[Continuation] Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 2 - Page 16

LSSBB · 6th August 2018, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by xjx388

You seem perfectly capable of arriving at these conclusions all on your own. It seems evident to me that we gain nothing by allowing professionals to breach ethics and standards which only end up harming the integrity of the profession and the well-being of people with mental illness. So why defend the Yale group?

Ethics point aside...

I was perfectly capable of determining that there was no reason to believe WTC7 collapsed due to anything but unfought fires and maybe some impact damage. I still defend NIST in coming to that conclusion, and appreciate their in-depth analysis.

Back to the ethics point: the said ethics rule is their own rule. It is not based, from what I could tell, on any in depth research on the subject of remote diagnosis. Nor does it appear etched in stone. It's a group opinion.

WilliamSeger · 7th August 2018, 02:31 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

What is the difference, exactly, in practical terms? I've been asking this question in this thread, in various forms, for months. Nobody seems to have an answer. Do you have an answer?

You've apparently ignored the answers you've received. In "practical terms" it means that there is good reason to think Trump is dangerous. The fact that there is no good reason to expect that this Cabinet or Congress will invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him doesn't change that.

Drewbot · 7th August 2018, 06:48 AM

I think the Yale group is confirming the bias of Anti-Trumpers, and therefore, it is OK that they are breaking the professional standards.

That is what this thread is about.

It's OK most of the US politics threads seem to be the same way.

carlitos · 7th August 2018, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

The Yale group were aware of the Goldwater rule before breaking it. They would have been aware of the possible negative personal and professional consequences of breaking it while gaining nothing for themselves. That they published their opinions despite this indicates the seriousness of their concern for the country regarding Trump. That is why I support what they did.

They gained nothing for themselves by publishing a New York Times bestselling book?

SOdhner · 7th August 2018, 07:56 AM

One time I was trying to cash a check from my summer job and the bank wouldn't do it because my learner's permit was expired. In Arizona, at least at the time, they took away your regular ID (which was valid until you're like 65) when they gave you the permit, and the permit wasn't good for very long.

This was frustrating because I was very far from home and needed access to that money. I tried to argue that what had expired was its use as a learner's permit since it's not like I stopped being myself once the date arrived. There was no debate about whether or not it was a real government issued ID, or about whether or not it was my face on there, and yet they said they couldn't take it as proof of who I was because it was expired.

Is there a good reason for that rule? Maybe! Honestly I don't know. But regardless of whether or not there's a reason for it I'm still me and a reasonable person could determine that by looking at my ID even if they weren't allowed to accept that for business purposes.

Similarly, we can talk about whether or not the rule about diagnosing someone like Trump without a personal interview should be officially counted or endorsed by whatever professional groups, but that doesn't mean that they magically lose their ability to diagnose people.

It can be a technically invalid diagnosis by this group's standards and still be accurate.

One more: I was certified to train some classes from Franklin Covey. But they don't certify people, they certify a person-company combo. So the second I left the company at which I had been certified I ceased to be a certified Franklin Covey trainer. If, at that point, I sat down and did the training for someone it would be the exact same training that I had provided at my previous job but from Franklin Covey's point of view you would not have received their training.

The diagnosis can be accurate without being officially valid by a particular set of standards.

I happen to agree with the rule, in general. I do think that broadly speaking we should discourage professionals from openly diagnosing people that aren't their patients. But some people here seem to be implying that whether or not the diagnosis is endorsed is the same thing as whether or not it's valid. I didn't stop being me when my ID expired, I didn't stop knowing the material when I switched jobs, and you don't stop knowing how to diagnose someone just because someone says you shouldn't do it.

carlitos · 7th August 2018, 08:44 AM

I realized the expired ID rationale when I recently got a new Costco card. They don't want you giving your old one to someone else to use. Ditto for a state ID, I'm sure.

SOdhner · 7th August 2018, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by carlitos

I realized the expired ID rationale when I recently got a new Costco card. They don't want you giving your old one to someone else to use. Ditto for a state ID, I'm sure.

Maybe. It sure was frustrating though.
"So you agree that this card isn't a forgery, and is an actual government issued card?"
"Yes."
"And you agree that's a picture of me on there."
"Yes."
"And if I handed you this exact same card a few weeks ago, you would absolutely take it as proof that I'm who I say I am."
"Correct."
"And you can't be worried that it's stolen because the date has nothing to do with whether or not it belongs to me - that's what the photo is for and you've already agreed that's me."
"I suppose so."
"And you're saying this doesn't prove I'm me anymore."
"That's right. Sorry sir."

theprestige · 7th August 2018, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by SOdhner

One time I was trying to cash a check from my summer job and the bank wouldn't do it because my learner's permit was expired. In Arizona, at least at the time, they took away your regular ID (which was valid until you're like 65) when they gave you the permit, and the permit wasn't good for very long.

This was frustrating because I was very far from home and needed access to that money. I tried to argue that what had expired was its use as a learner's permit since it's not like I stopped being myself once the date arrived. There was no debate about whether or not it was a real government issued ID, or about whether or not it was my face on there, and yet they said they couldn't take it as proof of who I was because it was expired.

Is there a good reason for that rule? Maybe! Honestly I don't know. But regardless of whether or not there's a reason for it I'm still me and a reasonable person could determine that by looking at my ID even if they weren't allowed to accept that for business purposes.

Similarly, we can talk about whether or not the rule about diagnosing someone like Trump without a personal interview should be officially counted or endorsed by whatever professional groups, but that doesn't mean that they magically lose their ability to diagnose people.

It can be a technically invalid diagnosis by this group's standards and still be accurate.

One more: I was certified to train some classes from Franklin Covey. But they don't certify people, they certify a person-company combo. So the second I left the company at which I had been certified I ceased to be a certified Franklin Covey trainer. If, at that point, I sat down and did the training for someone it would be the exact same training that I had provided at my previous job but from Franklin Covey's point of view you would not have received their training.

The diagnosis can be accurate without being officially valid by a particular set of standards.

I happen to agree with the rule, in general. I do think that broadly speaking we should discourage professionals from openly diagnosing people that aren't their patients. But some people here seem to be implying that whether or not the diagnosis is endorsed is the same thing as whether or not it's valid. I didn't stop being me when my ID expired, I didn't stop knowing the material when I switched jobs, and you don't stop knowing how to diagnose someone just because someone says you shouldn't do it.

FOTLism doesn't become a valid legal theory just because an accredited lawyer has applied it. An ersatz time management system doesn't become Franklin Covey's method, just because a certified FC trainer is teaching it. An arbitrary yoga routine doesn't become Bikram Yoga just because a certified Bikram teacher is teaching it (quite explicitly so, in the contract language between Bikram and the teachers it certifies).

Your analogies beg the question that the because the Yale group are psychiatrists, what they are doing is valid psychiatry.

They're also analogies, which is problematic anyway. But let's see how it goes.

dasmiller · 7th August 2018, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by allegedly SOdhner

Maybe. It sure was frustrating though.
"So you agree that this card isn't a forgery, and is an actual government issued card?"
"Yes."
"And you agree that's a picture of me on there."
"Yes."
"And if I handed you this exact same card a few weeks ago, you would absolutely take it as proof that I'm who I say I am."
"Correct."
"And you can't be worried that it's stolen because the date has nothing to do with whether or not it belongs to me - that's what the photo is for and you've already agreed that's me."
"I suppose so."
"And you're saying this doesn't prove I'm me anymore."
"That's right. Sorry sir."

