IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 !MOD BOX WARNING! , donald trump , mental illness issues , psychiatry incidents , psychiatry issues , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 29th August 2022, 12:30 PM   #2081
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The thing is that mental illness is largely defined by thinking and behavior. There's no MRI for malignant narcissism or borderline personality disorder or OCD or anything else in the DSM. And a lot of mental illness is an extreme extension of behavior that we generally consider normal, even desirable: We want people to feel good about themselves in a realistic way; success at most endeavors requires attention to accuracy and detail that doesn't become paralyzing obsession; etc., etc. When a Trump is displaying all the thinking and behavior that define identifiable mental illness, it really doesn't make much sense to tell experts that they can say they don't like the behavior, but can't share their educated observations about the cause.
Exactly!
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2022, 01:42 PM   #2082
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
One important element of severe mental illness is a disconnection from reality. More evidence:
Quote:
Former President Donald Trump on Monday took time off from melting down over the FBI executing a search warrant at his home to seize classified documents to demand that he be installed as commander-in-chief of the United States—22 months after he decisively lost the 2020 race.

The twice-impeached ex-president, though, did propose a “minimal solution” if he is not returned to the White House right away: Declare the 2020 vote “irreparably compromised” and hold a new one “immediately.”
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-demands...174020566.html
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2022, 06:48 PM   #2083
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The thing is that mental illness is largely defined by thinking and behavior.
Mental illness is defined as a pattern of thoughts and behavior (as you said) that causes distress to someone or interferes in their day-to-day life (which you didn’t say). That second part of the definition is important.

When someone gets physically sick, it causes distress and interferes with day-to-day life. They seek treatment because they want to “get back to normal,” to be cured. It’s important then, to know the cause of the illness -to properly diagnose- so that the appropriate treatment can be found. This is the basis of modern medicine.

Psychiatry is a part of modern medicine. The goal of Psychiatry is to relieve distress and restore day-to-day function as much as possible. As the APA says in one of the commentaries I linked to way back, the goal is certainly not to contribute to stigmatization of the mentally ill. When we start putting labels on people outside of treatment goals, that’s exactly what we are doing. We are saying that Trump is dangerous because he’s mentally ill. There’s no context there; there’s no deeper understanding in the general public like there might be amongst professionals. The public hears, “mentally ill = dangerous.”


Quote:
There's no MRI for malignant narcissism or borderline personality disorder or OCD or anything else in the DSM.
But there are objective tools that can be used to guide diagnosis. Besides the battery of validated questionnaires/tests/assessments, there are structured/semi-structured interview techniques and the actual therapeutic relationship that develops between physician and patient. Psychiatry isn’t as cut and dried as physics medicine, but that doesn’t mean it should focus solely on subjective interpretations of behavior.

Quote:
And a lot of mental illness is an extreme extension of behavior that we generally consider normal, even desirable: We want people to feel good about themselves in a realistic way; success at most endeavors requires attention to accuracy and detail that doesn't become paralyzing obsession; etc., etc. When a Trump is displaying all the thinking and behavior that define identifiable mental illness, it really doesn't make much sense to tell experts that they can say they don't like the behavior, but can't share their educated observations about the cause.
Im just not sure what the cause is supposed to mean outside a therapeutic relationship. It draws too close a connection between “mental illness,” and “bad person.”
__________________
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 29th August 2022, 07:00 PM   #2084
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness' say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 3

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Nowhere did I say they always exhibit dangerous behaviour. I agree it's wrong to assume that which is why I didn't assume or say that. I've agreed with you in the past that mental illness does not equate to being dangerous and that most mentally ill people are more a danger to themselves than to others.



I agree.
If you agree, then it doesn’t make sense that you are OK with professionals linking “bad behavior” with “mental illness” in public discourse.



Quote:
Trump's behavior is directly due to his type of mental illness. His type of mental illness and his behavior are not separate; they are cause and effect. He would not behave the way does if he did not have NPD and/or APD. He meets the criteria for both.
This implies that absent mental illness, people don’t act in a dangerous/bad way. That’s certainly not true. Mental illness may indeed cause bad behavior, but that doesn’t mean bad behavior is always the result of mental illness. It’s certainly possible that Trump is not mentally ill and is just a bad person. You can’t dismiss that.

As long as I we agree that mental illness doesn’t always cause bad behavior, then I don’t see what is gained in bringing up mental illness in public discourse.

Quote:
I disagree. There is no room for argument that Trump is dangerously mentally ill if one removes the bias blinders and looks only at what he has actually done.
There is plenty of room for argument; just ask Allen Frances and other like minded docs.
Quote:
You keep making the erroneous connection between his case and mental illness in general. I also disagree that this casts "the Psychiatry profession in a bad light".
If most of the conversation about mental illness that makes national headlines/public discourse concerns people who do bad things, then 1)the connection makes itself and 2)I think it does cast Psychiatry in a bad light.




Quote:
No, the GR is outdated in some cases because of advances in technology which provide far more evidence on which to base a diagnosis now without a personal interview than when it was instituted in 1973. There are decades of recorded interviews with Trump, decades of documented behavior, decades of information from those who know him, etc. An in-person interview with him would not counter all that when it comes to checking the DSM criteria boxes. Additionally, Trump would never, ever submit to an in-person psychological exam. It's time to stop hiding behind the G. Rule.
Which advancements do you have in mind?
__________________
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 29th August 2022, 07:02 PM   #2085
arayder
Illuminator
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,402
Crazy is as crazy does.
arayder 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 29th August 2022, 07:49 PM   #2086
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Mental illness is defined as a pattern of thoughts and behavior (as you said) that causes distress to someone or interferes in their day-to-day life (which you didn’t say). That second part of the definition is important.

When someone gets physically sick, it causes distress and interferes with day-to-day life. They seek treatment because they want to “get back to normal,” to be cured. It’s important then, to know the cause of the illness -to properly diagnose- so that the appropriate treatment can be found. This is the basis of modern medicine.
.....
What you're describing is the model of psychotherapy as treatment: "Doc, I wanna feel better." However, there is also the model of forensic psychiatry, which is not intended to help a patient but to inform and protect the community. A serial killer might feel great about what he's doing and hope to keep doing it, but authorities can order a psychiatric exam -- even against his will -- to determine whether he's fit for trial or whether he's a candidate for parole. The psychiatric assessment of Trump is closer to a forensic exam: "How dangerous is this guy?" By all accounts, Ted Bundy and the BTK Killer were charming.

