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 3rd August 2017, 12:52 PM   #2361
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,728
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Now that I've read through them, he sounds exactly like people I talk to all the time. From suppliers, doctors, lawyers, etc etc etc. Not what you would expect out of a President, sure; but, it's definitely what you would expect out of people in the business world. He represented his positions fairly well. He definitely focused on how certain things were going to affect his optics but doesn't every politician -even if they don't articulate it as bluntly?

He didn't sound like he had dementia to me or like a six-year old. Do you have any specific examples?
This is what I have been saying for a year and a half on the campaign trail. I have been telling this to every group of 50,000 people or 25,000 people – because no one got people in their rallies as big as I did.
...
I was not at all disappointed in the meeting, because Mexico, honestly, through smarter leadership, more cunning leadership — and you are in that category very much so – the very smart leadership in Mexico has taken advantage of the United States. The people of the United States know this. In Ohio, they are having rallies for Trump right now because Trump has taken a hard stance on Mexico. We lost a lot of factories in Ohio and Michigan and I won these states – some of these states have not been won in 38 years by a Republican and I won them very easily. So they are dancing in the streets. You probably have the same thing where they are dancing in your streets also, but in reverse.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis 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 3rd August 2017, 12:53 PM   #2362
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,502
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
It's the vocabulary. He used to be more articulate. Watch video of him from the 80s and 90s: he had a much wider vocabulary then. A shrinking vocabulary is a symptom of mental degeneration. Even without the foolish content of his speech, and excusing tgd repetition and meandering as merely poor public speaking, the vocabulary alone is alarming. And yes, a shrinking vocabulary is something doctors take note of. It's not trivial.
Do you have examples of Trump's former eloquence in phone calls with peers with which we can compare and contrast?
__________________
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 3rd August 2017, 01:09 PM   #2363
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
It's the vocabulary. He used to be more articulate. Watch video of him from the 80s and 90s: he had a much wider vocabulary then. A shrinking vocabulary is a symptom of mental degeneration. Even without the foolish content of his speech, and excusing tgd repetition and meandering as merely poor public speaking, the vocabulary alone is alarming. And yes, a shrinking vocabulary is something doctors take note of. It's not trivial.
You're right. And it's also not a symptom of a mental disorder. It's a symptom of neural degradation. The shrinking vocabulary and increasingly disorganized speech certainly aren't symptoms of a pathological narcissistic personality disorder...
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 3rd August 2017 at 01:20 PM.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 01:11 PM   #2364
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,842
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
...
If Obama had been acting the same as Trump is now, I would have been one of the first to call it. Would you? If so then you are no partisan.
Yes.
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 3rd August 2017, 01:12 PM   #2365
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,842
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
You are missing the point . . . big league.

[snipped]
No one is missing your point. Many of us don't agree with it. Perhaps a few do.
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 3rd August 2017, 01:14 PM   #2366
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,502
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
This is what I have been saying for a year and a half on the campaign trail. I have been telling this to every group of 50,000 people or 25,000 people – because no one got people in their rallies as big as I did.
...
I was not at all disappointed in the meeting, because Mexico, honestly, through smarter leadership, more cunning leadership — and you are in that category very much so – the very smart leadership in Mexico has taken advantage of the United States. The people of the United States know this. In Ohio, they are having rallies for Trump right now because Trump has taken a hard stance on Mexico. We lost a lot of factories in Ohio and Michigan and I won these states – some of these states have not been won in 38 years by a Republican and I won them very easily. So they are dancing in the streets. You probably have the same thing where they are dancing in your streets also, but in reverse.
OK, now point out what is obvious in that excerpt that points to dementia or the speech of "a six-year-old." I understood exactly what he was saying, especially considering that this is a phone call -audio of a call transcribed can be harder to parse in written form. Here's a recent one from Hillary:

Quote:
Yes, right. Well I hope we get into this because look, I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that’s not why I lost. So I think it’s important that we learn the real lessons from this last campaign because the forces that we are up against are not just interested in influencing our elections and our politics, they’re going after our economy and they’re going after our unity as a nation. So yes, back in ’98 — look, I have been watching this and have been, obviously, the target for a number of years. And what is hard for people to really — although now after the election there’s greater understanding — is that there are forces in our country — put the Russians to one side — who have been fighting rear-guard actions for as long as I’ve been alive, because my life coincided with the Civil Rights movement, with the Women’s Rights movement, with anti-war protesting, with the impeachment ... you know, the driving out of office because he was about to be impeached president ...
I could easily tear that apart if I wanted to but I understand what it is: extemporaneous speech. I understand what she's saying -and when you watch the interview it's even clearer- even if it looks a little off-kilter written out.

