|
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. |
5th September 2022, 03:12 PM | #2121 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
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. |
|
5th September 2022, 03:20 PM | #2122 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
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. |
|
5th September 2022, 03:52 PM | #2123 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
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:
If you insist. From Psychology Today:
Quote:
|
5th September 2022, 04:14 PM | #2124 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
Obviously I meant dollars of lawsuits. And it is properly plural since there are two I know of.
Yeah, so? This is supposed to be a point in favor of her remaining professionally unbiased??? I'm totally unqualified to say. |
5th September 2022, 07:32 PM | #2125 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
I found evidence of only one. What's the other and who is it against?
Quote:
Quote:
You're taking the obvious and easy way out...but you know. |
5th September 2022, 09:42 PM | #2126 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
[quote=Stacyhs;13894475]
Quote:
Jefferey Lieberman Steven Reisner They have all made the same points I have. |
__________________
Hello. |
|
6th September 2022, 12:52 AM | #2127 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,112
|
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:
Steven Reisner in 2016:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by xjx388
Reisner again, in 2017:-
Quote:
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. |
|
6th September 2022, 01:34 AM | #2128 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
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:
Quote:
You repeat what Frances claims:
Quote:
And there are many, many equally qualified psychiatrists who disagree with Frances:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
6th September 2022, 01:36 AM | #2129 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
6th September 2022, 04:28 AM | #2130 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
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 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
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
Steven Reisner, whom I quoted earlier, doesn't think Trump is mentally ill. He thinks Trump is radically evil:
Originally Posted by Steven Reisner
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. |
6th September 2022, 05:40 AM | #2131 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
|
6th September 2022, 05:42 AM | #2132 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
|
6th September 2022, 05:44 AM | #2133 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
|
6th September 2022, 07:27 AM | #2134 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
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: Of those three, the one whose views align most closely with xjx388's argument is Allen Frances:
Originally Posted by Allen Frances
"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:
xjx388 believes the problem is "much deeper than one dude's behavior." I agreed: 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. 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. |
6th September 2022, 10:13 AM | #2135 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
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. |
|
6th September 2022, 10:39 AM | #2136 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 36,113
|
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) |
|
6th September 2022, 10:47 AM | #2137 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
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. |
|
6th September 2022, 10:57 AM | #2138 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
And?
Exactly how are we doing that? 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. From the freaking Wikipedia entry you referred to:
Quote:
|
6th September 2022, 11:01 AM | #2139 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sag-Nasty
Posts: 1,252
|
|
__________________
When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy. IIDB is back, baby! |
|
6th September 2022, 11:12 AM | #2140 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
|
6th September 2022, 11:12 AM | #2141 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness' say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 3
See my previous post. There aren’t “tens of thousands,” there are only a handful that have publicly spoken out.
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Hello. |
|
6th September 2022, 11:31 AM | #2142 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
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:
|
6th September 2022, 11:45 AM | #2143 |
Illuminator
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. |
6th September 2022, 11:47 AM | #2144 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
|
6th September 2022, 12:16 PM | #2145 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
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:
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? |
6th September 2022, 12:33 PM | #2146 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
This was your claim:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
6th September 2022, 12:43 PM | #2147 |
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. |
6th September 2022, 01:00 PM | #2148 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
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. |
|
6th September 2022, 01:30 PM | #2149 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
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
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: 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.) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 |
|
6th September 2022, 01:42 PM | #2150 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
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:
Quote:
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:
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'. |
6th September 2022, 02:03 PM | #2151 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
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.
|
6th September 2022, 02:40 PM | #2152 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
|
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. |
6th September 2022, 02:42 PM | #2153 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
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. |
6th September 2022, 02:49 PM | #2154 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
|
6th September 2022, 02:52 PM | #2155 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
|
6th September 2022, 03:07 PM | #2156 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
|
6th September 2022, 03:47 PM | #2157 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
You don’t have evidence even for “tens of thousands.”
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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. |
|
6th September 2022, 03:59 PM | #2158 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
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. |
|
6th September 2022, 04:08 PM | #2159 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
She is. Read the book.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So how do you conclude that the Yale Group should be diagnosing him?
Quote:
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. |
|
6th September 2022, 04:38 PM | #2160 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
|
|
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|