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 5th September 2022, 03:12 PM   #2121
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.


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.


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.

But I have no opinion on any diagnosis; I am not a professional who has treated him. Neither you nor I can say whether or not he definitely has or does not have any particular illness. I don’t think that we laypeople should be using the DSM as a checklist to diagnose people.
__________________
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, 03:20 PM   #2122
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
With my highlighting:





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.

I have been consistent in saying that professionals should not be attaching “dangerous” to “mentally ill.”

I find my own use (and other laypeople’s) of the word problematic as well. That’s why I have tried not to use words like that in my daily life. Here, I used it for effect to express agreement with other posters in a colloquial sense. But I see my error there.
__________________
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, 03:52 PM   #2123
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
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.
Being ridiculously hyperbolic doesn't help, ya know. Mary Trump has only one suit against Trump, his sister, Maryanne, and his brother, Robert (now deceased),:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/11/polit...uit/index.html

Knowing Trump for the lying, scheming POS that he is, I'd say the odds are very much they did cheat her out of her portion of her grandfather's inheritance.


Quote:
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?

If you insist. From Psychology Today:

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 a book written by over two dozen mental health experts also argued that Trump, whether due to his personality or mental health issues, is not fit to be the president.

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.
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
If it's only 90 I wonder if you've thought about giving creationism in the schools another shot?
It's not only 90. Do you think Trump is NOT mentally ill? If so, then perhaps you're the one who should give creationism another shot in schools.
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, 04:14 PM   #2124
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Being ridiculously hyperbolic doesn't help, ya know. Mary Trump has only one suit against Trump, his sister, Maryanne, and his brother, Robert (now deceased),:
Obviously I meant dollars of lawsuits. And it is properly plural since there are two I know of.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Knowing Trump for the lying, scheming POS that he is, I'd say the odds are very much they did cheat her out of her portion of her grandfather's inheritance.
Yeah, so? This is supposed to be a point in favor of her remaining professionally unbiased???

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Do you think Trump is NOT mentally ill?
I'm totally unqualified to say.
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, 07:32 PM   #2125
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Obviously I meant dollars of lawsuits. And it is properly plural since there are two I know of.
I found evidence of only one. What's the other and who is it against?


Quote:
Yeah, so? This is supposed to be a point in favor of her remaining professionally unbiased???
I never said she was unbiased. But find me some mental health professionals who say Trump acts in a normal way and we'll talk.

Quote:
I'm totally unqualified to say.
What? You have no eyes or ears? Have you been living in a cave the last seven years? That's like saying, "I'm not a doctor so I can't say if that man's leg with the bone sticking out is broken or not."
You're taking the obvious and easy way out...but you know.
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, 09:42 PM   #2126
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
[quote=Stacyhs;13894475]

Quote:
I never said she was unbiased. But find me some mental health professionals who say Trump acts in a normal way and we'll talk.
Allen Frances
Jefferey Lieberman
Steven Reisner

They have all made the same points I have.
__________________
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 6th September 2022, 12:52 AM   #2127
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,112
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Allen Frances
Jefferey Lieberman
Steven Reisner
Allen Frances - the guy who believes zapping the brain with 120V is a good idea.

Imagine the deep scientific thought that went into that one.

"We've tried everything and still can't get the patient to calm down. So hey, why not just stick 120V across his head!"

Jefferey Lieberman
Quote:
On February 21, 2022, Lieberman posted on Twitter about Nyakim Gatwech, an Ethiopian-born American model of South Sudanese descent, stating that "Whether a work of art or freak of nature she's a beautiful sight to behold,"... Psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee and some others who worked with Lieberman described his Twitter post as part of a pattern of racist and sexist behavior.

Steven Reisner in 2016:-
Quote:
APA's influence is decreasing among psychologists and the public because we are perceived as being compromised in our ethical priorities and out of touch with psychologists' values and needs.


Originally Posted by xjx388
They have all made the same points I have.
3 against 70,000. Teach the controversy!

Reisner again, in 2017:-
Quote:
If we are to combat Trump, we must understand how he has elevated and manipulated certain American values, like greed and exceptionalism, to undermine so many others, like truth, justice, and the American Constitution.

This is not madness. And the impulsivity, threats, aggression, ridicule, denial of reality, and mobilization of the mob that he used to get there are not symptoms. It is time to call it out for what it is: evil.
That's right folks. Some people don't act erratically because they are mentally ill or crazy, they are just plain evil.

Which is 100% not a mental condition, and therefore not in the realm of psychology. So who should we call to deal with Trump's behavior? An exorcist? Or an electrician...
__________________
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 6th September 2022, 01:34 AM   #2128
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post

I never said she was unbiased. But find me some mental health professionals who say Trump acts in a normal way and we'll talk.
Allen Frances
Jefferey Lieberman
Steven Reisner
Nope. Note the highlighted. Not one of those you listed says his behavior is 'normal'. You're going to have to try again.


Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
They have all made the same points I have.
No, you have parroted what Frances and Lieberman say almost verbatim. Reisner just basically thinks Trump is 'evil'.


Allen Frances: He says Trump doesn't have a mental disorder because it doesn't cause him distress. That's it. Not that he doesn't have of the symptoms, but they'd have to cause him distress:
Quote:
Having the symptoms themselves does not constitute a mental disorder. In order to qualify as a mental disorder, the individual would have to have distress related to them.
This was back in 2017 before he lost the election. I can't find Frances commenting on Trump's mental health after 2019. I wonder if that could have something to do with Trump's obvious distress caused by his delusion that the election was rigged and that he really won it. Frances also says "But you’re not delusional if a substantial part of the US population believes you!" What the hell? Just because a large amount of people buy into his Big Lie means he's not delusional? Come on!

You repeat what Frances claims:
Quote:
"The first is it stigmatizes the mentally ill. I've known thousands of patients, almost all of them have been well-behaved, well-mannered, good people—Trump is none of these."

"Lumping in the mentally ill with Trump is a terrible insult to the mentally ill and they have enough problems and stigma as it is," he added.
He appears to want to protect the non-dangerous mentally ill majority because Trump would 'stigmatize' them. I don't buy that any more than when you say it. Denying Trump is mentally ill doesn't help others who are mentally ill.
And there are many, many equally qualified psychiatrists who disagree with Frances:

Quote:
Trump’s mental health was also the subject of discussion over at MSNBC, where retired Harvard clinical psychiatrist Dr. Lance Dodes characterized Trump as “an extremely successful sociopath” who has a “fundamental psychological problem.” A characteristic of Trump is that he “needs to be loved all the time, he needs to have power over everyone all the time. Once you get that idea down, the rest of his behavior and his speech makes sense.”
(Ibid.)