This is NOT the way psychs evaluate patients. This is exactly the problem with trying to diagnose people from the public record.
__________________
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 3rd August 2017, 01:19 PM   #2367
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,728
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
OK, now point out what is obvious in that excerpt that points to dementia or the speech of "a six-year-old." I understood exactly what he was saying, especially considering that this is a phone call -audio of a call transcribed can be harder to parse in written form. ....
It wasn't my claim , just thought I would throw out a few things. If you disagree, that's great. IDC enough to argue.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis 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 3rd August 2017, 01:26 PM   #2368
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,735
My apologies if this was already brought up in the many, many prior pages of this thread and I missed it, but what do people think of the ethics of psychiatric experts stating:

"Based on his public behavior and speech we have potential concerns as to Trumps mental health and considering the sensitivity of his position of POUS, we strongly urge that he be examined clinically by impartial doctors to determine if there is a medical problem or not."

If one entered an commercial airplane and noticed that the pilot appeared to be mentally impaired, on drugs, or drunk, would it not be a responsibility of a medical person to report such an individual to appropriate authorities for a more complete exam? Certainly one cannot diagnose any of these conditions through an informal encounter, but there are sufficient signs that would justify a more medically definitive examination.
Giordano 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 3rd August 2017, 01:45 PM   #2369
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,842
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
So who's read the transcripts of Trump's January calls to Mexico and Australia? I think they could be considered evidence. The man's either got dementia or he's actually six years old. No educated adult in their right mind speaks like that, and certainly not a purportedly savvy businessman.
There are many 'tells' in the Mexico transcript, I've not read the Aussie one yet.

With Mexico: Trump rambles, interrupts Peña, talks incessantly, mentions inflated election and rally numbers, loses track of the discussion, calls him Enrique while Peña calls Trump, Mr President.

And Trump tells Peña he has to pay for the wall because Trump promised people? How bizarre it that?

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 3rd August 2017 at 01:46 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 3rd August 2017, 02:37 PM   #2370
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,502
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
There are many 'tells' in the Mexico transcript, I've not read the Aussie one yet.

With Mexico: Trump rambles,
Does he? Example?
Quote:
interrupts Peña,
Once by saying, "Enrique, if I can interrupt." Doesn't sound dangerously mentally ill to these ears but I guess I don't have Medical Provider ears...
Quote:
talks incessantly,
Does he? He talks a lot, but incessantly connotes that he is being annoyingly unpleasant. It's ok for you to feel that way about him but I don't see any indication that Nieto felt that way or that it was obviously incessant on it's face. Or that it makes him dangerously mentally ill.
Quote:
mentions inflated election and rally numbers,
And that makes him dangerously mentally ill how exactly?
Quote:
loses track of the discussion,
I don't see him losing track of the discussion. He's covering a lot of things all at once, yes, but he never really loses track. He never says what you would expect, something like "Uh . . . what were we talking about."
Quote:
calls him Enrique while Peña calls Trump, Mr President.
So? He comes from the business world and that's a normal negotiating tactic. It establishes familiarity and rapport.

Quote:
And Trump tells Peña he has to pay for the wall because Trump promised people? How bizarre it that?
Not at all? Given his campaign promises, it makes sense that he'd try to arrange a better statement with Nieto so he doesn't look bad. What is bizarre about that?

So it's is exactly as I expected. You are interpreting Trump's behavior through the filter of your bias against him.
__________________
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 3rd August 2017, 02:52 PM   #2371
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,735
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Does he? Example?Once by saying, "Enrique, if I can interrupt." Doesn't sound dangerously mentally ill to these ears but I guess I don't have Medical Provider ears...Does he? He talks a lot, but incessantly connotes that he is being annoyingly unpleasant. It's ok for you to feel that way about him but I don't see any indication that Nieto felt that way or that it was obviously incessant on it's face. Or that it makes him dangerously mentally ill.And that makes him dangerously mentally ill how exactly? I don't see him losing track of the discussion. He's covering a lot of things all at once, yes, but he never really loses track. He never says what you would expect, something like "Uh . . . what were we talking about." So? He comes from the business world and that's a normal negotiating tactic. It establishes familiarity and rapport.

