking about? I forget if the Yale group ever specified.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 12:20 PM   #1939
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,972
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Another good question. Which risk *are* we talking about? I forget if the Yale group ever specified.
They've been pretty vague about what the danger is specifically. I think they've put themselves in a difficult situation. They've come right out and labelled Trump, "dangerously mentally ill," and they've been pretty specific about him having NPD or "malignant narcissism." The implication is either:

1)Anyone with NPD or "malignant narcissism," is "dangerously mentally ill," which strikes me as a profoundly unprofessional thing to imply.

or

2)There is something special about Trump that makes him dangerous but would not apply generally to others with that diagnosis, which strikes me as special pleading.

I think this is why they are so vague with what the danger is: they don't want to tar every mentally ill person with the same brush they are tarring Trump.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 14th June 2019 at 12:21 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 12:27 PM   #1940
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,898
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The foremost peer reviewed journal of psychiatric medicine, Salon.
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Does it matter where Dr. Lee's words are printed as long as they are printed accurately?
What Steve said. They were interviewing a professional, not Perez Hilton or Kitty Kelly.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 14th June 2019 at 12:29 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 12:34 PM   #1941
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,898
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Does every mental health professional have to publish every one of their diagnoses in a peer reviewed journal? If not, and in cases where not, does that *perforce* render diagnoses/opinions as open to question--to even the lay public?
The denial of the obvious behind this facade of 'not to X standard' is getting more tedious by the day.

Trump is sick and demonstrates it multiple times a day. The rest of this smoke screen is silly.

Are any of you arguing he's not sick? No. Are some of you pretending it isn't obvious? Yes, emphasis on the word "pretending".
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 12:41 PM   #1942
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,898
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
I'm just glad that we are all still alive, and the economy is kicking butt, 2.5 years into the crazy person taking over the White House.

In all seriousness, if we REALLY had a 'dangerous' mentally ill person in the White House, the stock market would let us know.
Nice for all those share holders.

Not so nice for the vast majority of the population who haven't seen real growth in their wages to go with it. How about the increase in homelessness? Mistreatment for no reason other than racist fear mongering of immigrants from the south.

Not so nice for the LGBTQ population. Not so nice for Muslims and anyone with dark skin.

Not to mention the stock market is one thing. You might want to add risk of another war, this time with Iran, to your valuation. Increased pollution, selling off of public lands, ruining the public school system, blatantly flaunting the law, damaging democracy for years to come...

Ah yes, but don't look over there, just look at this one shiny thing.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 14th June 2019 at 12:44 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 12:43 PM   #1943
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,777
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
What Steve said. They were interviewing a professional, not Perez Hilton or Kitty Kelly.
I question the premise that Dr Lee is speaking in a professional capacity on this topic.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 01:01 PM   #1944
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,898
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
.....

On the other hand, one recurring theme in this thread is that Dr Lee isn't actually doing anything that an observant and thoughtful layperson can't do, so she doesn't need any special authority to make her "diagnosis". But again, this seems to have the opposite effect from shoring up her credibility by appeal to her credentials. If the credentials of psychiatry don't matter, then why is it at all significant that a handful of psychiatrists happen to share your opinion? I'm sure we could easily find ten times as many jackasses in this country who happen to share your opinion. Not that you are a jackass, of course.
Not all observers are equal. Your attempt to dismiss professional opinions (plural) is a fail.

Quote:
Psychiatry is, at least notionally, a science. Dr Lee is claiming to be doing a novel kind of psychiatry, at odds with the standards of her profession. Alright then, let's see the science.
Bull ****. Her colleagues don't have this opinion. You don't appear to have the expertise to draw this conclusion.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 01:10 PM   #1945
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,898
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That's not a difference at all, it's a non sequitur. The debate all along has been about the propriety of their diagnostic method and disclosure. The question of treatment isn't relevant here, and as far I know hasn't been raised.
That's what you'd like to debate, a meaningless (in this case) technicality.

Their diagnosis is correct and you cannot argue that it isn't. Neither can xjx388. So instead you are arguing an irrelevant (in this case) rule that what? I'm not sure what the point of your position is. Do you think it somehow neutralizes the NPD diagnosis?

Is your point the professional opinion of Dr Lee is wrong? Nope. Is there any doubt in her and her colleagues' professional opinion? Nope. Are there any psychiatrists arguing against Dr Lee's opinion? There are some political challenges to the "therefore he's dangerous" conclusion, but none to the "pathologic narcissism" conclusion.


