Continuation Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 2

[SOdhner]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

We're setting a precedent that a very, very, very small number of mental health practitioners can claim that a politician has a mental disorder, without having followed the appropriate procedures to form a diagnosis... and can use that as a means to remove that politician from office.

In what possible universe does some people saying he has a personality disorder result in him actually being removed from office? That would be like suggesting that if I say he stole my wallet he's going to be dragged away and thrown in jail.

The most it could possibly be, the most drastic and consequential result, is that if all the right people found it plausible they could force him to undergo a direct evaluation and then maybe, possibly, use the result of that as part of the evidence needed to lawfully remove him from office. But that's a pretty extreme case and frankly isn't going to happen.

So no, I'm not at all worried about that.

Thread continued from here. You may quote and respond to post from previous parts.

Posted By:zooterkin

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by xjx388

In what way are their opinions "well supported?"

No matter what spin you put on it, all you have is an elaborate argument from authority. "We are well respected experts who agree with each other so we know," is not very convincing in my book.

The “architects and engineers” that say 9/11 was an inside job number 2000. Take that, long-distance shrinks!

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by SOdhner

In what possible universe does some people saying he has a personality disorder result in him actually being removed from office?

Ask the Yale group. That's exactly what they say should happen, based on their "diagnosis".

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by SOdhner

In what possible universe does some people saying he has a personality disorder result in him actually being removed from office? That would be like suggesting that if I say he stole my wallet he's going to be dragged away and thrown in jail.



The most it could possibly be, the most drastic and consequential result, is that if all the right people found it plausible they could force him to undergo a direct evaluation and then maybe, possibly, use the result of that as part of the evidence needed to lawfully remove him from office. But that's a pretty extreme case and frankly isn't going to happen.



So no, I'm not at all worried about that.

What if they came out before the election? If he runs again, you don’t think they might get a little louder? How do you separate political attack from sound analysis?

And that points at another, bigger danger here: the erosion of trust in the medical profession.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by theprestige

So if we laypeople are competent to reject her opinion, it opens up the possibility that we're competent to reject the opinion of the Yale group.

A medical professional is not always competent to diagnose mental disorders. From Ginger's own description, she is a professional, but not a mental health specialist. Thus, her opinion matters a lot less than the opinion of the Yale group.

But I tend to side with xj here. Even the Yale group's opinion goes only so far, since this opinion was not formed consistently with the ethical norms of their society.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by phiwum

A medical professional is not always competent to diagnose mental disorders. From Ginger's own description, she is a professional, but not a mental health specialist. Thus, her opinion matters a lot less than the opinion of the Yale group.

But I tend to side with xj here. Even the Yale group's opinion goes only so far, since this opinion was not formed consistently with the ethical norms of their society.

That is the same crap that demonstrates someone with little expertise, looking at a single ethical position paper and/or a single diagnostic standard without a clue how to apply such positions.

The evidence in the public sphere of Trump's mental illness is overwhelming. Anyone with any medical diagnostic experience could put the 'you need an in-person exam' standard into perspective. You don't need an in-person exam in Trump's case and it was asked over and over in this thread, what would one add in said in-person exam and the question was never answered, because there is no answer.

Then there is the 'ethical' position paper re the Goldwater rule. If you read the discussion by the professionals that chose to go against the ethical standard, they explain why they chose to do that.

The only actual argument against Trump's diagnosis was one professional who set a threshold standard of mental illness that the person must be suffering. Just because one is rich and successful doesn't mean one is not suffering. That issue and arguments against that single professional are well articulated in the thread.

But here we are again, people reading a few things on the internet who don't have the requisite diagnostic education and experience trying to apply a couple simplistic rules as if a couple rules override years of education and experience.

And then there is the attempt to make this about my expertise. I know it's bothersome to hear that Dunning-Kruger applies to someone. The whole issue with Dunning-Kruger is the person it applies to doesn't know what they don't know, so they believe they know enough. But they don't.

There isn't a body of professionals that believe Trump does not have NPD. There is one professional that put forth that argument. The rest are either speaking out that he does have NPD, they don't think any professional should make their clinical opinion pubic, and/or they have not formed an opinion. Not everyone is obsessed with Trump's mental status.

So those who don't get it or who prefer Trump be 'normal', go right ahead and believe that you can tell the diagnosis is wrong or can't be made because you read a couple 'rules' on the internet. I'm sure it seems to you that those couple rules represent years of education and experience and why on earth would such highly respected professionals not pay attention to those two standards/rules/whatever you want to call them.