Not at all? Given his campaign promises, it makes sense that he'd try to arrange a better statement with Nieto so he doesn't look bad. What is bizarre about that?

So it's is exactly as I expected. You are interpreting Trump's behavior through the filter of your bias against him.
Very, very dry humor!. He, he!
Giordano 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 3rd August 2017, 03:01 PM   #2372
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,502
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Very, very dry humor!. He, he!
We all do it. Professionals, when clinically evaluating a subject, are supposed to be neutral. That's part of the reason why an in-person examination is important.
__________________
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 3rd August 2017, 03:35 PM   #2373
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,735
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
We all do it. Professionals, when clinically evaluating a subject, are supposed to be neutral. That's part of the reason why an in-person examination is important.
So what do you think of my suggestion that it would be legitimate for a professional, a psychiatrist, to state that based on Trump's observable behavior they had a concern that Trump (or another President) might have a mental health problem and that they recommend he be evaluated under proper clinical conditions? This would recognize that a professional diagnosis requires more than a simple analysis of public behavior, but recognizes that a person's public behavior can be a red flag that calls for a more detailed analysis.

Recognizing that there might be a concern doesn't require the same level of detailed examination as does the final, definitive diagnosis. In fact it often is the case that a general practioner exams a patient and recognizes some concern but does not feel justified, based on their own level of expertise, to make a definitive diagnosis, but does feel justified to tell the family to seek a specialist.

You might reply, oh but Trump is not asking for a medical opinion and thus the psychiatrists must not offer one. Well, many mentally ill patients do not seek a diagnosis, yet concerned individuals in their lives insist. And when it is the POUS I think all 300 million Americans have a right to be concerned when their President acts crazy enough to produce consternation among multiple mental health professionals. In fact we have Constitutional means to remove such a president, if definitely diagnosed, from office. If no one is allowed to express concerns based on the president's general behavior, enough concern to suggest a professional examination, then how will a mentally ill president be removed before he/she does something horrible?
Giordano 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 3rd August 2017, 03:41 PM   #2374
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,502
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
So what do you think of my suggestion that it would be legitimate for a professional, a psychiatrist, to state that based on Trump's observable behavior they had a concern that Trump (or another President) might have a mental health problem and that they recommend he be evaluated under proper clinical conditions? This would recognize that a professional diagnosis requires more than a simple analysis of public behavior, but recognizes that a person's public behavior can be a red flag that calls for a more detailed analysis.
I think that's far more acceptable, for me anyway, because it only falls afoul of the ethical rule. They aren't saying he has X, only that they recommend he gets seen.

But that ethical rule is the killer. I don't think docs should do that and if I were the doc's manager, I would strongly advise him to stay out of it. But if that's all the docs in question had said, I doubt I would be on this thread other than for a simple .

Quote:
<snip>
You might reply, oh but Trump is not asking for a medical opinion and thus the psychiatrists must not offer one. Well, many mentally ill patients do not seek a diagnosis, yet concerned individuals in their lives insist. And when it is the POUS I think all 300 million Americans have a right to be concerned when their President acts crazy enough to produce consternation among multiple mental health professionals. In fact we have Constitutional means to remove such a president, if definitely diagnosed, from office.
You don't need a diagnosis to remove him. It's irrelevant.
Quote:
If no one is allowed to express concerns based on the president's general behavior, enough concern to suggest a professional examination, then how will a mentally ill president be removed before he/she does something horrible?
The problem is that you can't force the Prez to submit to a mental health examination. You can suggest it all you like but he is free to ignore you.
__________________
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 3rd August 2017, 04:44 PM   #2375
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
My apologies if this was already brought up in the many, many prior pages of this thread and I missed it, but what do people think of the ethics of psychiatric experts stating:

"Based on his public behavior and speech we have potential concerns as to Trumps mental health and considering the sensitivity of his position of POUS, we strongly urge that he be examined clinically by impartial doctors to determine if there is a medical problem or not."
I find that a perfectly acceptable statement.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2017, 10:57 AM   #2376
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,651
This article seems appropriate:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...mental-health/

Mental Health professionals have political opinions like everyone else, and occasionally that causes them to set aside professional rules. No surprise there.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 8th August 2017, 12:27 PM   #2377
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
This article seems appropriate:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...mental-health/

Mental Health professionals have political opinions like everyone else, and occasionally that causes them to set aside professional rules. No surprise there.
That's a good article, well worth reading.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2017, 12:41 PM   #2378
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,842
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
This article seems appropriate:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...mental-health/

Mental Health professionals have political opinions like everyone else, and occasionally that causes them to set aside professional rules. No surprise there.
That article doesn't claim the diagnosis is all political and no psychiatry. It mostly talks about should you or shouldn't you speak up publicly.