The issues with the 'technicalities' have been addressed in this thread multiple times. All the foot stamping in the world does not make the diagnosis wrong.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 01:23 PM   #1946
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,898
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I question the premise that Dr Lee is speaking in a professional capacity on this topic.
Whoopteedo. I don't see her colleagues questioning her professionalism. There were a couple of complaints but by and large not one colleague is challenging the diagnosis.

Well there was one, Dr. Allen Frances, claiming because Trump is successful he can't be mentally ill. I don't think we've heard much more from him since.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 14th June 2019 at 01:28 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 01:41 PM   #1947
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,898
Here's a thoughtful analysis of Dr Frances' unique view of what makes someone mentally ill: Diagnosing Trump: A Reply
Quote:
Let’s start with the fact that Dr. Frances acknowledges that Trump meets many if not all of the standard descriptions of NPD, such as being grandiose and having the need to feel special, having poor empathy and exploiting others, feeling entitled and envious, and so forth. Frances states that “Trump is all this in spades,” and a “world class narcissist.” So far so good, as it means he and I are seeing the same behavior.

But Frances goes on to point out that there is a very important criterion that is missing that many overlook, which makes diagnosing Trump misguided. The criterion is that the features associated with NPD must “cause clinically significant distress or impairment.”

Instead of distress or impairment, Dr. Frances argued that Trump has been rewarded by “fame, fortune, women, and now political power.” And because of this and because he is not in distress about it (at least as far as we know), then, case closed.
An obvious flaw in this concept is the patient with denial, a common aspect of mental illness. And the "as far as we know" requires one to overlook all the times Trump acts out. He certainly appears distressed to a lot of people.


Quote:
My point is that, according to Frances, it is only if Trump starts to become miserable about an aspect of who he is that he is “crazy.” This is not something that every scholar on the concept of mental disorders is comfortable with, especially when it comes to the personality disorders. Many see the problem with these conditions being a lack of insight, which makes all these issues very fuzzy.

Indeed, I ask readers to reflect on this implication. Does the idea that Trump has an NPD only after he starts feeling bad about it make good sense to you? ...

That might be the definition of “crazy” to Frances. But to me, the issues are very complicated. The idea that Trump would feel “bad” about being “bad,” should not necessarily be the thing that causes us to label him as “mad.”
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 02:43 PM   #1948
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,120
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
They've been pretty vague about what the danger is specifically. I think they've put themselves in a difficult situation. They've come right out and labelled Trump, "dangerously mentally ill," and they've been pretty specific about him having NPD or "malignant narcissism." The implication is either:

1)Anyone with NPD or "malignant narcissism," is "dangerously mentally ill," which strikes me as a profoundly unprofessional thing to imply.

or

2)There is something special about Trump that makes him dangerous but would not apply generally to others with that diagnosis, which strikes me as special pleading.

I think this is why they are so vague with what the danger is: they don't want to tar every mentally ill person with the same brush they are tarring Trump.
You left out:

3) It is particularly dangerous to have someone with NPD as President.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 05:51 PM   #1949
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,972
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
You left out:



3) It is particularly dangerous to have someone with NPD as President.

Inherent in your argument is the premise that people with NPD are dangerous. That has not been established as true.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 08:45 PM   #1950
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,761
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Inherent in your argument is the premise that people with NPD are dangerous. That has not been established as true.
Not just "people." The self-evident claim is that it is dangerous for someone who has demonstrated severe deficits in basic information-processing ability and fundamental ignorance of the core functions of government, and actually imagines that the government exists to serve his personal interests and prejudices, to hold and exercise the vast powers of the Presidency. If he was just a NYC real estate hustler, nobody would care about his mental function.