I also note again that the President plays a unique role in our society, and he is endowed with unique powers. Trump's acolytes are now claiming that he can never be prosecuted for anything, in office or out. The conventions (I wouldn't even call them "rules") that apply for most of us if we see a shrink just don't apply to somebody who has access to the nuclear codes.

Last edited by Bob001; 29th August 2022 at 07:51 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2022, 06:22 AM   #2087
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
We are saying that Trump is dangerous because he’s mentally ill. There’s no context there; there’s no deeper understanding in the general public like there might be amongst professionals.
Here's the context: Trump is dangerous because all of these things are true:
  • Trump is mentally ill, at least to the extent that NPD is mental illness.
  • Trump became one of the most powerful men in the world, and still retains considerable influence.
  • Millions of people believe insane things and act upon those insane beliefs for no better reason than because their political tribe anointed Trump as leader.
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
It’s certainly possible that Trump is not mentally ill and is just a bad person. You can’t dismiss that.
Actually, we can. Trump is mentally ill. Trump is also a bad person.

If Trump were mentally ill but also a good person, it wouldn't be a problem.

If Trump were not mentally ill, but also a bad person, that would be a problem. On the other hand, there would be more reason to hope his evil could be moderated by his sanity.
W.D.Clinger 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 30th August 2022, 06:31 AM   #2088
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
Again we can address the Elephant in the room

Good people with mental illness who aren't horrible manchild trolls don't have to be this defensive of a bad person with a mental illness who is a man child troll.

Saying Trump has a mental illness isn't a direct personal attack on you.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue 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 30th August 2022, 07:34 AM   #2089
arayder
Illuminator
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,402
Trump seems unable to moderate his behavior.

There are certainly times when all of us have that problem. But Trump keeps talking and working his way into deeper legal, political and financial troubles even when he he is given solid advice to do otherwise.

To my way of thinking a mental illnesses is problematic when a behavior significantly hinders an individual's ability to function.

It seems to me Trump has crossed that line.
arayder 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 30th August 2022, 09:52 AM   #2090
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
.....
If Trump were not mentally ill, but also a bad person, that would be a problem. On the other hand, there would be more reason to hope his evil could be moderated by his sanity.
We would also hope that a sane person would recognize his own rational self-interest. Some of the worst things Trump has done, like his failed pandemic response, are the result of his delusional thinking. Literally hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved if Trump had modeled wearing a mask from the beginning. Instead he refused because it wasn't "a good look," and he insisted it would all go away "like magic." He could have said that a deadly contagious disease is not a partisan issue. He could have been a national hero if he had acted on what was good for his fellow Americans. But he didn't.
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 30th August 2022, 09:58 AM   #2091
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
What you're describing is the model of psychotherapy as treatment: "Doc, I wanna feel better." However, there is also the model of forensic psychiatry, which is not intended to help a patient but to inform and protect the community.
That makes it sound like Forensic Psychiatry is some kind of public watchdog group or something; no, it’s about applying psychiatric principles to legal and corporate contexts.

Quote:
A serial killer might feel great about what he's doing and hope to keep doing it, but authorities can order a psychiatric exam -- even against his will -- to determine whether he's fit for trial or whether he's a candidate for parole.
Yes, but the Forensic Psychiatrist meets and interviews the killer and has a history of them: their medical records, interviews with family and acquaintances, their criminal history and their behavior in prison. There are objective assessment tools they use. It’s not just reading newspaper articles and watching tv stories.
Quote:
The psychiatric assessment of Trump is closer to a forensic exam: "How dangerous is this guy?" By all accounts, Ted Bundy and the BTK Killer were charming.
It’s nothing like a forensic exam. They didn’t meet and interview Trump or any family/acquaintances; there’s no evidence of objective tools being used or a review of Trump’s records -there are no such records available. What we have is doctors saying things like “I know dangerous when I see it.” That isn’t objective at all.

Bundy and BTK both had histories of brutal murders. They did some really shocking stuff before they encountered the mental health system. We don’t have anything like that in Trump’s case. He was merely a businessman who had some success and a lot of failure. He was a celebrity who built a brand and used it to sell stuff. He didn’t murder anyone; he didn’t have any criminal history at all. He wasn’t a good guy by any means, at least in my opinion, but the comparison with Bundy and BTK (and the applicability of Forensic Psych in general) is way off base.

Quote:
I also note again that the President plays a unique role in our society, and he is endowed with unique powers. Trump's acolytes are now claiming that he can never be prosecuted for anything, in office or out. The conventions (I wouldn't even call them "rules") that apply for most of us if we see a shrink just don't apply to somebody who has access to the nuclear codes.
But those conventions do apply. There is no mental fitness evaluation for Presidential candidates. They are entitled to medical privacy just like the rest of us. That isn’t going to change.

I’ve made my ethical and practical reasoning very clear for years in this thread and there’s no need to keep rehashing everything all over again -it’s clear we disagree.
__________________
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 30th August 2022, 10:00 AM   #2092
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Here's the context: Trump is dangerous because all of these things are true:
  • Trump is mentally ill, at least to the extent that NPD is mental illness.
  • Trump became one of the most powerful men in the world, and still retains considerable influence.
  • Millions of people believe insane things and act upon those insane beliefs for no better reason than because their political tribe anointed Trump as leader.

Actually, we can. Trump is mentally ill. Trump is also a bad person.

If Trump were mentally ill but also a good person, it wouldn't be a problem.

If Trump were not mentally ill, but also a bad person, that would be a problem. On the other hand, there would be more reason to hope his evil could be moderated by his sanity.

So what’s important is that he’s a bad person, not that he’s mentally ill. We know he’s a bad person because of the things he does.