Jefferey Lieberman: He does not say that Trump is not mentally ill at all. What he does agree with you on is the Goldwater Rule.
After listing some of Trump's 'odd' behaviors, he says:

Quote:
Yet the reality is that, unless the president is properly evaluated, we have no real evidence to know with certainty if he has a mental disorder.
And he believes all presidents should be assessed for neuropsychiatric disorders:

Quote:
The experiences of those presidents provide convincing evidence that, even if there weren’t a tsunami of speculation about Mr. Trump’s mental condition now, Congress should consider adopting policies to standardize, and to expand as needed, the scope of presidential medical exams to include neuropsychiatric assessments.
Quote:
However, we still lack a defined process for applying the 25th Amendment to a president who will not voluntarily submit to an examination to evaluate mental competence. We also lack clear criteria for what behavior warrants an intervention and transfer of power to the vice president.
Quote:
Mr. Trump’s public behavior will never be enough for us to determine his mental fitness because a diagnosis requires a thorough and nonpartisan examination.

To put this matter to rest, either President Trump should voluntarily submit to a neuropsychiatric evaluation or mechanisms should be established to require him — and all future presidents — to do so.
Steven Reisner: Reisner offers the same "no distress" argument as Frances. In fact, he even quotes him, And like Frances, all the articles I can find are from years ago, before Trump's descent into "I Won the Election and There's a Vast Conspiracy Including Trump Appointed Judges Who Stole It From Me!" delusion. I can't find Reisner commenting on Trump's mental health after 2017. A lot has changed since then.

Quote:
"Is his insanity simply self-evident because he deviates from what any child would recognize as normal?"
Nowhere does he say Trump's behavior is 'normal'; he calls it 'evil'.
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 6th September 2022, 01:36 AM   #2129
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Allen Frances - the guy who believes zapping the brain with 120V is a good idea.

Imagine the deep scientific thought that went into that one.

"We've tried everything and still can't get the patient to calm down. So hey, why not just stick 120V across his head!"

Jefferey Lieberman


Steven Reisner in 2016:-




3 against 70,000. Teach the controversy!

Reisner again, in 2017:-


That's right folks. Some people don't act erratically because they are mentally ill or crazy, they are just plain evil.

Which is 100% not a mental condition, and therefore not in the realm of psychology. So who should we call to deal with Trump's behavior? An exorcist? Or an electrician...
Bwwwwaaaahaaaahaaahaaa!
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 6th September 2022, 04:28 AM   #2130
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post

I never said she was unbiased. But find me some mental health professionals who say Trump acts in a normal way and we'll talk.
Allen Frances
Jefferey Lieberman
Steven Reisner
Nope. Note the highlighted. Not one of those you listed says his behavior is 'normal'. You're going to have to try again.

Stacyhs is quite right. All three of those named by xjx388 (or misnamed, in the case of Jeffrey Lieberman) acknowledge Trump's abnormal behavior. As Steven Reisner has written:
Originally Posted by Steven Reisner
In general, mental health professionals tend to draw from two radically different perspectives to determine what is and what is not mental illness, with each view invoking a rather different set of criteria and values. Some use normativity as their standard of measure, viewing deviations from the norm as a sign of mental illness. According to the World Health Organization, someone suffering from narcissistic personality disorder (which is most frequently given as Trump’s mental illness) must demonstrate “extreme or significant deviations from the way in which the average individual in a given culture perceives, thinks, feels and, particularly, relates to others.” Thus, these clinicians assert, Trump is mentally ill because he is delusional about reality, grandiose, impulsive, and believes himself to be the most powerful man in the world.

Alternatively, diagnoses can be based on experiences of distress, combined with social and occupational impairment. This diagnosis requires the individual to be suffering from the subjective experience of distress alongside objective criteria of compromised functioning in relationships or employment.

In the past, some mental health professionals have argued that Trump isn't really mentally ill because he isn't experiencing distress or impairment. That might have been a viable argument during the early days of this thread. Since losing the 2020 election, however, Trump's distress has become ever more apparent.

Allen Frances doesn't think Trump's behavior is normal:
Originally Posted by Allen Frances
Trump is as destructive a person in this century as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were in the last century. He may be responsible for many more million deaths than they were.

Jeffrey Lieberman (note spelling) engaged in a "thought exercise" with several colleagues. Lieberman's report on that exercise concludes by expressing their frustration with the lack of any institutional process for assessing a person's mental fitness for office:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Lieberman
The first step ordinarily would be to conduct physical and mental status exams and carry out relevant diagnostic tests (blood, neuro-cognitive, brain scans, and genotyping). However, since this was not possible, we had to rely on information in the public domain that we could glean from biographies, news reports, video interviews and media appearances, and social media.

....snip....

However, what has prompted concern about Trump's mental health is not his assets but his intemperate, erratic, bombastic, and self-interested behavior. None of these qualities by themselves warrants a diagnosis of mental disorder, but it is their aggregation and severity that raises the question.

In light of this, we systematically considered which conditions described in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders could most plausibly account for his behavior. They were: Bipolar Disorder, Intermittent Explosive Disorder, Substance Use Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder (or some variant personality disorder), Attention Deficit Disorder, and a form of early stage Dementia. Whether it is reassuring or surprising, we could not endorse any diagnosis with a high degree of confidence....

A diagnosis of Personality Disorder (narcissistic or otherwise), while plausible, is of limited significance, as they lack well-established scientific validity and their diagnostic boundaries are indistinct. Moreover, if Trump did indeed warrant a diagnosis of a Narcissistic—or any other type of—Personality Disorder, he would be one of the many successful habitués of centers of power like Washington, DC, and New York who would also seem to fit the diagnostic criteria.

....snip....

The diagnosis that seemed most plausible was incipient dementia....

An interesting observation that adds credence to the possibility of an evolving dementia came from an analysis of Trump's speech patterns at different stages of his life published by various sources. By comparing his interviews and speeches from earlier decades to recent communications, they found marked differences in his speech patterns. In addition to the cardinal symptoms of memory loss, dementia can cause the range of a person's vocabulary and speech syntax to constrict. President Trump's tendency to speak in simple phrases and sentences, frequent repetition of words, and occasional neologisms, served him well during the campaign, but could be a telling and worrisome sign of impending dementia. Dementias are also associated with the disinhibition or emotions and impulses, and coarsening of personality traits, which President Trump has demonstrated in abundance....

While our thought exercise was unable to render a clear or definitive diagnosis, this does not mean that President Trump gets a clean bill of health, because we were lacking sufficient information that should be available but could only be obtained if President Trump agreed to allow it to be obtained. We respectfully disagree with the current situation, because given the enormous authority of the Presidency, and potential consequences of its misuse, we believe that a person's, in this case the POTUS's, legal right to privacy, is outweighed by the public's right to know about the President's competence.

....The complexity and difficulty of this task notwithstanding, if our legal system can develop a process for determining a person's competence to stand trial—and criteria for verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity for even the most serious of crimes—we should be able to do the same to assure the fitness for office of those aspiring to or occupying the most powerful position on earth.