Last edited by Bob001; 14th June 2019 at 08:46 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 08:58 PM   #1951
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
If it had been published by a more respected publication would it have carried more weight? From what I recall of the previous discussion the same posters objecting to this particular publication also reject the authority of more prestigious journals, and anything written by psychologists who haven't personally examined the person in question anyway. Seems disingenuous to quibble about the publication when one has a more fundamental objection that would reject the article anyway no matter where it appears.
You have it in one TM - it is hard for them (his die hard trained monkeys) to see trump as a sick addled maniac with delusions of reality and seriously in need of a long, long stretch of appropriate treatment.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 09:02 PM   #1952
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
You have it in one TM - it is hard for them (his die hard trained monkeys) to see trump as a sick addled maniac with delusions of reality and seriously in need of a long, long stretch of appropriate treatment.
Ooops: left out: treatment based on the learned skills of the eminent and some famous Dr. Tarr and Professor Feather!*







*There may be, accidentally, a Poe involved also!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 09:04 PM   #1953
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,761
And the evidence piles up: Trump claims that Queen Elizabeth, 93 years old, monarch for almost 70 years, had the best time with him that she ever had with anyone.
Quote:
“There are those that say they have never seen the queen have a better time, a more animated time,” Mr. Trump said in the interview, which was taped in Normandy, France, in front of the graves of fallen troops on the 75th anniversary of the Allied landing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/w...zabeth-uk.html
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 09:06 PM   #1954
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Does every mental health professional have to publish every one of their diagnoses in a peer reviewed journal? If not, and in cases where not, does that *perforce* render diagnoses/opinions as open to question--to even the lay public?
As long as Dr. Oz is not involved I am fine with that!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 09:49 PM   #1955
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,898
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
And the evidence piles up: Trump claims that Queen Elizabeth, 93 years old, monarch for almost 70 years, had the best time with him that she ever had with anyone.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/w...zabeth-uk.html
OMG, every day, confirmation Trump has NPD, and every day in this thread the denial and excuses are repeated.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 01:27 AM   #1956
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,120
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Inherent in your argument is the premise that people with NPD are dangerous. That has not been established as true.
Actually, your list was actually listing potential implications (as in just what is it they are trying to insunate). Regardless of how well the claim is/is not supported by empirical evidence, "It is particularly dangerous to have someone with NPD as President" is a strong candidate for the conclusion the writer encouraged you to draw. I just wanted to make sure you didn't forget that one, as it was not on your list.

Oh, and "dangerous" is a relative term. While some certain given trait may be benign in an average citizen, that same trait may be dangerous in, for example, a nuclear plant engineer. The same is true with respect to the occupation of the Presidency. Therefore, it is absolutely not the case that "Inherent in your argument is the premise that people with NPD are dangerous." It most certainly depends on the individual in question.

Last edited by Cabbage; 15th June 2019 at 01:30 AM.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 01:41 AM   #1957
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,669
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Here's a thoughtful analysis of Dr Frances' unique view of what makes someone mentally ill: Diagnosing Trump: A Reply An obvious flaw in this concept is the patient with denial, a common aspect of mental illness. And the "as far as we know" requires one to overlook all the times Trump acts out. He certainly appears distressed to a lot of people.
And that criterion is just semantics. Nero or Caligula could easily have been considered perfectly well right up to the time that their behaviour incited people to kill and depose them.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 02:24 AM   #1958
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,178
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
An obvious flaw in this concept is the patient with denial, a common aspect of mental illness. And the "as far as we know" requires one to overlook all the times Trump acts out. He certainly appears distressed to a lot of people.
He seems distressed to me, but to his supporters he's probably just fighting back and telling it like it is. I have to wonder if his fans see the implications of his need to provide minute-to-minute tweets in defense of himself. Surely he has more important things to do? He provides a clear window into how resentful he is and how much time he spends obsessing over his image. I do think this occurs to his supporters and not just his critics. It's one reason I think support could soften in the run-up to 2020. Not publicly, but in private, around the margins, there may be increasing misgivings about that acting-out you refer to.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 08:36 AM   #1959
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,761
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
He seems distressed to me, but to his supporters he's probably just fighting back and telling it like it is. I have to wonder if his fans see the implications of his need to provide minute-to-minute tweets in defense of himself. Surely he has more important things to do? He provides a clear window into how resentful he is and how much time he spends obsessing over his image. I do think this occurs to his supporters and not just his critics. It's one reason I think support could soften in the run-up to 2020. Not publicly, but in private, around the margins, there may be increasing misgivings about that acting-out you refer to.
I've send it before: Trump's supporters hate the people Trump hates. As long as he finds scapegoats for everything that's wrong in the Trumpists' lives, they will follow him into hell.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 12:55 PM   #1960
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I've send it before: Trump's supporters hate the people Trump hates. As long as he finds scapegoats for everything that's wrong in the Trumpists' lives, they will follow him into hell.
One can but hope - and WOW do I hope it happens real soon now!!!!!!!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 12:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.