It ends with this statement which is easily refuted:
Quote:
Psychiatric diagnoses have a range, and a diagnosis isn’t a good predictor of how someone will behave or how functional they are in their job or in society, Gourguechon said in an interview. “A diagnosis is good for treatment and for insurance reimbursement — without a diagnosis you can’t get your psychological or psychiatric visits covered — but it’s not very good for understanding people in their depth and complexity.
Nonsense.

One can easily make the case that Trump's mental disorder not only explains his behavior, it also supports predictions about how he will behave as POTUS.
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 8th August 2017, 12:57 PM   #2379
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
That article doesn't claim the diagnosis is all political and no psychiatry. It mostly talks about should you or shouldn't you speak up publicly.

It ends with this statement which is easily refuted:Nonsense.

One can easily make the case that Trump's mental disorder not only explains his behavior, it also supports predictions about how he will behave as POTUS.
So sayeth the licensed and experienced psychologist, yes? No? Well gee...
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2017, 03:07 PM   #2380
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,502
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
It ends with this statement which is easily refuted:Nonsense.
Oh, I see. Supporters of the long-established practice and ethics standards are engaging in nonsense. It's those mavericks -yourself included- operating outside of the ethical and practice standards that are engaging in the sober application of medical science.

This line from the 538 article really nails the issue:
Quote:
When discussing a public figure’s mental health, we need to ask whether we’re really engaging in scientific discourse or using medical terms to bolster a political argument.
Quote:
One can easily make the case that Trump's mental disorder not only explains his behavior, it also supports predictions about how he will behave as POTUS.
If one operates from faulty premises, "one can easily make the case" for just about anything.
__________________
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 8th August 2017, 07:20 PM   #2381
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,842
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Oh, I see. Supporters of the long-established practice and ethics standards are engaging in nonsense. It's those mavericks -yourself included- operating outside of the ethical and practice standards that are engaging in the sober application of medical science.
This has absolutely zero to do with the statement I said was easily refuted. Try again, next time leave out the straw.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
This line from the 538 article really nails the issue:

If one operates from faulty premises, "one can easily make the case" for just about anything.
The article made no case for why the medical opinions were more political than diagnostic. It merely argued the ethics.
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 8th August 2017, 08:02 PM   #2382
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,271
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
This has absolutely zero to do with the statement I said was easily refuted. Try again, next time leave out the straw.

The article made no case for why the medical opinions were more political than diagnostic. It merely argued the ethics.
It doesn't question the ability to diagnose, but argues it is also meaningless in this context

Quote:
Psychiatric diagnoses have a range, and a diagnosis isn’t a good predictor of how someone will behave or how functional they are in their job or in society, Gourguechon said in an interview. “A diagnosis is good for treatment and for insurance reimbursement — without a diagnosis you can’t get your psychological or psychiatric visits covered — but it’s not very good for understanding people in their depth and complexity.”
BobTheCoward 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 12th August 2017, 01:59 AM   #2383
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,813
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
This article seems appropriate:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...mental-health/

Mental Health professionals have political opinions like everyone else, and occasionally that causes them to set aside professional rules. No surprise there.

Quote:
The patterns of behavior that people point to as evidence that Trump is unfit to serve aren’t all that different from the ones that Trump exhibited during the campaign, after all, which makes it difficult to argue that his fitness for the job has changed since his hiring.
Say no more.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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 12th August 2017, 07:56 AM   #2384
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,483
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Quote:
The patterns of behavior that people point to as evidence that Trump is unfit to serve aren’t all that different from the ones that Trump exhibited during the campaign, after all, which makes it difficult to argue that his fitness for the job has changed since his hiring.
Say no more.
Huh? Where did you or 535 hear anyone making such a stupid argument? Dr. Gartner and other psychologists have been saying the same thing since DJT announced, and it's rather the opposite: As predicted, his behavior hasn't changed because it's beyond his control -- and that's the problem.
WilliamSeger 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 12th August 2017, 12:57 PM   #2385
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,774
Interesting assessment by another non-professional:
https://www.salon.com/2017/08/12/my-...-gotten-worse/
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 12th August 2017, 01:26 PM   #2386
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,842
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Interesting assessment by another non-professional:
https://www.salon.com/2017/08/12/my-...-gotten-worse/
Nice summary of yet more evidence. This comment stood out:
Quote:
Dr. Allen Frances, wrote a letter to the Times rebuking mental health professionals for “diagnosing public figures from a distance” and “amateur diagnosticians” for “mislabeling” Trump with narcissistic personality disorder. Allen says he wrote the criteria defining the disorder and Trump doesn’t have it. His reasoning: Trump “does not suffer the disorder and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder.”