Mental illness is completely irrelevant, by your own logic.
__________________
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 30th August 2022, 01:05 PM   #2093
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Here's the context: Trump is dangerous because all of these things are true:
  • Trump is mentally ill, at least to the extent that NPD is mental illness.
  • Trump became one of the most powerful men in the world, and still retains considerable influence.
  • Millions of people believe insane things and act upon those insane beliefs for no better reason than because their political tribe anointed Trump as leader.

Actually, we can. Trump is mentally ill. Trump is also a bad person.

If Trump were mentally ill but also a good person, it wouldn't be a problem.

If Trump were not mentally ill, but also a bad person, that would be a problem. On the other hand, there would be more reason to hope his evil could be moderated by his sanity.

So what’s important is that he’s a bad person, not that he’s mentally ill. We know he’s a bad person because of the things he does.

Mental illness is completely irrelevant, by your own logic.
No. The last sentence of my post is part of my own logic.

You ignored that sentence, because your own logic is inadequate to address the point I made without pretending I hadn't written that sentence.

Bob001 understood that sentence, and expanded upon it. You may have understood that sentence as well, but acknowledging that sentence would have been inconvenient for your argument, so you pretended the sentence hadn't been written.
W.D.Clinger 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 30th August 2022, 02:15 PM   #2094
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Nowhere did I say they always exhibit dangerous behaviour. I agree it's wrong to assume that which is why I didn't assume or say that. I've agreed with you in the past that mental illness does not equate to being dangerous and that most mentally ill people are more a danger to themselves than to others.
Quote:
I agree.
If you agree, then it doesn’t make sense that you are OK with professionals linking “bad behavior” with “mental illness” in public discourse.
What I specifically agreed with and quoted was this which you did not include in your quote:
Quote:
That’s why I feel it’s so important to separate the two in public discourse
I agreed that 'mental illness' and 'dangerous behavior', not 'bad behavior' as you stated above, need to be separated as I clearly mentioned in the part you did quote. It needs to be made clear that most people with mental illness are not dangerous. But this does not apply to Trump because he IS dangerous...not personally violent...but dangerous in his lying, undermining our democracy, inciting an attempted coup and his criminal activity.

Quote:
This implies that absent mental illness, people don’t act in a dangerous/bad way. That’s certainly not true.
No, it does not. That is what you are trying, in vain, to connect.

Quote:
Mental illness may indeed cause bad behavior, but that doesn’t mean bad behavior is always the result of mental illness.
No one is saying that. Yet you continue to claim it's being said.

Quote:
It’s certainly possible that Trump is not mentally ill and is just a bad person. You can’t dismiss that.
It's possible. It's also possible that his meeting the vast majority of the criteria for diagnosing mental illness doesn't really indicate he has a mental illness. It's also possible that he's the healthiest president ever with the body of a man half his age.

Quote:
As long as I we agree that mental illness doesn’t always cause bad behavior, then I don’t see what is gained in bringing up mental illness in public discourse.
Because sometimes it's the mental illness that does cause bad behavior. Trying to pretend it doesn't is just as bad as saying it always is the cause of bad behavior.

Quote:
There is plenty of room for argument; just ask Allen Frances and other like minded docs. If most of the conversation about mental illness that makes national headlines/public discourse concerns people who do bad things, then 1)the connection makes itself and 2)I think it does cast Psychiatry in a bad light.
The things that make national headlines about mental illness often make those headlines for a reason: something really bad happened. Or do you think headlines are made because a depressed person killed himself or a homeless schizophrenic was found wandering the streets?

I do agree that it needs to be made clear when a situation like a mass shooting occurs whether or not the shooter actually had a dangerous mental illness: the vast majority do not and have other motives. But you wouldn't know that by the way the gun rights advocates make that false connection in order to justify the lack of gun control: "It's not the guns, it's the mental illness" had become their go to excuse.

Quote:
Which advancements do you have in mind?
I misspoke when I used that phrase. I intended to mean...and did say... that there are far more sources of evidence available on public figures than there used to be on which to base a conclusion about someone's mental state:

" There are decades of recorded interviews with Trump, decades of documented behavior, decades of information from those who know him, etc."
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2022, 02:16 PM   #2095
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
What you're describing is the model of psychotherapy as treatment: "Doc, I wanna feel better." However, there is also the model of forensic psychiatry, which is not intended to help a patient but to inform and protect the community. A serial killer might feel great about what he's doing and hope to keep doing it, but authorities can order a psychiatric exam -- even against his will -- to determine whether he's fit for trial or whether he's a candidate for parole. The psychiatric assessment of Trump is closer to a forensic exam: "How dangerous is this guy?" By all accounts, Ted Bundy and the BTK Killer were charming.

I also note again that the President plays a unique role in our society, and he is endowed with unique powers. Trump's acolytes are now claiming that he can never be prosecuted for anything, in office or out. The conventions (I wouldn't even call them "rules") that apply for most of us if we see a shrink just don't apply to somebody who has access to the nuclear codes.
Well said.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2022, 02:36 PM   #2096
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That makes it sound like Forensic Psychiatry is some kind of public watchdog group or something; no, it’s about applying psychiatric principles to legal and corporate contexts.

Yes, but the Forensic Psychiatrist meets and interviews the killer and has a history of them: their medical records, interviews with family and acquaintances, their criminal history and their behavior in prison. There are objective assessment tools they use. It’s not just reading newspaper articles and watching tv stories. It’s nothing like a forensic exam. They didn’t meet and interview Trump or any family/acquaintances; there’s no evidence of objective tools being used or a review of Trump’s records -there are no such records available. What we have is doctors saying things like “I know dangerous when I see it.” That isn’t objective at all.
Do you think the mental health officials who think Trump has a mental disorder just read newspaper articles or watched TV stories? No. They have watched his actions, behaviors, and listened to his many interviews over decades. They've studied what family members, including his niece and sister, and those who have worked with him have said. These are objective assessment tools they have used. What we have is far more than doctors saying things like "I know dangerous when I see it". We have

Quote:
Over 70,000 health professionals even signed a petition, saying “Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States.”
and

Quote:
Last, in December 2019, several hundred mental health professionals sent a statement to the House Judiciary Committee members to express their concerns that due to his “brittle sense of self-worth,” Trump may act more dangerously as his impeachment approaches.
Their concern was well based considering what has happened since the 2020 election.