Hmmm . . . How do we know it was really SOdhner who posted this?

Bob001 · 7th August 2018, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by SOdhner

....
"And you're saying this doesn't prove I'm me anymore."
"That's right. Sorry sir."

What's really bizarre is that when your license expires, it's usually all the ID you need to get a new one, at least within a specified time period. So your expired license is good enough ID for the DMV, but it's not good enough to vote. Nothing but voter suppression/intimidation.

Bob001 · 7th August 2018, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by dasmiller

Hmmm . . . How do we know it was really SOdhner who posted this?

Demand his driver's license? Oh, wait....

SOdhner · 7th August 2018, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

FOTLism doesn't become a valid legal theory just because an accredited lawyer has applied it.

Of course not, because FOTL has nothing to do with the actual legal system.
It's a conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by theprestige

An ersatz time management system doesn't become Franklin Covey's method, just because a certified FC trainer is teaching it.

By definition, that's obviously correct. I don't see the connection to what we're discussing here. They're applying the same knowledge.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Your analogies beg the question that the because the Yale group are psychiatrists, what they are doing is valid psychiatry.

I did no such thing. Psychiatrists read case studies or consult with colleagues or otherwise apply their knowledge outside of direct in person interviews all the time - often with way less information that is available on Trump. So while this may not meet the criteria for a specific organization it doesn't mean that the information is suddenly inaccurate.

If you want to argue that it's inaccurate go to town, but "the guidelines of this organization say they should do an in person interview" (or whatever the specific guidelines are, I forget the wording) isn't saying the diagnosis is wrong any more than my permit expiring means I stop being me.

The act of looking at information about someone, thinking about the definition for relevant disorders and whatnot, and then saying "Yup, based on my training and experience this is what's going on" is the same regardless of whether or not it's an ethical violation.

They can be factually correct or factually incorrect totally apart from whether it was ethically correct or incorrect according to these standards.

Originally Posted by theprestige

They're also analogies, which is problematic anyway.

Well analogies are like lube. They can help you get where you're going, but if you use too much or use it in the wrong setting it just makes a mess of everything.

SOdhner · 7th August 2018, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Originally Posted by dasmiller

Hmmm . . . How do we know it was really SOdhner who posted this?

Demand his driver's license? Oh, wait....

Well, and to be honest in this case I actually DID steal the expired permit from someone that looked exactly like me and then took their place and used their name for my summer job (which is why I had the check with that name on it) and left the real SOdhner tied up in a basement.

Hmm.

I hope he got out okay. It's been almost 20 years and I only left a week's worth of food and water. Man, I really should have checked in on him before now but I got super busy.

Stacyhs · 7th August 2018, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

The Yale group were aware of the Goldwater rule before breaking it. They would have been aware of the possible negative personal and professional consequences of breaking it while gaining nothing for themselves. That they published their opinions despite this indicates the seriousness of their concern for the country regarding Trump. That is why I support what they did.

Originally Posted by carlitos

They gained nothing for themselves by publishing a New York Times bestselling book?

I stand corrected on that one point. However, I doubt money was the motivating factor for writing this book, especially when you consider they didn't know it was going to be a best seller. No, they were taking a bold step by breaking the Goldwater Rule and they knew it.

carlitos · 7th August 2018, 12:04 PM

Thank you for acknowledging that.

I did not mention money.

Publishing an opinion "Donald Trump is nuts" that is completely in lockstep with mainstream thought, even breaking a rule, is hardly taking a "bold step."

Stacyhs · 7th August 2018, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

The Yale group were aware of the Goldwater rule before breaking it. They would have been aware of the possible negative personal and professional consequences of breaking it while gaining nothing for themselves. That they published their opinions despite this indicates the seriousness of their concern for the country regarding Trump. That is why I support what they did.

Originally Posted by carlitos

They gained nothing for themselves by publishing a New York Times bestselling book?

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I stand corrected on that one point. However, I doubt money was the motivating factor for writing this book, especially when you consider they didn't know it was going to be a best seller. No, they were taking a bold step by breaking the Goldwater Rule and they knew it.

Originally Posted by carlitos

Thank you for acknowledging that.

I did not mention money.

Publishing an opinion "Donald Trump is nuts" that is completely in lockstep with mainstream thought, even breaking a rule, is hardly taking a "bold step."

No you did not; nor did I say you did. However, when I said "they gained nothing for themselves" and you replied "They gained nothing for themselves by publishing a New York Times bestselling book?" it alludes to their motive which is why I brought up money.

For these mental health professionals to break the Goldwater rule and open themselves up for professional rebuke is, in my opinion, a bold move considering that 43 % of the country supports Trump. That you disagree is fine, but your opinion is no more valid than mine on this.

Delvo · 7th August 2018, 06:25 PM

I infer that the Cabinet has already used the 25ᵗʰ... not to remove him, but as a threat to stop him from issuing orders that would have forced them to remove him.

I say that because the story about him needing to "be talked out of" ordering an invasion of Venezuela can't be true, and thus must be a cover story. He simply doesn't ever, and for that matter evidently can't possibly, listen to anybody with an opposing case. How do you "convince" somebody like that, knowing that there is literally absolutely no reasoning with him? By threatening the only thing he does care about.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Did you need the Yale group to tell you that, or were you able to figure it out on your own?

So now the "defense" of Trump is not that he's mentally healthy, but that the fact that he's mentally unhealthy is too obvious for experts to bother pointing out. How can that fail to make you feel pathetic for even thinking of resorting to trotting that out?

beachnut · 7th August 2018, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

I think the Yale group is confirming the bias of Anti-Trumpers, and therefore, it is OK that they are breaking the professional standards.

That is what this thread is about.

It's OK most of the US politics threads seem to be the same way.

Can the Yale group, or pro-trumpers decode trump tweets?

The biggest anti-trumper, the trumper himself, supreme king of delusional tweets.

It is too easy, there is no need to make up false claims and lies about trump. trumper himself supplies endless supplies of material, no need to make it up. He is part of the comedy team, the dumb one for all of us. cult pro-trumpers fail to enjoy the show, and instead use the tried and true method of stupid attacks, being "Insecure beings attack others to make themselves feel better." What good are trump rants/tweets? Some are, excellent examples of projection.

Drewbot · 8th August 2018, 05:19 AM

Easy to decode, he is using the fires to create a political issue.

Water has always been an issue in California, and in a world where facts don't matter, in November, Donald will have influenced thousands of voters to protect their children from the fires by voting for John Cox.

You view it as crazy tweeting, I view it as someone with a grasp on persuasion tactics in a world where facts don't matter.

Drewbot · 8th August 2018, 05:51 AM

Building oasis out of deserts is probably what the diversion of water claim is referring to.

https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~marti...lac_desert.htm

xjx388 · 8th August 2018, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Delvo

<snip>

So now the "defense" of Trump is not that he's mentally healthy, but that the fact that he's mentally unhealthy is too obvious for experts to bother pointing out. How can that fail to make you feel pathetic for even thinking of resorting to trotting that out?