Why do you think those professionals are not equally impressed about the significance of said 'rules' you read on the internet? Why would such highly respected professionals not think those 'rules' override years of education and experience?

Oh I know, just like Trump claims anything that is critical of him is either fake news or partisan politics. As if no FBI agent, no conscientious news reporter and no medical professional could possibly act within their profession without being partisan.

Damn the world must suck, not a single professional opinion is ever rendered without an overriding partisan influence.


Edited to add, you all don't have professional organizations behind you. You all have what you read on the net. Even if some of those in said organizations reiterated the Goldwater rule and publicly disagreed with the Yale professionals, only one of them have come out actually disagreeing with the diagnosis.

[carlitos]

If this is only a single position paper, perhaps Skeptic Ginger could post a handful of position papers where the relevant organizations endorse "distance diagnosis" of public figures?

[theprestige]

I think at this stage, "remote viewing" is still the best term for it.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think at this stage, "remote viewing" is still the best term for it.

As opposed to the aura reading of an in-person interview? I'll note again that those who claim there's a "scientific" reason for that requirement have repeatedly failed to make that case -- in fact they haven't even really tried. Such is the nature of dogmatism.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

As opposed to the aura reading of an in-person interview? I'll note again that those who claim there's a "scientific" reason for that requirement have repeatedly failed to make that case -- in fact they haven't even really tried. Such is the nature of dogmatism.

Resolved: There is no scientific grounds for psychiatric diagnosis of any kind. Now what?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by carlitos

If this is only a single position paper, perhaps Skeptic Ginger could post a handful of position papers where the relevant organizations endorse "distance diagnosis" of public figures?

You don't get it. A professional organization's position paper doesn't override one's complete education and experience. The Yale psychiatrists and psychologists explained their reasoning in their paper.

Any medical professional with half a brain can see an in-person exam in Trump's case would add nothing to the clinical assessment.

The in-person exam position paper applies to diagnosing and treating a patient and it doesn't apply to all situations. Hallway medicine is never recommended. That's when someone comes up to you and asks you to prescribe something or tell them what their rash is, but you never see them for an actual exam.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

As opposed to the aura reading of an in-person interview?

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That is the same crap that demonstrates someone with little expertise, looking at a single ethical position paper and/or a single diagnostic standard without a clue how to apply such positions.

So let's stick to the ethics around a "duty to warn." When a patient expresses to their doctor a specific intent to harm someone there's a real ethical conflict there between the ethical rules about patient-physician confidentiality and a general duty to prevent harm to the threatened person. In that case, the APA and most States recognize a duty to warn the threatened person.

But here, no doctor has specific knowledge about any specific harm. All they have is their own speculation. Educated speculation, perhaps, but speculation nonetheless. Mere speculation is not enough to override a clear ethical rule.

Nothing in the ethical rules prohibits these mental health professionals from speaking their minds as citizens. The problem is that they are speaking as mental health professionals.

Quote:

The evidence in the public sphere of Trump's mental illness is overwhelming. Anyone with any medical diagnostic experience could put the 'you need an in-person exam' standard into perspective. You don't need an in-person exam in Trump's case and it was asked over and over in this thread, what would one add in said in-person exam and the question was never answered, because there is no answer.

Sticking with the ethical question raised by this situation, an in-person interview might reveal that Trump is considering an unprovoked nuke attack as an extreme example. That would raise the ethical dilemma. But we don't have that. We have educated guesses -not enough to trigger the ethical dilemma.

Even if I grant you that the diagnosis of NPD is more likely than not to be true, there is still no basis on which to say that he is a danger to the world based on that diagnosis.

That brings the standard of care into play. Public domain information may be enough to raise the question of NPD or "malignant narcissism" in a professional's mind. But that question can only be resolved authoritatively by application of standard psychiatric/psychological practice. A professional opinion given in the form of a specific diagnostic label without any disclaimer or caveat isn't represented as an unresolved question in the professional's mind; it's represented as if it's a valid conclusion based on sound practice. In this case, it clearly isn't.

Quote:

Then there is the 'ethical' position paper re the Goldwater rule. If you read the discussion by the professionals that chose to go against the ethical standard, they explain why they chose to do that.