Steven Reisner, whom I quoted earlier, doesn't think Trump is mentally ill. He thinks Trump is radically evil:
Originally Posted by Steven Reisner
....More than 30,000 mental health professionals have signed on to an online petition, directed to Sen. Charles Schumer, arguing that Trump “manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States” and “he must be removed from office.”

....snip....

As Allen Francis, the psychiatrist who wrote the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the DSM, put it, “He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn’t make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose a mental disorder.”

If there’s no distress, what about the other criteria? Is his insanity simply self-evident because he deviates from what any child would recognize as normal?

....snip....

But the real problem with diagnosing Trump as mentally ill based on deviation from the norm is that Trump himself is a master at determining what counts as normal....By the sheer force of his personality, power, bullying tendencies, and money, Trump can bend reality to his perspective, which he does using a simple technique: He simply shifts the evidence for what is real from facts to feelings.

....snip....

That is why our efforts have to be aimed not at diagnosing Trump, but at stopping Trumpism. To call it madness is to try and bring it into the realm of the familiar and to miss the real threat that Trump embodies....To fight Trumpism, we must actively expose and combat the overpowering reality he is trying to create—and we must abandon the comforting delusion that Trump is delusional.

Note well that Steven Reisner is opposed to saying Trump is mentally ill not because that would stigmatize Trump or the mentally ill, but because saying Trump is mentally ill would grossly understate the danger of Trump's evil.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 6th September 2022 at 04:29 AM. Reason: typos
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 6th September 2022, 05:40 AM   #2131
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post

Allen Frances
Jefferey Lieberman
Steven Reisner

They have all made the same points I have.
And I counted Allen Frances name mentioned 47 times in this thread, not including the threads it's continued from.
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 6th September 2022, 05:42 AM   #2132
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Stacyhs is quite right. All three of those named by xjx388 (or misnamed, in the case of Jeffrey Lieberman) acknowledge Trump's abnormal behavior.
Yeah, she is right about that and I'm sure xjx will agree as do I. But you guys are playing volleyball with the goal posts.
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 6th September 2022, 05:44 AM   #2133
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I found evidence of only one. What's the other and who is it against?
At her wikipedia entry right freaking below the one you know about.
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 6th September 2022, 07:27 AM   #2134
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Stacyhs is quite right. All three of those named by xjx388 (or misnamed, in the case of Jeffrey Lieberman) acknowledge Trump's abnormal behavior.
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Yeah, she is right about that and I'm sure xjx will agree as do I. But you guys are playing volleyball with the goal posts.

I think the fundamental disagreement between xjx388 and tens of thousands of mental health professionals comes down to whether there is anything to be gained by considering the possibility that part of Trump's behavior can be traced to mental illness, and what if anything might be lost by considering such a possibility.

xjx388 made this claim:
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Allen Frances
Jefferey Lieberman
Steven Reisner

They have all made the same points I have.

Of those three, the one whose views align most closely with xjx388's argument is Allen Frances:
Originally Posted by Allen Frances
Most amateur diagnosticians have mislabeled President Trump with the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn’t meet them. He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn’t make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder.

Mr. Trump causes severe distress rather than experiencing it and has been richly rewarded, rather than punished, for his grandiosity, self-absorption and lack of empathy. It is a stigmatizing insult to the mentally ill (who are mostly well behaved and well meaning) to be lumped with Mr. Trump (who is neither).

Bad behavior is rarely a sign of mental illness, and the mentally ill behave badly only rarely....

His psychological motivations are too obvious to be interesting, and analyzing them will not halt his headlong power grab....
Note, however, that I quite agree with one of those same points:
"Bad behavior is rarely a sign of mental illness, and the mentally ill behave badly only rarely."
After stating my agreement with those two facts, I went on to point out that xjx388's inference from those two facts is not based upon valid logic. I further explained:
Quote:
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.

xjx388 believes the problem is "much deeper than one dude's behavior." I agreed:
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.

xjx388 has not made any serious counter-argument to what I wrote above. xjx388's argument has been largely moralistic and prescriptive: We shouldn't say such things, even if they're true, because saying such things might embarrass or stigmatize someone.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
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.”

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
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.

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.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
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.

xjx388 believes the public gains nothing by understanding how Trump's delusion that he is the rightful president of the United States has no basis in fact, and is far more plausibly explained by a mental illness that would be harmless in a less influential individual. I disagree with xjx388.

xjx388 is also concerned that public discussion of this one specific example of how a normally harmless mental illness might contribute to (what Allen Frances believes to be) the deaths of millions of people might "cast Psychiatry in a bad light." In my opinion, that danger pales in comparison to the light cast by Allen Frances's public squabble with DSM-V and Allen Frances's declarations that Donald Trump "is as destructive a person in this century as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were in the last century."

I also believe that calm and rational discussion of Trump's narcissistic personality will do less to associate mental illness with danger than the very public declarations by Allen Frances, Jeffrey Lieberman, and Steven Reisner that Donald Trump (whose manifestations of mental illness have become more compelling to millions of Americans with every week that passes) is so dangerous that we would be excusing his evil if we so much as suggest the man is not well.
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 6th September 2022, 10:13 AM   #2135
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Nope. Note the highlighted. Not one of those you listed says his behavior is 'normal'. You're going to have to try again.




No, you have parroted what Frances and Lieberman say almost verbatim. Reisner just basically thinks Trump is 'evil'.


Allen Frances: He says Trump doesn't have a mental disorder because it doesn't cause him distress. That's it. Not that he doesn't have of the symptoms, but they'd have to cause him distress:


This was back in 2017 before he lost the election. I can't find Frances commenting on Trump's mental health after 2019. I wonder if that could have something to do with Trump's obvious distress caused by his delusion that the election was rigged and that he really won it. Frances also says "But you’re not delusional if a substantial part of the US population believes you!" What the hell? Just because a large amount of people buy into his Big Lie means he's not delusional? Come on!

You repeat what Frances claims:


He appears to want to protect the non-dangerous mentally ill majority because Trump would 'stigmatize' them. I don't buy that any more than when you say it. Denying Trump is mentally ill doesn't help others who are mentally ill.
And there are many, many equally qualified psychiatrists who disagree with Frances:


(Ibid.)


Jefferey Lieberman: He does not say that Trump is not mentally ill at all. What he does agree with you on is the Goldwater Rule.
After listing some of Trump's 'odd' behaviors, he says:



And he believes all presidents should be assessed for neuropsychiatric disorders:







Steven Reisner: Reisner offers the same "no distress" argument as Frances. In fact, he even quotes him, And like Frances, all the articles I can find are from years ago, before Trump's descent into "I Won the Election and There's a Vast Conspiracy Including Trump Appointed Judges Who Stole It From Me!" delusion. I can't find Reisner commenting on Trump's mental health after 2017. A lot has changed since then.