Well, for starters, you are framing this, wrongly, as a defense of Trump. Also, no one has said that anything is "too obvious for experts to bother pointing out." You have fundamentally changed the actual arguments in order to have something easier to argue against.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th August 2018, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

I think the Yale group is confirming the bias of Anti-Trumpers, and therefore, it is OK that they are breaking the professional standards.

That is what this thread is about.

It's OK most of the US politics threads seem to be the same way.

Other than your own bias, got any evidence? Or even some intelligent debate points?

Skeptic Ginger · 8th August 2018, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Easy to decode, he is using the fires to create a political issue.

Water has always been an issue in California, and in a world where facts don't matter, in November, Donald will have influenced thousands of voters to protect their children from the fires by voting for John Cox.

You view it as crazy tweeting, I view it as someone with a grasp on persuasion tactics in a world where facts don't matter.

So Trump consciously feigns incredible ignorance as a persuasion tactic?

SOdhner · 8th August 2018, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So Trump consciously feigns incredible ignorance as a persuasion tactic?

That's the mystery, isn't it? He seems too stupid to do any of this on purpose, and yet enough of it works in his favor that it seems it can't all be an accident.

Personally I think he's regurgitating misunderstood talking points from the people around him. I think he mangles these talking points and mixes in random thoughts of his own, but a decent core of most ideas comes from somewhere - an advisor, Fox and Friends, someone on Twitter, Putin. Whatever.

And so I'd say the parts that work in his favor aren't mistakes but also aren't really deliberate on his part either. But we'll never know for sure.

carlitos · 8th August 2018, 11:51 AM

The Dilbert guy (Scott Adams?) suggests that Trump's communication works like that - persuasion vs. truth. I heard him interviewed a few times, and I'm not buying it. Mangled, mis-remembered half-truths are much more plausible, like this nonsense with the fire and Trump's tweeting about water supply. The freaking fire is by 3 giant lakes!

Ah - here's the book. I know that Drewbot's phrases sounded familiar.
Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter

WilliamSeger · 8th August 2018, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Easy to decode, he is using the fires to create a political issue.

He's using fear to create political issues. It makes no difference that his target audience has no idea what he's talking about; they can interpret it any way they want.

Quote:

Water has always been an issue in California, and in a world where facts don't matter, in November, Donald will have influenced thousands of voters to protect their children from the fires by voting for John Cox.

In other words, he's using both fear and paranoia to create a political issue.

Quote:

You view it as crazy tweeting, I view it as someone with a grasp on persuasion tactics in a world where facts don't matter.

If he uses fear, paranoia and lies to persuade, I view that as stereotypical right-wing demagoguery, whether or not he's crazy.

Emily's Cat · 8th August 2018, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by jimbob

This is the thing. Posters who know people with NPD all say that Trump has it.

Here's the counter to that: people who know someone with autism/asperger's all see symptoms of those issues in other people that they know too, and are quick to suggest that similar behaviors in other must be due to the same cause.

People who know people with a particular condition learn something about that specific condition... then they recognize bits and pieces of it in others. But they DON'T know all the other conditions out there that also have similar observable characteristics.

A friend of mine has a kid with a particularly rare sensory processing disorder. That disorder presents with some motor skill deficiencies, some eating challenges, and some behavioral difficulties. Whenever she observes, or even hears about, someone else's kid having eating challenges or behavioral difficulties or balance issues, she is very quick to suggest that they should get their kid checked for the same sensory processing disorder that her kid has. She knows the symptoms that he kid has, and knows that those are related to his disorder. What she doesn't know, however, are all of the other disorders out there that have the same or very similar symptoms.

+++++

To be fair, I don't expect anyone to grasp this at this point. Every time I've brought up the fact the the observable symptoms of NPD occur with other mental disorders as well as with other neurological and medical disorders... I get several people insisting that there's no known cause of NPD. It seems that the difference between the CAUSE of a condition and the OBSERVABLE SYMPTOMS of a condition are very challenging.

SOdhner · 8th August 2018, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

he uses fear, paranoia and lies

Three. Our THREE weapons are fear, paranoia, lies, and a fanatical devotion to Putin. ... Among our weapons are:

WilliamSeger · 8th August 2018, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by SOdhner

Three. Our THREE weapons are fear, paranoia, lies, and a fanatical devotion to Putin. ... Among our weapons are:

… fear, paranoia, lies, a fanatical devotion to Putin, and resentment. Five, our five weapons are...

Steve · 8th August 2018, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Here's the counter to that: people who know someone with autism/asperger's all see symptoms of those issues in other people that they know too, and are quick to suggest that similar behaviors in other must be due to the same cause.

People who know people with a particular condition learn something about that specific condition... then they recognize bits and pieces of it in others. But they DON'T know all the other conditions out there that also have similar observable characteristics.

A friend of mine has a kid with a particularly rare sensory processing disorder. That disorder presents with some motor skill deficiencies, some eating challenges, and some behavioral difficulties. Whenever she observes, or even hears about, someone else's kid having eating challenges or behavioral difficulties or balance issues, she is very quick to suggest that they should get their kid checked for the same sensory processing disorder that her kid has. She knows the symptoms that he kid has, and knows that those are related to his disorder. What she doesn't know, however, are all of the other disorders out there that have the same or very similar symptoms.

+++++

To be fair, I don't expect anyone to grasp this at this point. Every time I've brought up the fact the the observable symptoms of NPD occur with other mental disorders as well as with other neurological and medical disorders... I get several people insisting that there's no known cause of NPD. It seems that the difference between the CAUSE of a condition and the OBSERVABLE SYMPTOMS of a condition are very challenging.

Interesting that you think you have made a point that only you understand. I expect all of the uneducated in this thread who are posting only thought-free posts will take this to heart. Thanks for sharing.

Stacyhs · 8th August 2018, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Here's the counter to that: people who know someone with autism/asperger's all see symptoms of those issues in other people that they know too, and are quick to suggest that similar behaviors in other must be due to the same cause.

People who know people with a particular condition learn something about that specific condition... then they recognize bits and pieces of it in others. But they DON'T know all the other conditions out there that also have similar observable characteristics.

A friend of mine has a kid with a particularly rare sensory processing disorder. That disorder presents with some motor skill deficiencies, some eating challenges, and some behavioral difficulties. Whenever she observes, or even hears about, someone else's kid having eating challenges or behavioral difficulties or balance issues, she is very quick to suggest that they should get their kid checked for the same sensory processing disorder that her kid has. She knows the symptoms that he kid has, and knows that those are related to his disorder. What she doesn't know, however, are all of the other disorders out there that have the same or very similar symptoms.

+++++

To be fair, I don't expect anyone to grasp this at this point. Every time I've brought up the fact the the observable symptoms of NPD occur with other mental disorders as well as with other neurological and medical disorders... I get several people insisting that there's no known cause of NPD. It seems that the difference between the CAUSE of a condition and the OBSERVABLE SYMPTOMS of a condition are very challenging.