Frances does what he accuses others of doing. By saying flatly that Trump doesn’t suffer a disorder, he diagnoses a public figure we assume — for multiple reasons — he hasn’t treated.

This observation was interesting:
Quote:
Trump embodies that old therapists’ saw “perception is projection.” You can use this handy tool to locate the truth, exactly opposite from whatever he just said. He has a weight management problem, so women are “fat pigs.” He can’t stop fibbing, so his primary opponent becomes “Lyin’ Ted Cruz.” His career is rife with fraud so the former secretary of state becomes “Crooked Hillary.” He is terrified of ridicule, so Barack Obama is a “laughingstock.” When he says America’s a wasteland but he’ll make it great again, we know his secret fear.

I couldn't agree more with his assessment of the news media:
Quote:
By 2016, the private Trump was on permanent public display, raging over mere slights, seeing plots in every ill turn of events and, as always, stunningly self-absorbed. He was called a racist, a sexist and a bully. But his mental health issues were euphemized as problems of “temperament.” He lied ceaselessly, reflexively and clumsily, but his lies were called merely “unproven” or, later, “false.” The New York Times called the birther story a lie only after Trump grudgingly retracted it. Not till he was safe in office claiming that millions of phantom immigrants cast votes for Clinton did the paper of record use the word “lie” in reference to a tale Trump was still telling.

In 2016, the precariousness of Trump’s mental health was clear to all with eyes to see, but like extras in a remake of “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” reporters averted their glances.
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 12th August 2017, 01:34 PM   #2387
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,774
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
....
I couldn't agree more with his assessment of the news media:
Not defending "the media" (which actually covers an awful lot of ground) here, but the fact is that nobody, including Trump's campaign itself, thought Trump could win. The media covered what Trump said and what he did, and that should have been enough to beat him. But for too many voters, it wasn't. It wouldn't have changed their minds if "the media" had started overtly calling him crazy.
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 August 2017, 06:39 AM   #2388
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,502
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Not defending "the media" (which actually covers an awful lot of ground) here, but the fact is that nobody, including Trump's campaign itself, thought Trump could win. The media covered what Trump said and what he did, and that should have been enough to beat him. But for too many voters, it wasn't. It wouldn't have changed their minds if "the media" had started overtly calling him crazy.
Screw the media...I'd like to know why all the medical professionals weren't shouting from the rooftops as soon as he announced his candidacy! They already had the obvious and perfectly valid medical evidence right in front of them -their TVs and their DSMs. Why did they wait until he was elected and it was too late to save the country to convene a conference on Trump's sanity? I thought they had a duty to warn the public. I guess it took them awhile to medically analyze the video footage. Maybe Skeptic Ginger can lay out the precise procedures they used to reach their diagnosis so that we can all understand why they didn't warn us sooner.

I mean, it couldn't have been the ethical considerations, right? Or the fact that there are no such precise procedures to diagnose from TV footage? Nah, it must be that they wanted to be sure.
__________________
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 August 2017, 08:02 AM   #2389
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,842
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Not defending "the media" (which actually covers an awful lot of ground) here, but the fact is that nobody, including Trump's campaign itself, thought Trump could win. The media covered what Trump said and what he did, and that should have been enough to beat him. But for too many voters, it wasn't. It wouldn't have changed their minds if "the media" had started overtly calling him crazy.
From the quote you sliced out of my post, it appears you have misinterpreted what I was referring to. This thread is about Trump having a mental illness, not about what the reporters got wrong or what would have changed voters' minds.