Nowhere does he say Trump's behavior is 'normal'; he calls it 'evil'.

You can’t find Dr Frances commenting because he was smart enough to move on, unlike the rest of us.

In any case, the definition Dr Frances uses is not an idiosyncratic one. That’s the actual definition of a mental illness.

And nothing has changed. Trump’s behavior is still explained adequately by his immense privilege as a rich, spoiled white guy who has always gotten his way. Mental illness may indeed be the root, but you still haven’t been able to explain why it’s important to know that. You’ve declared it, but you haven’t explained the difference.

As for “normal,” they all explain Trump’s behavior as being normal, in the sense of “not caused by mental illness.” Dr Frances has a good book about medicalizing “normal,” which goes into more detail. I think “normal,” is a word fraught with problems but it makes sense in that context. If I am sad because my mom died; that’s normal. If I am sad without external trigger, that’s not normal, it’s the result of a problem in my brain chemistry or whatever.

Trump’s behavior can be contextualized as “normal;” his social status, his upbringing and his ambition all contributed to the rich entitled spoiled white guy who has never been told no we see today. That explains him adequately without speculating about his brain chemistry or whatever.
__________________
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 6th September 2022, 10:39 AM   #2136
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 36,113
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.
But I think you are defining "crazy" differently. I think there has to be a point at which one concludes that the behavior we're seeing is more than just being contrary or nasty, but apparently unable to grasp reality and unable to behave rationally - past the point where we can attribute it to bad choice.
__________________
Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Molière)

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 6th September 2022, 10:47 AM   #2137
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Allen Frances - the guy who believes zapping the brain with 120V is a good idea.

Imagine the deep scientific thought that went into that one.

"We've tried everything and still can't get the patient to calm down. So hey, why not just stick 120V across his head!"

Jefferey Lieberman


Steven Reisner in 2016:-




3 against 70,000. Teach the controversy!

Reisner again, in 2017:-


That's right folks. Some people don't act erratically because they are mentally ill or crazy, they are just plain evil.

Which is 100% not a mental condition, and therefore not in the realm of psychology. So who should we call to deal with Trump's behavior? An exorcist? Or an electrician...
First of all, we need to re-address this myth about “70,000 mental health professionals.” I squashed this one much earlier in the thread, but here it is again. This claim stems from an online petition that garnered 70,000+ signatures, purportedly from mental health professionals. But when you look at the petition and signatories, you quickly discover that 1)Anyone could sign it, 2) it is signed by a wide range of people only a fraction of whom actually give any indication of their credentials and 3)Even among those who give credentials, we find that few of them are psychiatrists or clinical psychologists, the ones who would actually have credentials to diagnose people. From this, it’s very hard to substantiate the “70,000 mental health professionals,” claim.

Further, the claim is clearly bunk when you consider that there are only around 150,000 psychologists and psychiatrists in the US and not all of those psychologists are clinically trained. So we would have to accept that somewhere around 50% of the existing, qualified professionals signed this petition.

Can we put that canard to rest?

Ok, moving on…you dismiss Dr Frances because he supports ECT? It’s clear to me that you don’t really understand his position or the evidence for its efficacy. Perhaps you are thinking of its portrayal in movies? In any case, even if he’s wrong about that, that has no bearing on his position in the psychiatric profession or the fact that he chaired the DSM-IV task force or the fact that he spearheaded changes in the direction of DSM V. I’d say he’s a pretty good authority on diagnoses of mental health conditions.

As for the rest, you seem to have a problem with the idea that some people are just bad people. That puzzles me.
__________________
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 6th September 2022, 10:57 AM   #2138
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
And I counted Allen Frances name mentioned 47 times in this thread, not including the threads it's continued from.
And?

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Yeah, she is right about that and I'm sure xjx will agree as do I. But you guys are playing volleyball with the goal posts.
Exactly how are we doing that?



Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
At her wikipedia entry right freaking below the one you know about.
Now who is moving the goal posts? Notice my posts use the present tense, not the preterit. I asked what other lawsuit does she have, not had. The lawsuit (regarding her grandfather's will) you are referring to was settled in 2001.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
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.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Being ridiculously hyperbolic doesn't help, ya know. Mary Trump has only one suit against Trump, his sister, Maryanne, and his brother, Robert (now deceased),:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/11/polit...uit/index.html
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Obviously I meant dollars of lawsuits. And it is properly plural since there are two I know of.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I found evidence of only one. What's the other and who is it against?
From the freaking Wikipedia entry you referred to:

Quote:
Mary Trump and her brother filed suit against Donald Trump and two of his three living siblings, Maryanne Trump Barry and Robert Trump, for exerting undue influence on the elderly Fred Sr.'s will.[18] In response, Donald, Maryanne and Robert cut off Mary and Fred III's medical insurance, including coverage for William.[12] The lawsuit was settled in 2001,
I repeat: what other lawsuit does Mary T have against Donald T?
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 6th September 2022, 11:01 AM   #2139
ZiprHead
Graduate Poster
 
ZiprHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sag-Nasty
Posts: 1,252
Is Something Called “Narcissistic Collapse” Coming To America?

Quote:
In President Biden‘s speech yesterday, he spoke tough truths that had to be said out-loud. This country is under attack from within. And the attack is led by a madman.

Donald Trump may be about to throw America into a crisis that could make January 6th look like a romp in the park. It has to do with something called “narcissistic collapse.”

Trump is a classic extroverted, grandiose narcissist of such severity that numerous professionals in the psychology field have pointed out how he could easily be diagnosed as suffering severe Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).

Narcissists of this type are often at the top of their fields, driven to over-achievement by a deep underlying sense of inferiority and shame. In Trump’s case, this probably came from his having a criminal psychopath as a father and a mother who so disliked him that she sent him off to military school at a young age and went, alone, to Scotland during the summers when he was home from school in New York.

He grew up filled with shame, lying and cheating to “win” the love and approval of others, stealing from his family and people he did business with to physically build around himself the trappings of success.

NBC taught him how to do television and turned him into a star, and he leveraged that into politics where he gets constant daily affirmation from people often damaged the same way he is. On the outside, he seems rich, powerful, and successful.

Deep down inside, though, he knows he’s a failure. He’d failed at school; he failed repeatedly at business; he failed at marriage; he pissed away the entirety of the more than $400 million he stole from his father’s estate and still had to be bailed out by the Russians; he’d even failed at being a child loved by his parents and siblings.