You are making a very sweeping claim. As someone who does have an immediate family member with ADHD and autism, I do not see it in every other child who has normal inattention due to boredom or temper tantrums etc. On the other hand I did suspect ADD in a cousin's child and mentioned it. Lo and behold, he was later diagnosed with it. After babysitting one weekend for some very casual friends during a family emergency, I told my husband I suspected their 4 yr. old might be in the autism spectrum due to the behavior I was observing. He was diagnosed later that year with Asperger's. Might some people see "it" everywhere and be wrong? Sure. But those of us who have lived with it might just recognize it more easily than those who have not.

WilliamSeger · 8th August 2018, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Here's the counter to that: people who know someone with autism/asperger's all see symptoms of those issues in other people that they know too, and are quick to suggest that similar behaviors in other must be due to the same cause.

People who know people with a particular condition learn something about that specific condition... then they recognize bits and pieces of it in others. But they DON'T know all the other conditions out there that also have similar observable characteristics.

A friend of mine has a kid with a particularly rare sensory processing disorder. That disorder presents with some motor skill deficiencies, some eating challenges, and some behavioral difficulties. Whenever she observes, or even hears about, someone else's kid having eating challenges or behavioral difficulties or balance issues, she is very quick to suggest that they should get their kid checked for the same sensory processing disorder that her kid has. She knows the symptoms that he kid has, and knows that those are related to his disorder. What she doesn't know, however, are all of the other disorders out there that have the same or very similar symptoms.

+++++

To be fair, I don't expect anyone to grasp this at this point. Every time I've brought up the fact the the observable symptoms of NPD occur with other mental disorders as well as with other neurological and medical disorders... I get several people insisting that there's no known cause of NPD. It seems that the difference between the CAUSE of a condition and the OBSERVABLE SYMPTOMS of a condition are very challenging.

And again and again... if that were true, I'd expect some qualified professionals to be making the argument that the Yale group analysis could be wrong for that reason. I have yet to see any -- got a link? You don't seem to understand what I'm "insisting" on.

Anyway, yes, DJT shows symptoms of other personality disorders, which is common and which is why a lot of psychiatrists think the DSM classifications are too limiting. Dr. Gardner coined the term "malignant NPD" for DJT's combination of narcissistic and antisocial disorders.

jimbob · 8th August 2018, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

And again and again... if that were true, I'd expect some qualified professionals to be making the argument that the Yale group analysis could be wrong for that reason. I have yet to see any -- got a link? You don't seem to understand what I'm "insisting" on.

Anyway, yes, DJT shows symptoms of other personality disorders, which is common and which is why a lot of psychiatrists think the DSM classifications are too limiting. Dr. Gardner coined the term "malignant NPD" for DJT's combination of narcissistic and antisocial disorders.

And I am perfectly open to the suggestion that mental decline is why it is becoming more obvious.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th August 2018, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Here's the counter to that: people who know someone with autism/asperger's all see symptoms of those issues in other people that they know too, and are quick to suggest that similar behaviors in other must be due to the same cause.

People who know people with a particular condition learn something about that specific condition... then they recognize bits and pieces of it in others. But they DON'T know all the other conditions out there that also have similar observable characteristics.

Sounds to me like you are thinking of yourself along with whomever else doesn't understand how pathology differs from non-pathologic personality traits.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

[snip repeating what you already said.]

+++++

To be fair, I don't expect anyone to grasp this at this point. Every time I've brought up the fact the the observable symptoms of NPD occur with other mental disorders as well as with other neurological and medical disorders... I get several people insisting that there's no known cause of NPD.

This non-sequitur doesn't make sense. What does not knowing the cause of NPD have to do with overlapping symptoms?

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

It seems that the difference between the CAUSE of a condition and the OBSERVABLE SYMPTOMS of a condition are very challenging.

Huh?

It's a no brainer that overlapping symptoms occur with different pathologies, and overlapping symptoms occur with pathologic and non-pathologic conditions. But you are asserting that therefore because you don't know how to distinguish the difference means no one can distinguish the difference and make the diagnosis. And that is an absurd assertion.

Emily's Cat · 8th August 2018, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's a no brainer that overlapping symptoms occur with different pathologies, and overlapping symptoms occur with pathologic and non-pathologic conditions. But you are asserting that therefore because you don't know how to distinguish the difference means no one can distinguish the difference and make the diagnosis. And that is an absurd assertion.

Your statements here seem to indicate that you missed my point. That is not remotely what I said.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th August 2018, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Your statements here seem to indicate that you missed my point. That is not remotely what I said.

I quoted you. Feel free to point out what you said that differs from how I read it.

Emily's Cat · 8th August 2018, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I quoted you. Feel free to point out what you said that differs from how I read it.

That would be pretty much the entire last paragraph of my post. Your responses indicate that you did not comprehend what I wrote.

ETA: Also, in this context, the word you should be using is "pathological"

kellyb · 8th August 2018, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Here's the counter to that: people who know someone with autism/asperger's all see symptoms of those issues in other people that they know too, and are quick to suggest that similar behaviors in other must be due to the same cause.

People who know people with a particular condition learn something about that specific condition... then they recognize bits and pieces of it in others. But they DON'T know all the other conditions out there that also have similar observable characteristics.

A friend of mine has a kid with a particularly rare sensory processing disorder. That disorder presents with some motor skill deficiencies, some eating challenges, and some behavioral difficulties. Whenever she observes, or even hears about, someone else's kid having eating challenges or behavioral difficulties or balance issues, she is very quick to suggest that they should get their kid checked for the same sensory processing disorder that her kid has. She knows the symptoms that he kid has, and knows that those are related to his disorder. What she doesn't know, however, are all of the other disorders out there that have the same or very similar symptoms.

+++++

To be fair, I don't expect anyone to grasp this at this point. Every time I've brought up the fact the the observable symptoms of NPD occur with other mental disorders as well as with other neurological and medical disorders... I get several people insisting that there's no known cause of NPD. It seems that the difference between the CAUSE of a condition and the OBSERVABLE SYMPTOMS of a condition are very challenging.

I'm one of those people on the autism spectrum who sees autism in a lot of people.

I've never known anyone personally with NPD, but I REALLY see Trump's behavior as quintessential/textbook there, as it's described in the scientific literature, diagnostic criteria, etc.

Re:

Quote:

It seems that the difference between the CAUSE of a condition and the OBSERVABLE SYMPTOMS of a condition are very challenging

With some disorders (autism in particular) the cause is irrelevant to the diagnosis of "having" the disorder, which is surprising. One can be autistic undeniably as a result of something like congenital rubella syndrome, and it's still autism. I'm not 100% sure, but it seems quite likely that NPD is the same, where the causation is considered diagnostically irrelevant when it comes to whether or not you "have" the disorder.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th August 2018, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That would be pretty much the entire last paragraph of my post. Your responses indicate that you did not comprehend what I wrote.

ETA: Also, in this context, the word you should be using is "pathological"

IOW, you can't.

No surprise there.

Stacyhs · 8th August 2018, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by kellyb

I'm one of those people on the autism spectrum who sees autism in a lot of people.

I've never known anyone personally with NPD, but I REALLY see Trump's behavior as quintessential/textbook there, as it's described in the scientific literature, diagnostic criteria, etc.