Quote:
[b]Psychologist Scott O. Lilienfeld and colleagues have taken issue with the application of the Goldwater Rule in psychology. They note the rule rests on the assumption that in-person interviews are necessary for an accurate diagnosis. In reality, “not only are in-person interviews subject to a host of biases,” but “carefully collected [observational data] can often yield information of equal or higher validity as direct interview data.” In addition, “diagnostic information of high validity can frequently be extracted from file information alone”[/B] (p. 19).
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2022, 03:20 PM   #2097
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
No. The last sentence of my post is part of my own logic.

You ignored that sentence, because your own logic is inadequate to address the point I made without pretending I hadn't written that sentence.

Bob001 understood that sentence, and expanded upon it. You may have understood that sentence as well, but acknowledging that sentence would have been inconvenient for your argument, so you pretended the sentence hadn't been written.

That last sentence is irrelevant wishful thinking that really has little to do with the argument you present. Fundamentally, you view the bad behavior as the problem, regardless of any present mental illness. I agree with that position.

Plenty of sane people engage in bad behavior. Their sanity is not a mitigating factor. Therefore, their mental state is irrelevant.

You laid out my position as to why mental illness is irrelevant pretty clearly. Even if you didn’t mean to.
__________________
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 30th August 2022, 04:53 PM   #2098
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2022, 05:31 PM   #2099
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That last sentence is irrelevant wishful thinking that really has little to do with the argument you present. Fundamentally, you view the bad behavior as the problem, regardless of any present mental illness. I agree with that position.

Plenty of sane people engage in bad behavior. Their sanity is not a mitigating factor. Therefore, their mental state is irrelevant.

You laid out my position as to why mental illness is irrelevant pretty clearly. Even if you didn’t mean to.
Since you think I laid out your position "pretty clearly", I will continue to explain your position. It is of course possible that you will quibble with my ongoing characterization of your position, just as so many in this thread have had cause to complain about your misrepresentations of their positions.

On Monday, Donald Trump posted the following:
Originally Posted by Trump
So now it comes out, conclusively, that the FBI BURIED THE HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY BEFORE THE ELECTION knowing that, if they didn’t, “Trump would have easily won the 2020 Presidential Election.” This is massive FRAUD & ELECTION INTERFERENCE at a level never seen before in our Country. REMEDY: Declare the rightful winner or, and this would be the minimal solution, declare the 2020 Election irreparably compromised and have a new Election, immediately!
Such delusions of grandeur are often associated with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Trump doesn't believe himself to be Napoleon, but he does believe himself to be the rightful president of the United States.

Trump's mental illness is dangerous because his NPD is the source of Trump's grandiose delusions, which are dangerous because Trump's public posturing has led millions of people (of whom only a few are mentally ill) to share Trump's delusions, and we have seen plenty of violence motivated by those delusions.

It seems, therefore, that xjx388 must believe at least one of these things:
  • Trump really is the rightful president of the United States.
  • Trump's delusions of grandeur are not related to his mental illness.
  • Trump's delusions pose no danger.
I look forward to xjx388 telling us which of those three beliefs, if any, xjx388 chooses to reject.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 30th August 2022 at 05:34 PM. Reason: rephrased final sentence for clarity
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2022, 12:50 PM   #2100
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Since you think I laid out your position "pretty clearly", I will continue to explain your position. It is of course possible that you will quibble with my ongoing characterization of your position, just as so many in this thread have had cause to complain about your misrepresentations of their positions.

On Monday, Donald Trump posted the following:

Such delusions of grandeur are often associated with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Trump doesn't believe himself to be Napoleon, but he does believe himself to be the rightful president of the United States.

Trump's mental illness is dangerous because his NPD is the source of Trump's grandiose delusions, which are dangerous because Trump's public posturing has led millions of people (of whom only a few are mentally ill) to share Trump's delusions, and we have seen plenty of violence motivated by those delusions.

It seems, therefore, that xjx388 must believe at least one of these things:
  • Trump really is the rightful president of the United States.
  • Trump's delusions of grandeur are not related to his mental illness.
  • Trump's delusions pose no danger.
I look forward to xjx388 telling us which of those three beliefs, if any, xjx388 chooses to reject.
You present a false dilemma. I don’t believe any of those three statements.

I believe that it doesn’t matter what the underlying cause is of “Trump’s public posturing.” Whether it’s a delusion of grandeur, a genuine mistaken belief, blatant lying to manipulate his followers or some combination thereof, the result is the same: Trump says and does things that make him unfit to be President.

Mental illness can exist without danger. Danger can exist without mental illness. Therefore, mental illness itself is irrelevant. What is important is the danger.
__________________
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 4th September 2022, 01:57 PM   #2101
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post

Mental illness can exist without danger.
No one has claimed otherwise.
Quote:
Danger can exist without mental illness.
No one has claimed otherwise.

Quote:
Therefore, mental illness itself is irrelevant. What is important is the danger.
False. This is where your argument falls apart because you cannot separate mental illness from the behavior that results from that mental illness.


A mental illness is defined by the behavior. That's why there are specific behavioral criteria for being diagnosed with a specific mental illness.

For example, in the DSM-V, in order to diagnose APD, at least one of these behaviors must be present:


Quote:
A. Disregard for and violation of others rights since age 15, as indicated by one of the seven sub features:

1. Failure to obey laws and norms by engaging in behavior which results in criminal arrest, or would warrant criminal arrest

2. Lying, deception, and manipulation, for profit or self-amusement,

3. Impulsive behavior

4. Irritability and aggression, manifested as frequently assaults others, or engages in fighting

5. Blatantly disregards safety of self and others,

6. A pattern of irresponsibility and

7. Lack of remorse for actions (American Psychiatric Association, 2013)
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2022, 03:02 PM   #2102
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Mental illness can exist without danger. Danger can exist without mental illness. Therefore, mental illness itself is irrelevant. What is important is the danger.
Many people believe what Trump says, and believe that he will act in the nation's best interest. If they understood that Trump has a mental disorder that causes one to tell self-aggrandizing lies and to be motivated purely by self-interest, perhaps some of them wouldn't believe him or trust him to act in the nation's best interest.