His narcissism is his defense against this history of failure and the inevitable shame associated with a lifetime of it. And his narcissism is of the most severe variety — the grandiose form — where he makes grand claims to the effect of, “I, alone, can fix it,” and, “I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and my people would still love me and vote for me.”
Quote:
For a narcissist like Trump with considerable power, the ability to harm organizations/institutions, or who can meaningfully threaten damage to other people, this is the moment of maximum danger for those around him.
Well worth a reading.
__________________
When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

IIDB is back, baby!
ZiprHead 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 6th September 2022, 11:12 AM   #2140
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Now who is moving the goal posts? Notice my posts use the present tense, not the preterit. I asked what other lawsuit does she have, not had. [hilite]The lawsuit (regarding her grandfather's will) you are referring to was settled in 2001.
I don't care how your questioning mispresents my claim. I only care about what I actually claimed. And JFC you've had the evidence to support my claim right in front of your eyes multiple times now.
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 6th September 2022, 11:12 AM   #2141
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 W.D.Clinger View Post
I think the fundamental disagreement between xjx388 and tens of thousands of mental health professionals
See my previous post. There aren’t “tens of thousands,” there are only a handful that have publicly spoken out.
Quote:
comes down to whether there is anything to be gained by considering the possibility that part of Trump's behavior can be traced to mental illness, and what if anything might be lost by considering such a possibility.
Yes, that’s a big issue that no one has adequately addressed and has already been shown. To wit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post

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.

xjx388 has not made any serious counter-argument to what I wrote above.
I think I have but I will respond further.

74 million people voted for Trump after the Yale Group et al made their pronouncements and made the media rounds spreading the message. IOW, more people voted for him, compared to 2016, after the professionals involved explained his behavior with mental illness. That shows that a large chunk of the voting public were not swayed by their opinions. The real world has already given the lie to the idea that exposing his mental illness will sway millions of people -quite the opposite, in fact.

If anything, what was illustrated is that millions of people rejected the professionals opinion, which, to my mind, is evidence of a certain level of mistrust in psychiatry/psychology. Damage to the profession itself, in other words.
Quote:
xjx388 believes the public gains nothing by understanding how Trump's delusion that he is the rightful president of the United States has no basis in fact, and is far more plausibly explained by a mental illness that would be harmless in a less influential individual. I disagree with xjx388.
You have no evidence upon which to disagree. The real world has already proven you wrong.

Quote:
xjx388 is also concerned that public discussion of this one specific example of how a normally harmless mental illness might contribute to (what Allen Frances believes to be) the deaths of millions of people might "cast Psychiatry in a bad light." In my opinion, that danger pales in comparison to the light cast by Allen Frances's public squabble with DSM-V and Allen Frances's declarations that Donald Trump "is as destructive a person in this century as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were in the last century."
I think of you took some time to understand Dr Frances’ position, you would tend to agree with him that psychiatry is moving dangerously towards “medicalizing normality,” as he puts it.

Quote:
I also believe that calm and rational discussion of Trump's narcissistic personality will do less to associate mental illness with danger than the very public declarations by Allen Frances, Jeffrey Lieberman, and Steven Reisner that Donald Trump (whose manifestations of mental illness have become more compelling to millions of Americans with every week that passes) is so dangerous that we would be excusing his evil if we so much as suggest the man is not well.
Again, this has already proven to be false.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 6th September 2022 at 11:16 AM.
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 6th September 2022, 11:31 AM   #2142
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I don't care how your questioning mispresents my claim. I only care about what I actually claimed.
Exactly HOW am I 'misrepresenting' your claim?

Did I, or did I not, ask about what lawsuits Mary T HAS against Trump? Were my posts all in the present tense or not? Is the other lawsuit current or was it resolved 21 years ago?

Quote:
And JFC you've had the evidence to support my claim right in front of your eyes multiple times now.
And I've presented the evidence that your claim is wrong because you referred to a PAST and SETTLED lawsuit when I clearly was discussing the ONLY CURRENT lawsuit. JFC, just admit you misread my post instead of digging in which I suspect is due to the fact that you can't explain how we are "playing volleyball with the goal posts" as you claimed. As the saying goes, when you can't defend, go on the offensive.
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 6th September 2022, 11:45 AM   #2143
arayder
Illuminator
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,402
That are two (okay maybe more)levels of proof that somebody is crazy.

One is when you are trying to establish incompetency in court. Maybe you are trying to have somebody committed. Or get a will tossed.

The other one is went the crazy arsed guy comes in and gives a looney job interview. We don't call the guy nuts because we don't want the statement to come back to haunt us.

But we don't hire him.
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 6th September 2022, 11:47 AM   #2144
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Did I, or did I not, ask about what lawsuits Mary T HAS against Trump? Were my posts all in the present tense or not? Is the other lawsuit current or was it resolved 21 years ago?
What you said doesn't change my claim. Jesus.
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 6th September 2022, 12:16 PM   #2145
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
See my previous post. There aren’t “tens of thousands,” there are only a handful that have publicly spoken out. Yes, that’s a big issue that no one has adequately addressed and has already been shown.
The link you provided is to a public Comments section: "See why other supporters are signing, why this petition is important to them, and share your reason for signing (this will mean a lot to the starter of the petition)."

There is no requirement to have been a signer of the petition nor is there any indication that they did. Anyone could comment. What we have not seen is the actual petition itself with signers so there is no way to know how many of them are mental health professionals or what their credentials are. Therefore, your claim that
Quote:
...when you look at the petition and signatories, you quickly discover that 1)Anyone could sign it, 2) it is signed by a wide range of people only a fraction of whom actually give any indication of their credentials and 3)Even among those who give credentials, we find that few of them are psychiatrists or clinical psychologists
is not supported by the link you provided.

Do you have a link to the actual petition, including signers? I have not been able to find one.

How many have not spoken out publicly due to the Goldwater Rule?
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 6th September 2022, 12:33 PM   #2146
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
What you said doesn't change my claim. Jesus.
This was your claim:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
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.
You did not say "dollars". I am not a mind reader and can only go by what you actually write. I questioned the number of lawsuits:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Being ridiculously hyperbolic doesn't help, ya know. Mary Trump has only one suit against Trump, his sister, Maryanne, and his brother, Robert (now deceased),:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/11/polit...uit/index.html
You responded with:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Obviously I meant dollars of lawsuits. And it is properly plural since there are two I know of.
I did not contest that you meant 'dollars' in your original statement once you clarified with this post. But then you went on to defend it with claiming you were still correct because there were two lawsuits you know of even though my preceding post concerns only current lawsuits, not past ones.


You clearly cannot show exactly HOW I 'moved the goalposts' or 'misrepresented' your claim because you would have by now if you could.

Why you cannot admit you misread my post, only you know. But I suggest you put the shovel down because you're only digging the hole deeper.
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 6th September 2022, 12:43 PM   #2147
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
For crying out loud. I can make my own points and statements. My point doesn't depend on lawsuits being current. And FFS why does it matter if it's current? Hint: It doesn't. She could perfectly well harbor a grudge. My statement (after correcting for the two rather obvious words I left out) is simply a true fact easily verified at wikipedia.