Re:

With some disorders (autism in particular) the cause is irrelevant to the diagnosis of "having" the disorder, which is surprising. One can be autistic undeniably as a result of something like congenital rubella syndrome, and it's still autism. I'm not 100% sure, but it seems quite likely that NPD is the same, where the causation is considered diagnostically irrelevant when it comes to whether or not you "have" the disorder.

Do you jump to the conclusion that these people have autism as Emily's Cat suggested or do you just recognize some symptoms that are common in autism? For example, if someone is extremely sensitive to texture, do you think they have autism or just know that can be symptomatic of it?

On the other hand, knowing autism on a personal level, if you met someone who displayed several autism characteristics, the chances are you'd recognize them more quickly and accurately than someone with no experience with autism.

6th August 2018, 06:45 PM	#601
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 19,985	Originally Posted by xjx388 You seem perfectly capable of arriving at these conclusions all on your own. It seems evident to me that we gain nothing by allowing professionals to breach ethics and standards which only end up harming the integrity of the profession and the well-being of people with mental illness. So why defend the Yale group? Ethics point aside... I was perfectly capable of determining that there was no reason to believe WTC7 collapsed due to anything but unfought fires and maybe some impact damage. I still defend NIST in coming to that conclusion, and appreciate their in-depth analysis. Back to the ethics point: the said ethics rule is their own rule. It is not based, from what I could tell, on any in depth research on the subject of remote diagnosis. Nor does it appear etched in stone. It's a group opinion.
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

7th August 2018, 06:48 AM	#603
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,223	I think the Yale group is confirming the bias of Anti-Trumpers, and therefore, it is OK that they are breaking the professional standards. That is what this thread is about. It's OK most of the US politics threads seem to be the same way.
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,223	__________________ "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

7th August 2018, 09:01 AM	#608
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 39,734	Originally Posted by SOdhner One time I was trying to cash a check from my summer job and the bank wouldn't do it because my learner's permit was expired. In Arizona, at least at the time, they took away your regular ID (which was valid until you're like 65) when they gave you the permit, and the permit wasn't good for very long. This was frustrating because I was very far from home and needed access to that money. I tried to argue that what had expired was its use as a learner's permit since it's not like I stopped being myself once the date arrived. There was no debate about whether or not it was a real government issued ID, or about whether or not it was my face on there, and yet they said they couldn't take it as proof of who I was because it was expired. Is there a good reason for that rule? Maybe! Honestly I don't know. But regardless of whether or not there's a reason for it I'm still me and a reasonable person could determine that by looking at my ID even if they weren't allowed to accept that for business purposes. Similarly, we can talk about whether or not the rule about diagnosing someone like Trump without a personal interview should be officially counted or endorsed by whatever professional groups, but that doesn't mean that they magically lose their ability to diagnose people. It can be a technically invalid diagnosis by this group's standards and still be accurate. One more: I was certified to train some classes from Franklin Covey. But they don't certify people, they certify a person-company combo. So the second I left the company at which I had been certified I ceased to be a certified Franklin Covey trainer. If, at that point, I sat down and did the training for someone it would be the exact same training that I had provided at my previous job but from Franklin Covey's point of view you would not have received their training. The diagnosis can be accurate without being officially valid by a particular set of standards. I happen to agree with the rule, in general. I do think that broadly speaking we should discourage professionals from openly diagnosing people that aren't their patients. But some people here seem to be implying that whether or not the diagnosis is endorsed is the same thing as whether or not it's valid. I didn't stop being me when my ID expired, I didn't stop knowing the material when I switched jobs, and you don't stop knowing how to diagnose someone just because someone says you shouldn't do it. FOTLism doesn't become a valid legal theory just because an accredited lawyer has applied it. An ersatz time management system doesn't become Franklin Covey's method, just because a certified FC trainer is teaching it. An arbitrary yoga routine doesn't become Bikram Yoga just because a certified Bikram teacher is teaching it (quite explicitly so, in the contract language between Bikram and the teachers it certifies). Your analogies beg the question that the because the Yale group are psychiatrists, what they are doing is valid psychiatry. They're also analogies, which is problematic anyway. But let's see how it goes.
	Last edited by theprestige; 7th August 2018 at 09:02 AM.

7th August 2018, 09:09 AM	#609
dasmiller Just the right amount of cowbell Pither Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon Posts: 6,237	Originally Posted by allegedly SOdhner Maybe. It sure was frustrating though. "So you agree that this card isn't a forgery, and is an actual government issued card?" "Yes." "And you agree that's a picture of me on there." "Yes." "And if I handed you this exact same card a few weeks ago, you would absolutely take it as proof that I'm who I say I am." "Correct." "And you can't be worried that it's stolen because the date has nothing to do with whether or not it belongs to me - that's what the photo is for and you've already agreed that's me." "I suppose so." "And you're saying this doesn't prove I'm me anymore." "That's right. Sorry sir." Hmmm . . . How do we know it was really SOdhner who posted this?
	__________________ "In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt

7th August 2018, 09:55 AM	#610
Bob001 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 9,408	Originally Posted by SOdhner .... "And you're saying this doesn't prove I'm me anymore." "That's right. Sorry sir." What's really bizarre is that when your license expires, it's usually all the ID you need to get a new one, at least within a specified time period. So your expired license is good enough ID for the DMV, but it's not good enough to vote. Nothing but voter suppression/intimidation.
Bob001 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 9,408

7th August 2018, 02:31 AM	#602
WilliamSeger Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,085	Originally Posted by theprestige What is the difference, exactly, in practical terms? I've been asking this question in this thread, in various forms, for months. Nobody seems to have an answer. Do you have an answer? You've apparently ignored the answers you've received. In "practical terms" it means that there is good reason to think Trump is dangerous. The fact that there is no good reason to expect that this Cabinet or Congress will invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him doesn't change that.

7th August 2018, 07:45 AM	#604
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 20,739	Originally Posted by Stacyhs The Yale group were aware of the Goldwater rule before breaking it. They would have been aware of the possible negative personal and professional consequences of breaking it while gaining nothing for themselves. That they published their opinions despite this indicates the seriousness of their concern for the country regarding Trump. That is why I support what they did. They gained nothing for themselves by publishing a New York Times bestselling book?