I consider that relevant.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2022, 06:21 PM   #2103
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No one has claimed otherwise.


No one has claimed otherwise.
This is clearly false, as illustrated nicely by the next thing you say:

Quote:
False. This is where your argument falls apart because you cannot separate mental illness from the behavior that results from that mental illness.
You are, therefore, quite explicitly claiming that behavior cannot be separated from mental illness. At least in Trump’s specific case, which sounds a lot like special pleading.

Put another way, if the Yale Group had never come out with anything publicly, would you have been OK with the way Trump behaved? Of course not! You would have (rightly, in my opinion) condemned his behavior just as much.

Quote:
A mental illness is defined by the behavior.
Not all by itself, it must certainly does not.
Quote:
That's why there are specific behavioral criteria for being diagnosed with a specific mental illness.

For example, in the DSM-V, in order to diagnose APD, at least one of these behaviors must be present:
So anyone who is arrested or gets into fights or engages in any kind of behavior that puts themselves at risk after age 15 has APD? Surely you understand that it’s not so simple.
__________________
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 4th September 2022, 06:59 PM   #2104
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
Many people believe what Trump says, and believe that he will act in the nation's best interest. If they understood that Trump has a mental disorder that causes one to tell self-aggrandizing lies and to be motivated purely by self-interest, perhaps some of them wouldn't believe him or trust him to act in the nation's best interest.

I consider that relevant.

His followers and a large chunk of the voting public have heard the “dangerously mentally ill” stuff and have rejected it. 74 million people voted for him in 2020 after the Yale Group, et al, not only had their conference but spent a lot of time making the media rounds “warning” us about Trump’s dangerous mental illness. He may run again in 2024 and could even win again.

This is a problem much deeper than one dude’s behavior. It’s the product of a deeply divided American voting public and a party who has learned they can tap the mistrust and conspiratorial part of that public for political gain.
__________________
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 4th September 2022, 07:35 PM   #2105
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
This is clearly false, as illustrated nicely by the next thing you say:
Nope. I'm beginning to suspect you are either deliberately being obtuse or are just intellectually dishonest.

You said :"Mental illness can exist without danger," and "Danger can exist without mental illness."

I said, "This is where your argument falls apart because you cannot separate mental illness from the behavior that results from that mental illness."

Not all behavior that is a result of mental illness is dangerous. A person who has OCD is not dangerous. But the OCD BEHAVIOR and HAVING OCD are not separate. They are completely connected. One cannot exist without the other. Or do you want to contend that a person with OCD does not display OCD behavior and that a person with OCD behavior does not have OCD?

I think it's obvious that danger can exist without mental illness. Will you at least concede that?


Quote:
You are, therefore, quite explicitly claiming that behavior cannot be separated from mental illness.
Oh, for heaven's sake. Behavior, in general, does not have to be due to mental illness. Behaving like a moron when drunk doesn't mean you have a mental illness. BUT, when your behavior MEETS THE CRITERIA THAT DETERMINES A DIAGNOSIS OF MENTAL ILLNESS, then they cannot be separated. That behavior is the result of that mental illness. I really don't know now to make it any more simple.

Quote:
At least in Trump’s specific case, which sounds a lot like special pleading.
Oh,Jesus Christ on a pogo stick.

Quote:
Put another way, if the Yale Group had never come out with anything publicly, would you have been OK with the way Trump behaved? Of course not! You would have (rightly, in my opinion) condemned his behavior just as much.
Put another way, that makes about as much sense as the rest of your post.

Quote:
Not all by itself, it must certainly does not. So anyone who is arrested or gets into fights or engages in any kind of behavior that puts themselves at risk after age 15 has APD? Surely you understand that it’s not so simple.
I give up. When you come with such a ridiculous post it just shows me that you're being intellectually dishonest...and that makes it impossible to have a conversation with you. Die on this hill, if you must.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2022, 08:59 PM   #2106
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Nope. I'm beginning to suspect you are either deliberately being obtuse or are just intellectually dishonest.
That’s completely unfair. We disagree with each other completely. This doesn’t not mean that either of us is being intentionally obtuse or intellectually dishonest.

Quote:
You said :"Mental illness can exist without danger," and "Danger can exist without mental illness."

I said, "This is where your argument falls apart because you cannot separate mental illness from the behavior that results from that mental illness."

Not all behavior that is a result of mental illness is dangerous. A person who has OCD is not dangerous. But the OCD BEHAVIOR and HAVING OCD are not separate. They are completely connected. One cannot exist without the other. Or do you want to contend that a person with OCD does not display OCD behavior and that a person with OCD behavior does not have OCD?
I would say that some people might display behaviors that fit into some list of DSM criteria without actually being mentally ill. Your example of APD criteria is illustrative.

The criteria says a person only needs one of the behaviors on the list. Being arrested after age 15 is on that list. However, it would be absurd to say that an arrest means that a person must have APD. There is more to diagnosing APD (or any mental illness) than checking boxes on a list.

Quote:
I think it's obvious that danger can exist without mental illness. Will you at least concede that?
Concede it? I have directly stated it.

Quote:
Oh, for heaven's sake. Behavior, in general, does not have to be due to mental illness. Behaving like a moron when drunk doesn't mean you have a mental illness. BUT, when your behavior MEETS THE CRITERIA THAT DETERMINES A DIAGNOSIS OF MENTAL ILLNESS, then they cannot be separated. That behavior is the result of that mental illness. I really don't know now to make it any more simple.
I understand your point. I just don’t see what difference it makes.

Someone lies a lot. I mean, maybe they do so because it’s connected to a mental illness. Maybe they do it because they’ve learned it gets them what they want. All I am concerned with is the fact that they are a liar. I’m not going to do business with them, I’m not going to be friends with them and I’m certainly not going to vote them into the Presidency. What good is the knowledge that the lying is connected to a mental illness? What possible difference could it make?
__________________
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 4th September 2022, 09:07 PM   #2107
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Yeah, sure, OK.....
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2022, 05:10 AM   #2108
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
Shush! Stop talking about Trump being mentally ill. We need him to be certified of sound mind when he takes the stand in his own defense (then we will see the real crazy).
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets 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 5th September 2022, 05:16 AM   #2109
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
With my highlighting:
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Since you think I laid out your position "pretty clearly", I will continue to explain your position. It is of course possible that you will quibble with my ongoing characterization of your position, just as so many in this thread have had cause to complain about your misrepresentations of their positions.