And my statement about goalposts was on a different topic. That topic was the constant assertion that some of us are wrong on stupid for not recognizing Trump behavior when we are not objecting to anybody saying what his behavior is. And that statement wasn't even directed at you at the time though you certainly have done that.
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 6th September 2022, 01:00 PM   #2148
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The link you provided is to a public Comments section: "See why other supporters are signing, why this petition is important to them, and share your reason for signing (this will mean a lot to the starter of the petition)."

There is no requirement to have been a signer of the petition nor is there any indication that they did. Anyone could comment. What we have not seen is the actual petition itself with signers so there is no way to know how many of them are mental health professionals or what their credentials are. Therefore, your claim that

is not supported by the link you provided.

Do you have a link to the actual petition, including signers? I have not been able to find one.

How many have not spoken out publicly due to the Goldwater Rule?

When I first looked at the petition, it was open for anyone to sign. My understanding at the time was that only signatories could comment on their “reasons for signing.” This is supported by looking at current petitions and seeing that there is no mechanism for commenting on the petition without signing it. Indeed, a user with a very offensive name seems to have signed the Britney Griner petition merely to spread some pretty hateful stuff. Now, maybe you have to be logged into change.org in order to comment? I don’t know because I get a gateway error when I try to sign up.

The point remains that we don’t actually know if 70k MHPs signed the petition. It seems unlikely given the evidence I have presented.

The claim is unsupported by the available facts.
__________________
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 6th September 2022, 01:30 PM   #2149
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 re-address this myth about “70,000 mental health professionals.” I squashed this one much earlier in the thread, but here it is again. This claim stems from an online petition that garnered 70,000+ signatures, purportedly from mental health professionals. But when you look at the petition and signatories, you quickly discover that 1)Anyone could sign it, 2) it is signed by a wide range of people only a fraction of whom actually give any indication of their credentials and 3)Even among those who give credentials, we find that few of them are psychiatrists or clinical psychologists, the ones who would actually have credentials to diagnose people. From this, it’s very hard to substantiate the “70,000 mental health professionals,” claim.
I was careful to say "tens of thousands".

I quoted Steven Reisner, one of the three you said was making the same points as you, acknowledging the fact that
Originally Posted by Steven Reisner
More than 30,000 mental health professionals have signed on to an online petition...arguing that Trump “manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States” and “he must be removed from office.”
Outside of the quote marks, those are Steven Reisner's own words. If Steven Reisner believed the 30,000 was a bogus number, he had the opportunity to dispute that number or to say something vague such as "many". He did neither.

I took your own cited authority at his word. You are free to disagree with the authorities you cite, but the fact that some of those you cite disagree with you is not my problem. It is yours.

With my highlighting:
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Ok, moving on…you dismiss Dr Frances because he supports ECT? It’s clear to me that you don’t really understand his position or the evidence for its efficacy. Perhaps you are thinking of its portrayal in movies? In any case, even if he’s wrong about that, that has no bearing on his position in the psychiatric profession or the fact that he chaired the DSM-IV task force or the fact that he spearheaded changes in the direction of DSM V. I’d say he’s a pretty good authority on diagnoses of mental health conditions.
Allen Frances has been one of the world's most prominent critics of DSM V. Dr Frances created a blog whose primary purpose was to criticize DSM V, which Dr Frances continues to describe as "a reckless and poorly written document".

One of Dr Frances's primary complaints about DSM V is that it emphasized the role of abnormal behavior in the diagnosis of mental illness, giving less weight to distress and functional impairment than Dr Frances would prefer. Dr Frances has used Donald Trump to dramatize his objections to DSM V, saying Trump is neither distressed nor impaired by his unusual degree of narcissism. That example has not held up well over time, and it has always looked as though Dr Frances's opinion of Trump has been heavily influenced by Frances's dispute with his co-practitioners. In light of Allen Frances's pants-on-fire opinion that Trump is one of the most evil mass murderers in history, it's fair to say that not everyone takes Dr Frances seriously when it comes to Donald Trump (or, for that matter, when it comes to matters such as "climate change, population growth, technology, privacy, war, economics and guns").

You get to pick the authorities you cite. When you choose to cite authorities whose opinions of Trump are accurately described as over-the-top or pants-on-fire, that reflects poorly on your selection of authorities.

(ETA: Although the quotation immediately below was addressed to someone else, it is an example of a rhetorical trick xjx388 often relies upon when addressing people who disagree with xjx388.)
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
As for the rest, you seem to have a problem with the idea that some people are just bad people. That puzzles me.
I do not have any problem at all with the idea that some people are just bad people.

I am also familiar with the fact that some people, such as yourself, have a habit of mischaracterizing their opponent's opinions and positions, as you did just there.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
xjx388 has not made any serious counter-argument to what I wrote above.
I think I have but I will respond further.

74 million people voted for Trump after the Yale Group et al made their pronouncements and made the media rounds spreading the message. IOW, more people voted for him, compared to 2016, after the professionals involved explained his behavior with mental illness. That shows that a large chunk of the voting public were not swayed by their opinions. The real world has already given the lie to the idea that exposing his mental illness will sway millions of people -quite the opposite, in fact.
Yes, you made that argument. You fail to mention the fact that, in 2020, Trump lost the popular vote by twice as much as he lost in 2016.

Your repeated citation of Trump's losing margin in the popular vote serves only to emphasize the failure of your argument from vox populi.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
If anything, what was illustrated is that millions of people rejected the professionals opinion, which, to my mind, is evidence of a certain level of mistrust in psychiatry/psychology. Damage to the profession itself, in other words.
Hah. Methinks you overestimate the influence of psychiatry/psychology. That's easy to do, of course.

In my opinion, Trump's diminishing percentage of the popular vote had a lot more to do with several million people coming to realize Trump is evil, or at least not right in the head, than with your hypothesized backlash against a medical subprofession.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Quote:
xjx388 believes the public gains nothing by understanding how Trump's delusion that he is the rightful president of the United States has no basis in fact, and is far more plausibly explained by a mental illness that would be harmless in a less influential individual. I disagree with xjx388.
You have no evidence upon which to disagree. The real world has already proven you wrong.
As shown by examples above, your understanding of what is happening in the real world may not be any more profound than your understanding of what counts as evidence.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Quote:
xjx388 is also concerned that public discussion of this one specific example of how a normally harmless mental illness might contribute to (what Allen Frances believes to be) the deaths of millions of people might "cast Psychiatry in a bad light." In my opinion, that danger pales in comparison to the light cast by Allen Frances's public squabble with DSM-V and Allen Frances's declarations that Donald Trump "is as destructive a person in this century as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were in the last century."
I think of you took some time to understand Dr Frances’ position, you would tend to agree with him that psychiatry is moving dangerously towards “medicalizing normality,” as he puts it.
Dr Frances thinks Trump is one of the most destructive mass murderers in history. Dr Frances also thinks Trump is (in the sense of your sentence above) normal.