7th August 2018, 07:56 AM	#605
SOdhner Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,744	One time I was trying to cash a check from my summer job and the bank wouldn't do it because my learner's permit was expired. In Arizona, at least at the time, they took away your regular ID (which was valid until you're like 65) when they gave you the permit, and the permit wasn't good for very long. This was frustrating because I was very far from home and needed access to that money. I tried to argue that what had expired was its use as a learner's permit since it's not like I stopped being myself once the date arrived. There was no debate about whether or not it was a real government issued ID, or about whether or not it was my face on there, and yet they said they couldn't take it as proof of who I was because it was expired. Is there a good reason for that rule? Maybe! Honestly I don't know. But regardless of whether or not there's a reason for it I'm still me and a reasonable person could determine that by looking at my ID even if they weren't allowed to accept that for business purposes. Similarly, we can talk about whether or not the rule about diagnosing someone like Trump without a personal interview should be officially counted or endorsed by whatever professional groups, but that doesn't mean that they magically lose their ability to diagnose people. It can be a technically invalid diagnosis by this group's standards and still be accurate. One more: I was certified to train some classes from Franklin Covey. But they don't certify people, they certify a person-company combo. So the second I left the company at which I had been certified I ceased to be a certified Franklin Covey trainer. If, at that point, I sat down and did the training for someone it would be the exact same training that I had provided at my previous job but from Franklin Covey's point of view you would not have received their training. The diagnosis can be accurate without being officially valid by a particular set of standards. I happen to agree with the rule, in general. I do think that broadly speaking we should discourage professionals from openly diagnosing people that aren't their patients. But some people here seem to be implying that whether or not the diagnosis is endorsed is the same thing as whether or not it's valid. I didn't stop being me when my ID expired, I didn't stop knowing the material when I switched jobs, and you don't stop knowing how to diagnose someone just because someone says you shouldn't do it.

7th August 2018, 08:44 AM	#606
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 20,739	I realized the expired ID rationale when I recently got a new Costco card. They don't want you giving your old one to someone else to use. Ditto for a state ID, I'm sure.

7th August 2018, 08:51 AM	#607
SOdhner Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,744	Originally Posted by carlitos I realized the expired ID rationale when I recently got a new Costco card. They don't want you giving your old one to someone else to use. Ditto for a state ID, I'm sure. Maybe. It sure was frustrating though. "So you agree that this card isn't a forgery, and is an actual government issued card?" "Yes." "And you agree that's a picture of me on there." "Yes." "And if I handed you this exact same card a few weeks ago, you would absolutely take it as proof that I'm who I say I am." "Correct." "And you can't be worried that it's stolen because the date has nothing to do with whether or not it belongs to me - that's what the photo is for and you've already agreed that's me." "I suppose so." "And you're saying this doesn't prove I'm me anymore." "That's right. Sorry sir."

7th August 2018, 09:56 AM	#611
Bob001 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 9,408	Originally Posted by dasmiller Hmmm . . . How do we know it was really SOdhner who posted this? Demand his driver's license? Oh, wait....
Bob001 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 9,408

7th August 2018, 10:16 AM	#612
SOdhner Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,744	Originally Posted by theprestige FOTLism doesn't become a valid legal theory just because an accredited lawyer has applied it. Of course not, because FOTL has nothing to do with the actual legal system. It's a conspiracy theory. Originally Posted by theprestige An ersatz time management system doesn't become Franklin Covey's method, just because a certified FC trainer is teaching it. By definition, that's obviously correct. I don't see the connection to what we're discussing here. They're applying the same knowledge. Originally Posted by theprestige Your analogies beg the question that the because the Yale group are psychiatrists, what they are doing is valid psychiatry. I did no such thing. Psychiatrists read case studies or consult with colleagues or otherwise apply their knowledge outside of direct in person interviews all the time - often with way less information that is available on Trump. So while this may not meet the criteria for a specific organization it doesn't mean that the information is suddenly inaccurate. If you want to argue that it's inaccurate go to town, but "the guidelines of this organization say they should do an in person interview" (or whatever the specific guidelines are, I forget the wording) isn't saying the diagnosis is wrong any more than my permit expiring means I stop being me. The act of looking at information about someone, thinking about the definition for relevant disorders and whatnot, and then saying "Yup, based on my training and experience this is what's going on" is the same regardless of whether or not it's an ethical violation. They can be factually correct or factually incorrect totally apart from whether it was ethically correct or incorrect according to these standards. Originally Posted by theprestige They're also analogies, which is problematic anyway. Well analogies are like lube. They can help you get where you're going, but if you use too much or use it in the wrong setting it just makes a mess of everything.

7th August 2018, 10:19 AM	#613
SOdhner Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,744	Originally Posted by Bob001 Originally Posted by dasmiller Hmmm . . . How do we know it was really SOdhner who posted this? Demand his driver's license? Oh, wait.... Well, and to be honest in this case I actually DID steal the expired permit from someone that looked exactly like me and then took their place and used their name for my summer job (which is why I had the check with that name on it) and left the real SOdhner tied up in a basement. Hmm. I hope he got out okay. It's been almost 20 years and I only left a week's worth of food and water. Man, I really should have checked in on him before now but I got super busy.

7th August 2018, 11:03 AM	#614
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 9,905	Originally Posted by Stacyhs The Yale group were aware of the Goldwater rule before breaking it. They would have been aware of the possible negative personal and professional consequences of breaking it while gaining nothing for themselves. That they published their opinions despite this indicates the seriousness of their concern for the country regarding Trump. That is why I support what they did. Originally Posted by carlitos They gained nothing for themselves by publishing a New York Times bestselling book? I stand corrected on that one point. However, I doubt money was the motivating factor for writing this book, especially when you consider they didn't know it was going to be a best seller. No, they were taking a bold step by breaking the Goldwater Rule and they knew it.
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 9,905

7th August 2018, 12:04 PM	#615
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 20,739	Thank you for acknowledging that. I did not mention money. Publishing an opinion "Donald Trump is nuts" that is completely in lockstep with mainstream thought, even breaking a rule, is hardly taking a "bold step."

7th August 2018, 12:25 PM	#616
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 9,905	Originally Posted by Stacyhs The Yale group were aware of the Goldwater rule before breaking it. They would have been aware of the possible negative personal and professional consequences of breaking it while gaining nothing for themselves. That they published their opinions despite this indicates the seriousness of their concern for the country regarding Trump. That is why I support what they did. Originally Posted by carlitos They gained nothing for themselves by publishing a New York Times bestselling book? Originally Posted by Stacyhs I stand corrected on that one point. However, I doubt money was the motivating factor for writing this book, especially when you consider they didn't know it was going to be a best seller. No, they were taking a bold step by breaking the Goldwater Rule and they knew it. Originally Posted by carlitos Thank you for acknowledging that. I did not mention money. Publishing an opinion "Donald Trump is nuts" that is completely in lockstep with mainstream thought, even breaking a rule, is hardly taking a "bold step." No you did not; nor did I say you did. However, when I said "they gained nothing for themselves" and you replied "They gained nothing for themselves by publishing a New York Times bestselling book?" it alludes to their motive which is why I brought up money. For these mental health professionals to break the Goldwater rule and open themselves up for professional rebuke is, in my opinion, a bold move considering that 43 % of the country supports Trump. That you disagree is fine, but your opinion is no more valid than mine on this.
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 9,905	Last edited by Stacyhs; 7th August 2018 at 12:27 PM.

7th August 2018, 06:25 PM	#617
Delvo الشيطان الأبيض Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Harrisburg, PA Posts: 8,156	I infer that the Cabinet has already used the 25ᵗʰ... not to remove him, but as a threat to stop him from issuing orders that would have forced them to remove him. I say that because the story about him needing to "be talked out of" ordering an invasion of Venezuela can't be true, and thus must be a cover story. He simply doesn't ever, and for that matter evidently can't possibly, listen to anybody with an opposing case. How do you "convince" somebody like that, knowing that there is literally absolutely no reasoning with him? By threatening the only thing he does care about. Originally Posted by theprestige Did you need the Yale group to tell you that, or were you able to figure it out on your own? So now the "defense" of Trump is not that he's mentally healthy, but that the fact that he's mentally unhealthy is too obvious for experts to bother pointing out. How can that fail to make you feel pathetic for even thinking of resorting to trotting that out?
	Last edited by Delvo; 7th August 2018 at 06:26 PM.