On Monday, Donald Trump posted the following:

Such delusions of grandeur are often associated with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Trump doesn't believe himself to be Napoleon, but he does believe himself to be the rightful president of the United States.

Trump's mental illness is dangerous because his NPD is the source of Trump's grandiose delusions, which are dangerous because Trump's public posturing has led millions of people (of whom only a few are mentally ill) to share Trump's delusions, and we have seen plenty of violence motivated by those delusions.

It seems, therefore, that xjx388 must believe at least one of these things:
  • Trump really is the rightful president of the United States.
  • Trump's delusions of grandeur are not related to his mental illness.
  • Trump's delusions pose no danger.
I look forward to xjx388 telling us which of those three beliefs, if any, xjx388 chooses to reject.
You present a false dilemma. I don’t believe any of those three statements.

I believe that it doesn’t matter what the underlying cause is of “Trump’s public posturing.” Whether it’s a delusion of grandeur, a genuine mistaken belief, blatant lying to manipulate his followers or some combination thereof, the result is the same: Trump says and does things that make him unfit to be President.

Mental illness can exist without danger. Danger can exist without mental illness. Therefore, mental illness itself is irrelevant. What is important is the danger.
You say you don't believe any of those three statements. Let's look at the logical consequences of the non-beliefs you assert.

The most interesting of the three statements is
Trump's delusions of grandeur are not related to his mental illness.
There are essentially three reasons you might not believe that statement:
  • You don't believe Trump has delusions of grandeur.
  • You don't believe Trump has a mental illness.
  • You accept that Trump has delusions of grandeur and is mentally ill, and you believe his delusions of grandeur are related to his mental illness.
If you don't believe Trump has delusions has delusions of grandeur, then you haven't been paying attention.

If you don't believe Trump has a mental illness, then you haven't been paying attention to his narcissistic personality disorder. If you don't believe Trump has a narcissistic personality disorder, then you should offer some evidence in support of your diagnosis of Trump's non-NPD.

If you accept that Trump has delusions of grandeur and is mentally ill, and also accept that his delusions of grandeur are related to his mental illness, then you are essentially saying we should just ignore Trump's mental illness when contemplating the danger posed by Trump's delusions of grandeur.

Yes, mental illness can exist without danger. Trump's mental illness, for example, would not be very dangerous at all if Trump were some homeless person whose homelessness has resulted from his belief that he's the king of France.

Yes, danger can exist without mental illness. Indeed, most danger is unrelated to mental illness.

Those things are true, but your conclusion does not follow:
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Mental illness can exist without danger. Danger can exist without mental illness. Therefore, mental illness itself is irrelevant. What is important is the danger.
Mental illness is relevant in this particular case because, although mental illness is not always dangerous, and danger is not always caused by mental illness, the particular dangers I and many others have identified in this thread are associated with, and to a considerable extent caused by, Donald Trump's NPD, which is a mental illness.

Yes, that danger is important. When a danger is important, identifying the cause of the danger is often important as well, because the cause(s) often suggest ways to avoid or to ameliorate the danger. In this particular case, it is important for you and millions of others to accept that Donald Trump's belief that he is the rightful president of the United States is a consequence of his mental illness rather than a consequence of facts.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 5th September 2022 at 05:28 AM. Reason: rewrote one paragraph
W.D.Clinger 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 5th September 2022, 05:41 AM   #2110
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
Many people believe what Trump says, and believe that he will act in the nation's best interest. If they understood that Trump has a mental disorder that causes one to tell self-aggrandizing lies and to be motivated purely by self-interest, perhaps some of them wouldn't believe him or trust him to act in the nation's best interest.

I consider that relevant.

His followers and a large chunk of the voting public have heard the “dangerously mentally ill” stuff and have rejected it. 74 million people voted for him in 2020 after the Yale Group, et al, not only had their conference but spent a lot of time making the media rounds “warning” us about Trump’s dangerous mental illness. He may run again in 2024 and could even win again.

This is a problem much deeper than one dude’s behavior. It’s the product of a deeply divided American voting public and a party who has learned they can tap the mistrust and conspiratorial part of that public for political gain.
Yes, the problem is much deeper than one dude's behavior. You, however, are refusing to face the fact that understanding the reasons for this particular dude's behavior would help millions of people to understand that his delusions of grandeur are rooted in a mental illness rather than fact.

Yes, it is likely that there will still be many millions of people who never acknowledge Trump's mental illness and its contribution to the problem you deplore. It would be nice if you were not one of those millions of people, but that's for you to decide.
W.D.Clinger 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 5th September 2022, 06:19 AM   #2111
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
His followers and a large chunk of the voting public have heard the “dangerously mentally ill” stuff and have rejected it.
You've been arguing that they SHOULD reject it!

Quote:
74 million people voted for him in 2020 after the Yale Group, et al, not only had their conference but spent a lot of time making the media rounds “warning” us about Trump’s dangerous mental illness.
And how many of those votes would have changed if people didn't rationalize that the Yale Group couldn't really know and were probably politically motivated and shouldn't have said anything even if they knew?

Quote:
He may run again in 2024 and could even win again.

This is a problem much deeper than one dude’s behavior.
AFAIK nobody's claimed that the pushback on the Yale Group is the biggest political problem in the US.

Quote:
It’s the product of a deeply divided American voting public and a party who has learned they can tap the mistrust and conspiratorial part of that public for political gain.
You're arguing that their mistrust is justified.