It is certainly possible to argue that psychiatry is medicalizing normality, but it's easier to argue that Dr Frances is normalizing mass murder.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Quote:
I also believe that calm and rational discussion of Trump's narcissistic personality will do less to associate mental illness with danger than the very public declarations by Allen Frances, Jeffrey Lieberman, and Steven Reisner that Donald Trump (whose manifestations of mental illness have become more compelling to millions of Americans with every week that passes) is so dangerous that we would be excusing his evil if we so much as suggest the man is not well.
Again, this has already proven to be false.
More accurately, xjx388 chooses to believe that things xjx388 chooses not to believe have been proved false.

As has been established by examples in this post, and by numerous examples throughout these threads, not everything xjx388 believes is true.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 6th September 2022 at 01:51 PM. Reason: corrected links from quotations, added ETA in parentheses
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 6th September 2022, 01:42 PM   #2150
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
For crying out loud. I can make my own points and statements. My point doesn't depend on lawsuits being current. And FFS why does it matter if it's current? Hint: It doesn't. She could perfectly well harbor a grudge.
Then why not just say so from the beginning instead of going round with me about how you were right about the lawsuits? Wouldn't it have been a hell of a lot easier to have just admitted that in the first place?

Sure, Mary T probably does have a grudge; I would, too, if I were her. He screwed her over royally just like he's done to countless others. But that doesn't mean her professional opinion about him is wrong.

Quote:
My statement (after correcting for the two rather obvious words I left out) is simply a true fact easily verified at wikipedia.
I never said it wasn't. Did I ever say there wasn't a PAST lawsuit? Even after I pointed out that I was talking about the current lawsuit, you just kept on and insisted I was 'misrepresenting' what you said. But you still refuse to say exactly how I did that. Why is that?

Quote:
And my statement about goalposts was on a different topic. That topic was the constant assertion that some of us are wrong on stupid for not recognizing Trump behavior when we are not objecting to anybody saying what his behavior is.
You may want to rephrase that because it really doesn't make any sense as it stands. I don't know what you mean by "for not recognizing Trump behavior". For what? As what?



Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Stacyhs is quite right. All three of those named by xjx388 (or misnamed, in the case of Jeffrey Lieberman) acknowledge Trump's abnormal behavior.
Yeah, she is right about that and I'm sure xjx will agree as do I. But you guys are playing volleyball with the goal posts.
I still have no idea exactly HOW we are allegedly "playing volleyball with the goal posts" as you still don't give an explanation.


Quote:
And that statement wasn't even directed at you at the time though you certainly have done that.
If it wasn't directed at me, then why do you specifically refer to me and then use the plural "you guys" are "playing volleyball with the goal posts"?

When exactly have I said someone is "wrong or stupid for not recognizing Trump's behavior"? I don't think anyone here has recognized T's behavior as 'normal'.
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 6th September 2022, 02:03 PM   #2151
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Then why ....
I'm not going down this rabbit hole any further. I'm just going to re-iterate the point you are trying to bury: Mary Trump is not suitable to diagnose her Uncle. She's family and has been involved in multiple lawsuits involving tens of millions of dollars. There are other professionals that might have valid points but no one with any sense should be citing Mary Trump's opinions.
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 6th September 2022, 02:40 PM   #2152
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I'm not going down this rabbit hole any further. I'm just going to re-iterate the point you are trying to bury: Mary Trump is not suitable to diagnose her Uncle. She's family and has been involved in multiple lawsuits involving tens of millions of dollars. There are other professionals that might have valid points but no one with any sense should be citing Mary Trump's opinions.
She's not "diagnosing" Trump. He's not her patient. She has no authority over him. What she can do is recount her direct, personal observations of a man she's known literally all her life, and place them in the context of her knowledge and experience as a Ph.D. clinical psychologist. The fact that she has an axe to grind might well diminish her claims, except that she's saying the same things hundreds, maybe thousands of other shrinks have said.

If he was paying her a bucket of money to claim he was the healthiest man she'd ever met, now that might look like a conflict of interest.
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 6th September 2022, 02:42 PM   #2153
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I'm not going down this rabbit hole any further. I'm just going to re-iterate the point you are trying to bury: Mary Trump is not suitable to diagnose her Uncle. She's family and has been involved in multiple lawsuits involving tens of millions of dollars. There are other professionals that might have valid points but no one with any sense should be citing Mary Trump's opinions.
I don't blame you for not wanting to continue. I wouldn't either if I were you.

"multiple lawsuits". Now that is hyperbolic as few would consider 'two' lawsuits (related and filed 2 decades apart) as 'multiple'.

"no one with any sense should be citing Mary Trump's opinions"

Again, just because her uncle has screwed her over doesn't mean her professional opinion is incorrect...especially when multiple other professionals agree with it.
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 6th September 2022, 02:49 PM   #2154
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
She's not "diagnosing" Trump.
I'll take your word for that. I thought about pointing out that I don't actually know whether she herself is making the mistake of offering an actual diagnosis. Other people citing her is the actual problem.
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 6th September 2022, 02:52 PM   #2155
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
"multiple lawsuits". Now that is hyperbolic as few would consider 'two' lawsuits (related and filed 2 decades apart) as 'multiple'.
But the correct number is three. Gawd.

ETA: And dictionaries agree that multiple is fine for two also. Sheez.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 6th September 2022 at 02:57 PM.
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 6th September 2022, 03:07 PM   #2156
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
She's not "diagnosing" Trump.
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I'll take your word for that. I thought about pointing out that I don't actually know whether she herself is making the mistake of offering an actual diagnosis. Other people citing her is the actual problem.
On second thought, you might want to double check if that statement is accurate if you care. Reviews of her first book would seem to indicate otherwise.
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 6th September 2022, 03:47 PM   #2157
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I was careful to say "tens of thousands".
You don’t have evidence even for “tens of thousands.”

Quote:
I quoted Steven Reisner, one of the three you said was making the same points as you, acknowledging the fact that

Outside of the quote marks, those are Steven Reisner's own words. If Steven Reisner believed the 30,000 was a bogus number, he had the opportunity to dispute that number or to say something vague such as "many". He did neither.
Resiner doesn’t have evidence for 30,000 either.

Quote:
I took your own cited authority at his word. You are free to disagree with the authorities you cite, but the fact that some of those you cite disagree with you is not my problem. It is yours.
I am not citing them because they are experts on online petition demographics. I dispute the idea that 70,000, 30,000, “tens of thousands,” MHPs signed that petition. There is no evidence that this is true and the evidence we do have points towards it not being true.

Quote:
With my highlighting:

Allen Frances has been one of the world's most prominent critics of DSM V. Dr Frances created a blog whose primary purpose was to criticize DSM V, which Dr Frances continues to describe as "a reckless and poorly written document".