And their arguments fall short of triggering an ethical dilemma. They cannot know that he is dangerous, they can only suspect it. A suspicion is not enough trigger a justification for an ethical breach -only a strong degree of certainty can do that.

Quote:

The only actual argument against Trump's diagnosis was one professional who set a threshold standard of mental illness that the person must be suffering. Just because one is rich and successful doesn't mean one is not suffering. That issue and arguments against that single professional are well articulated in the thread.

Well articulated perhaps but not particularly well founded. Dr. Frances' argument is more like what professionals could be saying. I think he erred in stating that he does not have NPD (hasn't examined him so he can't say that) but the way he took Trump down was him speaking as a citizen. Nothing at all wrong with that.

Quote:

But here we are again, people reading a few things on the internet who don't have the requisite diagnostic education and experience trying to apply a couple simplistic rules as if a couple rules override years of education and experience.

When those "things on the internet" are position papers of major organizations, those "things" have more weight than the other "things we read on the internet:' the opinion of these Yale "conference" attendees and their supporters.

Quote:

And then there is the attempt to make this about my expertise. I know it's bothersome to hear that Dunning-Kruger applies to someone. The whole issue with Dunning-Kruger is the person it applies to doesn't know what they don't know, so they believe they know enough. But they don't.

Yes, i agree. The thing is that your paragraph here is highly ironic. You say your FNP certification and WA license mean you are qualified to speak on this topic. You introduced those things, not anyone else. You want those things to give your arguments weight. So YOU made this about your expertise. You could very easily have left that out of your arguments. But you didn't. So I would say that the DK argument applies to you a lot more than it does to someone like me who has admitted that he isn't an expert and so relies on other experts to form an argument.

An FNP gets very little formal education on psychology or training in psychiatric practice. You have not indicated that you took any post-graduate education in psychology/psychiatry. A few courses in psychology does not make one an expert.

Then there's the matter of experience. You admittedly have no experience in practicing psychiatry. You didn't do any residency training so you can't even say that you had some exposure to psych practice. Maybe you did a short rotation through the psych department but you can't say that your experience makes you an expert.

I'm perfectly willing to drop your expertise as an issue if you don't rely on it for your arguments. But as long as you continue to raise it AND as long as you continue to use DK as an argument against me. It applies to you too. You have a little bit of knowledge and think that makes you an expert.

Quote:

There isn't a body of professionals that believe Trump does not have NPD. There is one professional that put forth that argument. The rest are either speaking out that he does have NPD, they don't think any professional should make their clinical opinion pubic, and/or they have not formed an opinion. Not everyone is obsessed with Trump's mental status.

The vast majority of practitioners have not said one peep about Trump's mental status. You cannot conclude that "there isn't a body of professionals that believe Trump does not have NPD."

Quote:

So those who don't get it or who prefer Trump be 'normal',

This isn't about whether or not Trump is normal. I've certainly indicated that I don't think he's normal in a colloquial, political sense.

Quote:

go right ahead and believe that you can tell the diagnosis is wrong or can't be made because you read a couple 'rules' on the internet. I'm sure it seems to you that those couple rules represent years of education and experience and why on earth would such highly respected professionals not pay attention to those two standards/rules/whatever you want to call them.

Why do you think those professionals are not equally impressed about the significance of said 'rules' you read on the internet? Why would such highly respected professionals not think those 'rules' override years of education and experience?

For the same reasons that doctors who should know better support all kinds of woo. Hubris, mostly.

Quote:

Oh I know, just like Trump claims anything that is critical of him is either fake news or partisan politics. As if no FBI agent, no conscientious news reporter and no medical professional could possibly act within their profession without being partisan.

Trump is simply wrong and self-serving.

Quote:

Damn the world must suck, not a single professional opinion is ever rendered without an overriding partisan influence.

That's a bit dramatic.

Quote:

Edited to add, you all don't have professional organizations behind you. You all have what you read on the net. Even if some of those in said organizations reiterated the Goldwater rule and publicly disagreed with the Yale professionals, only one of them have come out actually disagreeing with the diagnosis.

I would take silence on the matter by the vast majority of practitioners to mean that the overwhelming opinion of practitioners is that diagnosing people you've never met is unethical.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You don't get it. A professional organization's position paper doesn't override one's complete education and experience. The Yale psychiatrists and psychologists explained their reasoning in their paper.

Any medical professional with half a brain can see an in-person exam in Trump's case would add nothing to the clinical assessment.