To clarify, I'm referring to continual comments like, 'maybe now he'll act presidential', and other comments by the news media ignoring the fact Trump's behavior would not be changing, ignoring the basis of that behavior.
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 August 2017, 08:40 AM   #2390
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,483
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Screw the media...I'd like to know why all the medical professionals weren't shouting from the rooftops as soon as he announced his candidacy! They already had the obvious and perfectly valid medical evidence right in front of them -their TVs and their DSMs. Why did they wait until he was elected and it was too late to save the country to convene a conference on Trump's sanity? I thought they had a duty to warn the public. I guess it took them awhile to medically analyze the video footage. Maybe Skeptic Ginger can lay out the precise procedures they used to reach their diagnosis so that we can all understand why they didn't warn us sooner.

I mean, it couldn't have been the ethical considerations, right? Or the fact that there are no such precise procedures to diagnose from TV footage? Nah, it must be that they wanted to be sure.


November 11, 2015: Is Donald Trump Actually a Narcissist? Therapists Weigh In!

July 22, 2016: Is Donald Trump a textbook narcissist?

October 14, 2016: Psychologists explain Trump: He's literally a narcissistic psychopath

Some people insist on sitting through a hurricane, but you can't force people to take warnings seriously.

ETA: I forgot to answer your question, "I'd like to know why all the medical professionals weren't shouting from the rooftops as soon as he announced his candidacy!" But then, I can't imagine why such a fierce advocate of the Goldwater Rule would ask that. You refuse to consider the better question, why so many did.

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 14th August 2017 at 08:45 AM.
WilliamSeger 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 August 2017, 02:31 PM   #2391
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,502
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Vanity Fair is not a medical journal. If you recall, the subject of this thread was a conference of mental health professionals at Yale Medical School.
Quote:
This piece starts off with an assessment from the esteemed mental health professional, the actor Brian Cranston. The clinicians they contacted cited the Goldwater rule in not responding. The rest is general discussion of narcissism. So again, nothing equivalent to a medical conference at Yale.

Quote:
Basically a rewrite of the Vanity Fair piece.

Quote:
Some people insist on sitting through a hurricane, but you can't force people to take warnings seriously.
What warnings? What you posted above? Those are not warnings; they're political attack pieces disguised as a psychological profile. What we have in this situation is a group of professionals who organized a conference to officially warn us that Trump had a "dangerous mental illness." This went beyond anything in your links above.

Quote:
ETA: I forgot to answer your question, "I'd like to know why all the medical professionals weren't shouting from the rooftops as soon as he announced his candidacy!" But then, I can't imagine why such a fierce advocate of the Goldwater Rule would ask that. You refuse to consider the better question, why so many did.
But they didn't. We didn't really hear a clamor from (a very small part of) the mental health community about Trump's mental state until this Yale thing. We heard plenty of grumbling from journalists in the popular press who reached out to professionals for comment -and found that not many wanted to openly say much. This Duty to Warn nonsense is very different. These professionals made the decision to speak out without prompting from anyone. My question is simple: If they think they have a duty to break ethical guidelines to warn us, why didn't they speak out in this way before the election? What was stopping them?
__________________
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 August 2017, 08:02 PM   #2392
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,483
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Vanity Fair is not a medical journal. If you recall, the subject of this thread was a conference of mental health professionals at Yale Medical School.
This piece starts off with an assessment from the esteemed mental health professional, the actor Brian Cranston. The clinicians they contacted cited the Goldwater rule in not responding. The rest is general discussion of narcissism. So again, nothing equivalent to a medical conference at Yale.

Basically a rewrite of the Vanity Fair piece.

What warnings? What you posted above? Those are not warnings; they're political attack pieces disguised as a psychological profile. What we have in this situation is a group of professionals who organized a conference to officially warn us that Trump had a "dangerous mental illness." This went beyond anything in your links above.

But they didn't. We I didn't really hear a clamor from (a very small part of) the mental health community about Trump's mental state until this Yale thing. We heard plenty of grumbling from journalists in the popular press who reached out to professionals for comment -and found that not many some wanted to openly say much. This Duty to Warn nonsense is very different. These professionals made the decision to speak out without prompting from anyone. My question is simple: If they think they have a duty to break ethical guidelines to warn us, why didn't they speak out in this way before the election? What was stopping them?
FTFY. So as long as you ignore the ones who spoke out, you can continue to ask why none spoke out? Then I have no answer for you.
WilliamSeger 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 August 2017, 09:19 PM   #2393
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,502
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
FTFY. So as long as you ignore the ones who spoke out, you can continue to ask why none spoke out? Then I have no answer for you.
Your fixes included changing "not many" to "some?"
__________________
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 August 2017, 11:32 PM   #2394
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
My nephew does this sort of thing. For example, he has evaluated police candidates to see if they are mentally fit to be on the force. If I asked him about Trump he would probably say that he would need a more direct and detailed questionnaire to assess Trump's mental fitness.