7th August 2018, 06:41 PM	#618
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 25,291	was trump watching "chinatown" on vacation, or what Originally Posted by Drewbot I think the Yale group is confirming the bias of Anti-Trumpers, and therefore, it is OK that they are breaking the professional standards. That is what this thread is about. It's OK most of the US politics threads seem to be the same way. Can the Yale group, or pro-trumpers decode trump tweets? The biggest anti-trumper, the trumper himself, supreme king of delusional tweets. It is too easy, there is no need to make up false claims and lies about trump. trumper himself supplies endless supplies of material, no need to make it up. He is part of the comedy team, the dumb one for all of us. cult pro-trumpers fail to enjoy the show, and instead use the tried and true method of stupid attacks, being "Insecure beings attack others to make themselves feel better." What good are trump rants/tweets? Some are, excellent examples of projection.
	__________________ "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

8th August 2018, 05:19 AM	#619
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,223	Easy to decode, he is using the fires to create a political issue. Water has always been an issue in California, and in a world where facts don't matter, in November, Donald will have influenced thousands of voters to protect their children from the fires by voting for John Cox. You view it as crazy tweeting, I view it as someone with a grasp on persuasion tactics in a world where facts don't matter.
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,223	__________________ "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

8th August 2018, 05:51 AM	#620
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,223	Building oasis out of deserts is probably what the diversion of water claim is referring to. https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~marti...lac_desert.htm
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,223	__________________ "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

8th August 2018, 08:06 AM	#621
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 7,528	Originally Posted by Delvo <snip> So now the "defense" of Trump is not that he's mentally healthy, but that the fact that he's mentally unhealthy is too obvious for experts to bother pointing out. How can that fail to make you feel pathetic for even thinking of resorting to trotting that out? Well, for starters, you are framing this, wrongly, as a defense of Trump. Also, no one has said that anything is "too obvious for experts to bother pointing out." You have fundamentally changed the actual arguments in order to have something easier to argue against.
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 7,528	__________________ Hello.

8th August 2018, 10:20 AM	#622
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 77,082	Originally Posted by Drewbot I think the Yale group is confirming the bias of Anti-Trumpers, and therefore, it is OK that they are breaking the professional standards. That is what this thread is about. It's OK most of the US politics threads seem to be the same way. Other than your own bias, got any evidence? Or even some intelligent debate points?
	__________________ That new avatar is cuteness overload. Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

8th August 2018, 10:23 AM	#623
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 77,082	Originally Posted by Drewbot Easy to decode, he is using the fires to create a political issue. Water has always been an issue in California, and in a world where facts don't matter, in November, Donald will have influenced thousands of voters to protect their children from the fires by voting for John Cox. You view it as crazy tweeting, I view it as someone with a grasp on persuasion tactics in a world where facts don't matter. So Trump consciously feigns incredible ignorance as a persuasion tactic?
	__________________ That new avatar is cuteness overload. Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

8th August 2018, 10:40 AM	#624
SOdhner Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,744	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger So Trump consciously feigns incredible ignorance as a persuasion tactic? That's the mystery, isn't it? He seems too stupid to do any of this on purpose, and yet enough of it works in his favor that it seems it can't all be an accident. Personally I think he's regurgitating misunderstood talking points from the people around him. I think he mangles these talking points and mixes in random thoughts of his own, but a decent core of most ideas comes from somewhere - an advisor, Fox and Friends, someone on Twitter, Putin. Whatever. And so I'd say the parts that work in his favor aren't mistakes but also aren't really deliberate on his part either. But we'll never know for sure.

8th August 2018, 11:51 AM	#625
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 20,739	The Dilbert guy (Scott Adams?) suggests that Trump's communication works like that - persuasion vs. truth. I heard him interviewed a few times, and I'm not buying it. Mangled, mis-remembered half-truths are much more plausible, like this nonsense with the fire and Trump's tweeting about water supply. The freaking fire is by 3 giant lakes! Ah - here's the book. I know that Drewbot's phrases sounded familiar. Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter
	Last edited by carlitos; 8th August 2018 at 11:52 AM.

8th August 2018, 11:58 AM	#626
WilliamSeger Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,085	Originally Posted by Drewbot Easy to decode, he is using the fires to create a political issue. He's using fear to create political issues. It makes no difference that his target audience has no idea what he's talking about; they can interpret it any way they want. Quote: Water has always been an issue in California, and in a world where facts don't matter, in November, Donald will have influenced thousands of voters to protect their children from the fires by voting for John Cox. In other words, he's using both fear and paranoia to create a political issue. Quote: You view it as crazy tweeting, I view it as someone with a grasp on persuasion tactics in a world where facts don't matter. If he uses fear, paranoia and lies to persuade, I view that as stereotypical right-wing demagoguery, whether or not he's crazy.

8th August 2018, 12:22 PM	#627
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Pacific Northwet Posts: 10,090	Originally Posted by jimbob This is the thing. Posters who know people with NPD all say that Trump has it. Here's the counter to that: people who know someone with autism/asperger's all see symptoms of those issues in other people that they know too, and are quick to suggest that similar behaviors in other must be due to the same cause. People who know people with a particular condition learn something about that specific condition... then they recognize bits and pieces of it in others. But they DON'T know all the other conditions out there that also have similar observable characteristics. A friend of mine has a kid with a particularly rare sensory processing disorder. That disorder presents with some motor skill deficiencies, some eating challenges, and some behavioral difficulties. Whenever she observes, or even hears about, someone else's kid having eating challenges or behavioral difficulties or balance issues, she is very quick to suggest that they should get their kid checked for the same sensory processing disorder that her kid has. She knows the symptoms that he kid has, and knows that those are related to his disorder. What she doesn't know, however, are all of the other disorders out there that have the same or very similar symptoms. +++++ To be fair, I don't expect anyone to grasp this at this point. Every time I've brought up the fact the the observable symptoms of NPD occur with other mental disorders as well as with other neurological and medical disorders... I get several people insisting that there's no known cause of NPD. It seems that the difference between the CAUSE of a condition and the OBSERVABLE SYMPTOMS of a condition are very challenging.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

8th August 2018, 12:26 PM	#628
SOdhner Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,744	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger he uses fear, paranoia and lies Three. Our THREE weapons are fear, paranoia, lies, and a fanatical devotion to Putin. ... Among our weapons are:

8th August 2018, 12:40 PM	#629
WilliamSeger Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,085	Originally Posted by SOdhner Three. Our THREE weapons are fear, paranoia, lies, and a fanatical devotion to Putin. ... Among our weapons are: … fear, paranoia, lies, a fanatical devotion to Putin, and resentment. Five, our five weapons are...