Demagoguery has been around for as long as there have been groups of humans. It's often a very successful approach to gaining power and, when successful, often turns out badly for everyone involved. I think narcissists are particularly prone to demagoguery and particularly dangerous when successful at it. It seems to me that if we willfully ignore our evolving tools for identifying such individuals before they're in power, we're condemning ourselves to a future that's at least as ****** up as our past.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller 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 5th September 2022, 10:06 AM   #2112
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 36,111
I keep wondering what the tipping point here might be. I can understand the basic idea of not analyzing at a distance, and the gradation of mental issues that makes a difference between just a really nasty flawed character and someone who is actually mentally ill, but in a recent speech, Trump declared that Mark Zuckerberg visited him at the White House last week and begged to come to dinner with his wife. As usual, the apologists are counting this as a misspoken reminiscence of an event three years ago which might have slightly resembled it. But isn't there any point where a consistent habit of megalomaniacal delusion crosses the line, and it's reasonable for even a relative layman to say "that's crazy?"
__________________
Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Moličre)

A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details (John Ciardi)
bruto 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 5th September 2022, 10:23 AM   #2113
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
But isn't there any point where a consistent habit of megalomaniacal delusion crosses the line, and it's reasonable for even a relative layman to say "that's crazy?"
Do you think there is anyone here saying that isn't reasonable? It sounds like an incredible strawman to me. The people objecting to something in this thread are mostly (I think all) are objecting to thinking he can be diagnosed from a far, especially by lay people who have only read a few pages of the DSM.
RecoveringYuppy 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 5th September 2022, 01:09 PM   #2114
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
With my highlighting:

You say you don't believe any of those three statements. Let's look at the logical consequences of the non-beliefs you assert.

The most interesting of the three statements is
Trump's delusions of grandeur are not related to his mental illness.
There are essentially three reasons you might not believe that statement:
  • You don't believe Trump has delusions of grandeur.
  • You don't believe Trump has a mental illness.
  • You accept that Trump has delusions of grandeur and is mentally ill, and you believe his delusions of grandeur are related to his mental illness.
If you don't believe Trump has delusions has delusions of grandeur, then you haven't been paying attention.

If you don't believe Trump has a mental illness, then you haven't been paying attention to his narcissistic personality disorder. If you don't believe Trump has a narcissistic personality disorder, then you should offer some evidence in support of your diagnosis of Trump's non-NPD.

If you accept that Trump has delusions of grandeur and is mentally ill, and also accept that his delusions of grandeur are related to his mental illness, then you are essentially saying we should just ignore Trump's mental illness when contemplating the danger posed by Trump's delusions of grandeur.

Yes, mental illness can exist without danger. Trump's mental illness, for example, would not be very dangerous at all if Trump were some homeless person whose homelessness has resulted from his belief that he's the king of France.

Yes, danger can exist without mental illness. Indeed, most danger is unrelated to mental illness.

Those things are true, but your conclusion does not follow:

Mental illness is relevant in this particular case because, although mental illness is not always dangerous, and danger is not always caused by mental illness, the particular dangers I and many others have identified in this thread are associated with, and to a considerable extent caused by, Donald Trump's NPD, which is a mental illness.

Yes, that danger is important. When a danger is important, identifying the cause of the danger is often important as well, because the cause(s) often suggest ways to avoid or to ameliorate the danger. In this particular case, it is important for you and millions of others to accept that Donald Trump's belief that he is the rightful president of the United States is a consequence of his mental illness rather than a consequence of facts.

First of all we need to be very clear about what I’m arguing. I personally believe in my heart of hearts that Trump is crazy and obviously deluded. I mean those terms in a colloquial sense because I am not a professional and I’ve never met the dude. He acts in irrational ways; dude is crazy.

So I am NOT arguing that Trump is not mentally ill. I am not apologizing for or excusing Trump in any way shape or form. Quite the contrary, I am saying he’s actually dangerous.

I AM arguing that the mental illness label doesn’t give us any more information than simple observation of his behavior gives us. “Trump’s mental illness makes him dangerous,” is no more descriptive than, “Trump is dangerous.” Nothing of any value is added by labeling him as mentally ill. My questions are pretty simple: “What does the public gain by understanding that his behavior stems from a mental illness? What are we supposed to do differently because we now have this knowledge?”

My answer to those questions is, “Nothing.” Further, using mental illness to describe someone as dangerous is very problematic. In public discourse, we really shouldn’t be using words like “crazy,” “delusional,” “mentally ill,” etc to describe dangerous or otherwise problematic behavior because it is stigmatizing to people who suffer from mental illnesses, who are by and large not dangerous or problematic.

And of course, I have ethical problems with professionals issuing opinions on people they’ve never met.
__________________
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 5th September 2022, 01:49 PM   #2115
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
First of all we need to be very clear about what I’m arguing. I personally believe in my heart of hearts that Trump is crazy and obviously deluded. I mean those terms in a colloquial sense because I am not a professional and I’ve never met the dude. He acts in irrational ways; dude is crazy.

So I am NOT arguing that Trump is not mentally ill. I am not apologizing for or excusing Trump in any way shape or form. Quite the contrary, I am saying he’s actually dangerous.

I AM arguing that the mental illness label doesn’t give us any more information than simple observation of his behavior gives us. “Trump’s mental illness makes him dangerous,” is no more descriptive than, “Trump is dangerous.” Nothing of any value is added by labeling him as mentally ill. My questions are pretty simple: “What does the public gain by understanding that his behavior stems from a mental illness? What are we supposed to do differently because we now have this knowledge?”
Here's what the public gains by understanding that Trump's behavior stems from a mental illness: The public gains a viable, evidenced alternative to the idea that Trump's belief that he is the rightful president of the United States is rooted in fact.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
My answer to those questions is, “Nothing.” Further, using mental illness to describe someone as dangerous is very problematic. In public discourse, we really shouldn’t be using words like “crazy,” “delusional,” “mentally ill,” etc to describe dangerous or otherwise problematic behavior because it is stigmatizing to people who suffer from mental illnesses, who are by and large not dangerous or problematic.
When describing Trump's behavior, words such as “crazy” and “delusional” are entirely appropriate.