However, there is a simple evaluation list from Dr. Phil's book, "Life Code". In the book, he talks about toxic people he calls BAITERs (Backstabbers, Abusers, Imposters, Takers, Exploiters and Reckless) and that evil people are all around us. The key to protecting yourself from BAITERs, he says, is to know how to spot them. Let's see how Trump stacks up:

Evil 8 characteristics

1.) Arrogant Entitlement
2.) Lack of Empathy
3.) No Remorse
4.) Irresponsible/Self-Destructive
5.) Thrive on Drama
6.) Brag about Outsmarting
7.) Short-Term Relationships
8.) Fantasy World/Delusional

Nefarious 15 tactics

1.) Infiltrate your life
2.) Create Conspiratorial Conflict
3.) Depend on Approval
4.) Build a file
5.) Misdirect and Obfuscate (Obfuscation (or beclouding) is the hiding of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, wilfully ambiguous, and harder to interpret.)
6.) Blame Others
7.) Lie
8.) Frauds/Cheaters
9.) Isolate Victims
10.) Abuse Authority
11.) Press Hot buttons
12.) Revisionist of History
13.) Two-faced/Gossip
14.) Paranoid
15.) Passive-Aggressive

Some of these might be less clear.

1. Infiltrate: Baiters seduce people with lots of compliments and promises! Mr. McGraw acknowledges that this approach might be used by a person who is genuinely interested in you and your wellbeing. However, Phil does suggest that we be wary of people who only seem to ever tell us what we want to hear.

5. Misdirect: Baiters keep the mystery about themselves going and give you answers to questions you never asked! This one probably seems like a no-brainer but some Baiters have been playing this game for a really long time. End result? If you aren’t watching for this one you might not pick up on it until its way too late. The simplest way to figure out what they’re up to is by observing conversations you have with them. They might seem scatterbrain, constantly fixating on irrelevant facts. However, some folks know exactly what they are doing; sometimes hanging themselves by answering questions you never even asked. In short; they are incapable of genuine conversations and will often reveal their true intentions without meaning to.

Last edited by barehl; 14th August 2017 at 11:49 PM.
barehl 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 August 2017, 10:02 AM   #2395
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,502
LOL @ Dr. Phil citation.

That was a joke, right?
__________________
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 15th August 2017, 05:03 PM   #2396
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,521
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
LOL @ Dr. Phil citation.

That was a joke, right?
He's a doctor. Therefore you have to accept that everything he does is authoritatively medical.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
theprestige 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 16th August 2017, 09:40 AM   #2397
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
However, there is a simple evaluation list from Dr. Phil's book, "Life Code".
Lol... give me a moment. Pretty sure I can come up with a checklist based on observations by Dr. Asimov. Pretty sure they'll be more objective.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 03:36 AM   #2398
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,483
A New Bill Would Require Donald Trump To Undergo Mental Health Evaluation

Originally Posted by HuffPost
A new bill introduced in the House of Representatives would require President Donald Trump to undergo a physical and mental health exam to determine if he is stable enough to stay in office.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) introduced the bill on Friday. Should the results of the said exam be unfavorable, the bill calls for Vice President Mike Pence and members of the Cabinet to remove Trump from office.

The move would invoke the 25th Amendment, a rarely-used constitutional provision that allows the vice president and a majority of Cabinet members to jointly remove the president from office and replace him with the vice president.
WilliamSeger 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 20th August 2017, 04:52 AM   #2399
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,696
That will never pass.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon 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 20th August 2017, 09:55 AM   #2400
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,521
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
That will never pass.
Even if it did, I'm pretty sure it would unconstitutionally infringe on the authority and independence of the executive branch.

Congress can't compel the Cabinet to invoke the 25th.

And if you read the amendment, it wouldn't work anyway. The criteria is whether the president can put in writing that he's competent. According to the 25th, Trump could probably override the Cabinet with a tweet.



This signature is intended to irradiate people.
theprestige 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
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 12:58 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.