One of Dr Frances's primary complaints about DSM V is that it emphasized the role of abnormal behavior in the diagnosis of mental illness, giving less weight to distress and functional impairment than Dr Frances would prefer.
I think that’s all true. He should be speaking out about the ever-broadening medicalization of normal, everyday behavior.
Quote:
Dr Frances has used Donald Trump to dramatize his objections to DSM V, saying Trump is neither distressed nor impaired by his unusual degree of narcissism. That example has not held up well over time, and it has always looked as though Dr Frances's opinion of Trump has been heavily influenced by Frances's dispute with his co-practitioners.
Again, there’s a lot of validity in his analysis. I don’t see a problem.
Quote:
In light of Allen Frances's pants-on-fire opinion that Trump is one of the most evil mass murderers in history, it's fair to say that not everyone takes Dr Frances seriously when it comes to Donald Trump (or, for that matter, when it comes to matters such as "climate change, population growth, technology, privacy, war, economics and guns").
I too think his exaggerations are a bit much. But Trump is directly responsible for how bad COVID got in America, even if the deaths aren’t all his fault. He fanned the flames that lead to America’s death toll. Likewise, the damage attributable to climate change isn’t all on Trump; we all have our share of blame for that. But he is a vocal and influential figure in the debate so he might have an outsized responsibility for the damage.

Quote:
You get to pick the authorities you cite. When you choose to cite authorities whose opinions of Trump are accurately described as over-the-top or pants-on-fire, that reflects poorly on your selection of authorities.
That’s ridiculous. I may not agree with everything they write or say on every subject, but I do respect their opinions on the topic at hand, the topic they are actual experts in: Psychiatry and the mental health profession.

And it’s worth pointing out that I don’t disagree with or completely dismiss everything the Yale Group says either, just because I disagree with their using diagnostic labels. They could say much the same things without using diagnostic labels and I’d have no problem with them saying it.

(ETA: Although the quotation immediately below was addressed to someone else, it is an example of a rhetorical trick xjx388 often relies upon when addressing people who disagree with xjx388.)

Quote:
I do not have any problem at all with the idea that some people are just bad people.

I am also familiar with the fact that some people, such as yourself, have a habit of mischaracterizing their opponent's opinions and positions, as you did just there.
If you acknowledge that people can be “bad” without being mentally ill, then I’m confused as to why it’s so important, in this one case, to bring up mental illness.


Quote:
Yes, you made that argument. You fail to mention the fact that, in 2020, Trump lost the popular vote by twice as much as he lost in 2016.

Your repeated citation of Trump's losing margin in the popular vote serves only to emphasize the failure of your argument from vox populi.
I didn’t mention it because it isn’t relevant. He gained voters, did he not? If that’s true, then it’s pretty good evidence that the pronouncements of the Yale Group were ineffective. They were unable to “warn off,” Trump voters.

Maybe you can make the argument that they were able to rally enough people to vote against him. You don’t have direct evidence of that and it’s far more likely that voters responded to Trump’s actual policies and behaviors, but I won’t argue that point with you simply because it’s impossible to demonstrate.

Quote:
Hah. Methinks you overestimate the influence of psychiatry/psychology. That's easy to do, of course.

In my opinion, Trump's diminishing percentage of the popular vote had a lot more to do with several million people coming to realize Trump is evil, or at least not right in the head, than with your hypothesized backlash against a medical subprofession.
Again, there’s no direct evidence either way. But the fact that he gained voters is suggestive that, at the very least, the Yale Group’s warnings fell on deaf ears.


Quote:
As shown by examples above, your understanding of what is happening in the real world may not be any more profound than your understanding of what counts as evidence.


Dr Frances thinks Trump is one of the most destructive mass murderers in history. Dr Frances also thinks Trump is (in the sense of your sentence above) normal.

It is certainly possible to argue that psychiatry is medicalizing normality, but it's easier to argue that Dr Frances is normalizing mass murder.
Maybe he is? I don’t necessarily agree with him on those points, as I said. The important takeaway, at least for me, is that the “mental illness model,” is not necessary to invoke. He behaves badly and in ways that make him dangerous. All of us in this thread can plainly see that, even though we aren’t mental health professionals. Mental health professionals can point that out, as Dr Frances does (hyperbolic though it may be).

And I should also point out that the Yale Group was a tad hyperbolic as well in their invocation of the danger he could cause by, for example, perhaps starting a nuclear war. That would make him responsible for more death and destruction than anyone, ever.
__________________
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 6th September 2022, 03:59 PM   #2158
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I don't blame you for not wanting to continue. I wouldn't either if I were you.

"multiple lawsuits". Now that is hyperbolic as few would consider 'two' lawsuits (related and filed 2 decades apart) as 'multiple'.

"no one with any sense should be citing Mary Trump's opinions"

Again, just because her uncle has screwed her over doesn't mean her professional opinion is incorrect...especially when multiple other professionals agree with it.

Ethically, she should not speak out about her uncle. It’s a clear conflict of interest. Even just one lawsuit is enough to establish that conflict. The fact that she is his niece is enough to establish that conflict. The fact that she, at the very least, has (valid) grudges against him is enough to establish that conflict.

Her book would have worked perfectly well if she had taken off her white coat while writing it.
__________________
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 6th September 2022, 04:08 PM   #2159
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
She's not "diagnosing" Trump.
She is. Read the book.
Quote:
He's not her patient.
He’s not the patient of any of the Yale Group, either.
Quote:
She has no authority over him.
Neither do any of the Yale Group.
Quote:
What she can do is recount her direct, personal observations of a man she's known literally all her life, and place them in the context of her knowledge and experience as a Ph.D. clinical psychologist.
This is something the Yale Group does not have at all. They’ve only seen him on TV.

So how do you conclude that the Yale Group should be diagnosing him?

Quote:
The fact that she has an axe to grind might well diminish her claims, except that she's saying the same things hundreds, maybe thousands of other shrinks have said.
The fact that she has an axe to grind means she shouldn’t touch the subject of his mental state with a ten-foot pole. That has nothing to do with the specific Goldwater Rule; it’s a basic tenet of medical ethics.

The fact that Trump is not the patient of those supposed “hundreds, maybe thousands of other shrinks,” means they shouldn’t touch the subject of diagnosis either.
__________________
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 6th September 2022, 04:38 PM   #2160
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Ethically, she should not speak out about her uncle. It’s a clear conflict of interest. Even just one lawsuit is enough to establish that conflict. The fact that she is his niece is enough to establish that conflict. The fact that she, at the very least, has (valid) grudges against him is enough to establish that conflict.

Her book would have worked perfectly well if she had taken off her white coat while writing it.
Ethics is a funny thing. If you could kill Hitler before 1932 would it be ethical? If she's sees Trump as a dangerous narcissist that engineered one violent coup and only yesterday asked for another one, is it ethical for her to remain silent?
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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 01:20 AM.
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.