In my opinion, as in the opinion of many qualified professionals, it is obvious that Trump's narcissistic personality disorder is a root cause of Trump's belief that he is the rightful president of the United States. Although narcissistic personality disorder is seldom dangerous, it is dangerous in this case because of the influence Trump's delusions have been exerting over the beliefs and deeds of millions of Americans. The fact that Trump's mental illness has helped to create that danger is not stigmatizing to the vast majority of people who suffer from similar mental illnesses but do not have enough influence for their mental illness to become a significant danger to the lives and well-being of others.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
And of course, I have ethical problems with professionals issuing opinions on people they’ve never met.
When you or I express our opinions, neither your non-NPD diagnosis nor my NPD diagnosis create any ethical problems.

It seems, however, that you often fail to recognize how your unprofessional non-NPD diagnosis is just as much a diagnosis as my unprofessional diagnosis of NPD.
W.D.Clinger 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 5th September 2022, 01:54 PM   #2116
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
You've been arguing that they SHOULD reject it!
Not really, no. I’ve been arguing that professionals should not have entered the fray to begin with. Once the message is out there it becomes a much different problem: what are we supposed to do with the information? If the answer is, “listen to the small group of professionals who are acting against the ethics of their profession,” I think that’s problematic. I don’t generally think members of the public should have distrust towards medical professionals. However, I equate this to other ethical breaches by medical professionals. When Dr. Oz, Dr. Axe, Dr. Mercola, et. al. make their unscientific, self-serving and ultimately, unethical claims, what is the public supposed to do with their “information?”

This is the fundamental problem for me. I do believe that unscientific and unethical pronouncements by doctors should be rejected. But how does the public sort it all out? Why is Dr Mercola’s information bad but Dr. Lee’s good? I think they are both bad because they deviate from sound, established clinical practice and current medical knowledge as reflected in standards of care and ethics.

Do I personally think Dr. Lee et. al. are putting out blatant misinformation? No, not really; they are certainly acting unethically, though. Now…I’m married to a doctor, manage and consult for medical clinics and have a good grasp of the issues. The average member of the public does not and does not have the tools to differentiate between Mercola, et. al. and Lee, et. al. They don’t understand the ethical issues. They don’t know good medicine and bad.
Quote:
And how many of those votes would have changed if people didn't rationalize that the Yale Group couldn't really know and were probably politically motivated and shouldn't have said anything even if they knew?
But people ARE going to rationalize it that way. Consider Mercola-type pseudoscience. There is plenty of good information out there to counter the misinformation Mercola and company peddle. But those doctors position themselves as fighting against a system that “profits off keeping people sick,” or whatever. They are mavericks fighting to protect your health! Sounds very much like the Yale Group fighting against ethical rules because they have a “duty to warn.”



Quote:
AFAIK nobody's claimed that the pushback on the Yale Group is the biggest political problem in the US.



You're arguing that their mistrust is justified.
I guess I am arguing that. Just as I would argue that the public should justifiably mistrust the stuff they see on The Dr. Oz Show or Dr. Axe’s website.

But one fact I understand quite well is the trust the public puts in “the White Coat,” and the “MD” after someone’s name. I believe that the actions of Oz, Mercola and the Yale Group abuse that trust. They are saying things in public that are not supported by the standards of their profession. Such abuse comes with a price: mistrust.

Quote:
Demagoguery has been around for as long as there have been groups of humans. It's often a very successful approach to gaining power and, when successful, often turns out badly for everyone involved. I think narcissists are particularly prone to demagoguery and particularly dangerous when successful at it.
No disagreement there.
Quote:
It seems to me that if we willfully ignore our evolving tools for identifying such individuals before they're in power, we're condemning ourselves to a future that's at least as ****** up as our past.
What are these evolving tools? Psychiatry and psychology are not particularly good at predicting future behavior.

In any case, I’m not against professionals in the field speaking out. I am against them acting outside of the standards/ethics of their profession and publicly tying “mental illness” to “dangerousness.” They can discuss problematic behavior without diagnosing or even bringing up mental illness.
__________________
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 5th September 2022, 01:55 PM   #2117
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I keep wondering what the tipping point here might be. I can understand the basic idea of not analyzing at a distance, and the gradation of mental issues that makes a difference between just a really nasty flawed character and someone who is actually mentally ill, but in a recent speech, Trump declared that Mark Zuckerberg visited him at the White House last week and begged to come to dinner with his wife. As usual, the apologists are counting this as a misspoken reminiscence of an event three years ago which might have slightly resembled it. But isn't there any point where a consistent habit of megalomaniacal delusion crosses the line, and it's reasonable for even a relative layman to say "that's crazy?"

I, as a layman, emphatically declare that Trump is crazy. Done it many times.

That’s not the objection.
__________________
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 5th September 2022, 02:15 PM   #2118
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
With my highlighting:
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I, as a layman, emphatically declare that Trump is crazy. Done it many times.

That’s not the objection.
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I personally believe in my heart of hearts that Trump is crazy and obviously deluded.

...snip...

In public discourse, we really shouldn’t be using words like “crazy,” “delusional,” “mentally ill,” etc to describe dangerous or otherwise problematic behavior because it is stigmatizing to people who suffer from mental illnesses, who are by and large not dangerous or problematic.

In the unlikely event that you eventually arrive at some consistent position regarding the use of the word "crazy" to describe Trump's dangerous or otherwise problematic behavior, I hope you will let us know.
W.D.Clinger 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 5th September 2022, 02:29 PM   #2119
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Do you think there is anyone here saying that isn't reasonable? It sounds like an incredible strawman to me. The people objecting to something in this thread are mostly (I think all) are objecting to thinking he can be diagnosed from a far, especially by lay people who have only read a few pages of the DSM.
And over 90 health care professionals including psychiatrists and psychologists who have studied his actions, behavior, and statements over decades. Including his own niece who certainly has personal knowledge of all those.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2022, 03:07 PM   #2120
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
And over 90 health care professionals including psychiatrists and psychologists who have studied his actions, behavior, and statements over decades. Including his own niece who certainly has personal knowledge of all those.
Yeah, keep mentioning the niece that has been involved in tens of millions of lawsuits with him. That will certainly convince me this is appropriate.

Just 90 health care professionals today? Thought the number was 70,000.

If it's only 90 I wonder if you've thought about giving creationism in the schools another shot?
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

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 09:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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