8th August 2018, 01:13 PM	#630
Steve Philosopher Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,136	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Here's the counter to that: people who know someone with autism/asperger's all see symptoms of those issues in other people that they know too, and are quick to suggest that similar behaviors in other must be due to the same cause. People who know people with a particular condition learn something about that specific condition... then they recognize bits and pieces of it in others. But they DON'T know all the other conditions out there that also have similar observable characteristics. A friend of mine has a kid with a particularly rare sensory processing disorder. That disorder presents with some motor skill deficiencies, some eating challenges, and some behavioral difficulties. Whenever she observes, or even hears about, someone else's kid having eating challenges or behavioral difficulties or balance issues, she is very quick to suggest that they should get their kid checked for the same sensory processing disorder that her kid has. She knows the symptoms that he kid has, and knows that those are related to his disorder. What she doesn't know, however, are all of the other disorders out there that have the same or very similar symptoms. +++++ To be fair, I don't expect anyone to grasp this at this point. Every time I've brought up the fact the the observable symptoms of NPD occur with other mental disorders as well as with other neurological and medical disorders... I get several people insisting that there's no known cause of NPD. It seems that the difference between the CAUSE of a condition and the OBSERVABLE SYMPTOMS of a condition are very challenging. Interesting that you think you have made a point that only you understand. I expect all of the uneducated in this thread who are posting only thought-free posts will take this to heart. Thanks for sharing.
Steve Philosopher Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,136	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

8th August 2018, 01:23 PM	#631
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 9,905	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Here's the counter to that: people who know someone with autism/asperger's all see symptoms of those issues in other people that they know too, and are quick to suggest that similar behaviors in other must be due to the same cause. People who know people with a particular condition learn something about that specific condition... then they recognize bits and pieces of it in others. But they DON'T know all the other conditions out there that also have similar observable characteristics. A friend of mine has a kid with a particularly rare sensory processing disorder. That disorder presents with some motor skill deficiencies, some eating challenges, and some behavioral difficulties. Whenever she observes, or even hears about, someone else's kid having eating challenges or behavioral difficulties or balance issues, she is very quick to suggest that they should get their kid checked for the same sensory processing disorder that her kid has. She knows the symptoms that he kid has, and knows that those are related to his disorder. What she doesn't know, however, are all of the other disorders out there that have the same or very similar symptoms. +++++ To be fair, I don't expect anyone to grasp this at this point. Every time I've brought up the fact the the observable symptoms of NPD occur with other mental disorders as well as with other neurological and medical disorders... I get several people insisting that there's no known cause of NPD. It seems that the difference between the CAUSE of a condition and the OBSERVABLE SYMPTOMS of a condition are very challenging. You are making a very sweeping claim. As someone who does have an immediate family member with ADHD and autism, I do not see it in every other child who has normal inattention due to boredom or temper tantrums etc. On the other hand I did suspect ADD in a cousin's child and mentioned it. Lo and behold, he was later diagnosed with it. After babysitting one weekend for some very casual friends during a family emergency, I told my husband I suspected their 4 yr. old might be in the autism spectrum due to the behavior I was observing. He was diagnosed later that year with Asperger's. Might some people see "it" everywhere and be wrong? Sure. But those of us who have lived with it might just recognize it more easily than those who have not.
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 9,905

8th August 2018, 01:31 PM	#632
WilliamSeger Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,085	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Here's the counter to that: people who know someone with autism/asperger's all see symptoms of those issues in other people that they know too, and are quick to suggest that similar behaviors in other must be due to the same cause. People who know people with a particular condition learn something about that specific condition... then they recognize bits and pieces of it in others. But they DON'T know all the other conditions out there that also have similar observable characteristics. A friend of mine has a kid with a particularly rare sensory processing disorder. That disorder presents with some motor skill deficiencies, some eating challenges, and some behavioral difficulties. Whenever she observes, or even hears about, someone else's kid having eating challenges or behavioral difficulties or balance issues, she is very quick to suggest that they should get their kid checked for the same sensory processing disorder that her kid has. She knows the symptoms that he kid has, and knows that those are related to his disorder. What she doesn't know, however, are all of the other disorders out there that have the same or very similar symptoms. +++++ To be fair, I don't expect anyone to grasp this at this point. Every time I've brought up the fact the the observable symptoms of NPD occur with other mental disorders as well as with other neurological and medical disorders... I get several people insisting that there's no known cause of NPD. It seems that the difference between the CAUSE of a condition and the OBSERVABLE SYMPTOMS of a condition are very challenging. And again and again... if that were true, I'd expect some qualified professionals to be making the argument that the Yale group analysis could be wrong for that reason. I have yet to see any -- got a link? You don't seem to understand what I'm "insisting" on. Anyway, yes, DJT shows symptoms of other personality disorders, which is common and which is why a lot of psychiatrists think the DSM classifications are too limiting. Dr. Gardner coined the term "malignant NPD" for DJT's combination of narcissistic and antisocial disorders.

8th August 2018, 01:40 PM	#633
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 21,531	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger And again and again... if that were true, I'd expect some qualified professionals to be making the argument that the Yale group analysis could be wrong for that reason. I have yet to see any -- got a link? You don't seem to understand what I'm "insisting" on. Anyway, yes, DJT shows symptoms of other personality disorders, which is common and which is why a lot of psychiatrists think the DSM classifications are too limiting. Dr. Gardner coined the term "malignant NPD" for DJT's combination of narcissistic and antisocial disorders. And I am perfectly open to the suggestion that mental decline is why it is becoming more obvious.
	__________________ 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

8th August 2018, 03:08 PM	#634
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 77,082	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Here's the counter to that: people who know someone with autism/asperger's all see symptoms of those issues in other people that they know too, and are quick to suggest that similar behaviors in other must be due to the same cause. People who know people with a particular condition learn something about that specific condition... then they recognize bits and pieces of it in others. But they DON'T know all the other conditions out there that also have similar observable characteristics. Sounds to me like you are thinking of yourself along with whomever else doesn't understand how pathology differs from non-pathologic personality traits. Originally Posted by Emily's Cat [snip repeating what you already said.] +++++ To be fair, I don't expect anyone to grasp this at this point. Every time I've brought up the fact the the observable symptoms of NPD occur with other mental disorders as well as with other neurological and medical disorders... I get several people insisting that there's no known cause of NPD. This non-sequitur doesn't make sense. What does not knowing the cause of NPD have to do with overlapping symptoms? Originally Posted by Emily's Cat It seems that the difference between the CAUSE of a condition and the OBSERVABLE SYMPTOMS of a condition are very challenging. Huh? It's a no brainer that overlapping symptoms occur with different pathologies, and overlapping symptoms occur with pathologic and non-pathologic conditions. But you are asserting that therefore because you don't know how to distinguish the difference means no one can distinguish the difference and make the diagnosis. And that is an absurd assertion.
	__________________ That new avatar is cuteness overload. Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

8th August 2018, 03:30 PM	#635
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Pacific Northwet Posts: 10,090	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger It's a no brainer that overlapping symptoms occur with different pathologies, and overlapping symptoms occur with pathologic and non-pathologic conditions. But you are asserting that therefore because you don't know how to distinguish the difference means no one can distinguish the difference and make the diagnosis. And that is an absurd assertion. Your statements here seem to indicate that you missed my point. That is not remotely what I said.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.