The in-person exam position paper applies to diagnosing and treating a patient and it doesn't apply to all situations. Hallway medicine is never recommended. That's when someone comes up to you and asks you to prescribe something or tell them what their rash is, but you never see them for an actual exam.

Thank you for your reply. I realize that these professors explained their reasons for acting outside of protocol.

Highlighting, bold and ad-homs aren't helping your case here, btw.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Ask the Yale group. That's exactly what they say should happen, based on their "diagnosis".

Yeah, a lot of things 'should' be. Doesn't mean they will be.

For example we should stop pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere - but we won't. That doesn't mean scientists shouldn't recommend that we stop.

Personally I don't think we should do anything to remove Trump from office. The longer he stays in power the more damage he can do - and those of us who hate America couldn't be happier (my dream is that he goes full-on insane and nukes California....).

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Yeah, a lot of things 'should' be. Doesn't mean they will be.

For example we should stop pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere - but we won't. That doesn't mean scientists shouldn't recommend that we stop.

Personally I don't think we should do anything to remove Trump from office. The longer he stays in power the more damage he can do - and those of us who hate America couldn't be happier (my dream is that he goes full-on insane and nukes California....).

Why do you hate America?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Thank you for your reply. I realize that these professors explained their reasons for acting outside of protocol.

Highlighting, bold and ad-homs aren't helping your case here, btw.

The ad hom wasn't an ad hom it was hyperbole.

I wasn't trying to insult you, just address that you asked for something that wasn't relevant and has been used in this thread over and over.

How do you frame an argument when someone asks you to address their argument which is not a relevant argument?

Originally Posted by carlitos

post a handful of position papers where the relevant organizations endorse "distance diagnosis"

That is not the argument being put forward here. Xjx is repeating this nonsense over and over, post the scientific process (it's a diagnosis, not a research paper); support this or support that (Trump is a one-off, you don't dig out studies that support a diagnostic choice to diverge from a standard based on a one-off clinical situation. That is what your expertise and experience are for).

Everything is not in a book, there are not randomized double-blind clinical studies for everything we do.

Here's an example from my own medical file. I have a very weird autoimmune disorder. Neither I, nor my rheumatologist, nor the 5 different specialists I went to could find a single other case like mine. Not one.

So treatment and which tests to order are not in any medical textbook. But one thing that isn't needed is to run every single test that has the most remote possibility of showing something. Those tests might be standard for any one of my symptoms, but there is no standard for the symptom cluster. You make clinical decisions about which labs to run and which meds to try and not everything is addressed by some 'standard'.

Trump is a one-off and an open book. It's stupid for someone, (not necessarily you), to pull out a general standard and wave it around like it overrides anyone's professional judgement about Trump. That's not how medicine works.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

As opposed to the aura reading of an in-person interview? I'll note again that those who claim there's a "scientific" reason for that requirement have repeatedly failed to make that case -- in fact they haven't even really tried. Such is the nature of dogmatism.

Interestingly because of this thread I spent some time looking at how medical professionals consult other medical professionals on cases, and some of the examples I found were psychiatric consultations and often these are done by providing the case file, so notes and videos not by any one to one interview etc. "remote viewing " diagnostics seems to be quite standard practice in all fields of medicine.

[Lurch]

I'm not aware of Hitler having had a proper in-person psychiatric assessment performed. Does this mean that having no opportunity to do so invalidates any provisional diagnosis one or a group of professionals might compile today?

If we accept that based on the historic record alone we might arrive at a useful enough first diagnosis for such as Hitler, then can we not do so at least as confidently for a contemporaneous subject pretty wide open to observation in his environment and in real time?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Darat

Interestingly because of this thread I spent some time looking at how medical professionals consult other medical professionals on cases, and some of the examples I found were psychiatric consultations and often these are done by providing the case file, so notes and videos not by any one to one interview etc. "remote viewing " diagnostics seems to be quite standard practice in all fields of medicine.

Does the consulting physician make a diagnosis?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Lurch

If we accept that based on the historic record alone we might arrive at a useful enough first diagnosis for such as Hitler, then can we not do so at least as confidently for a contemporaneous subject pretty wide open to observation in his environment and in real time?

If.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Does the consulting physician make a diagnosis?

In the cases I looked at yes. It was some months ago, if I can find the sites in my browser history I'll post them when I'm next on my home PC.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Darat

Interestingly because of this thread I spent some time looking at how medical professionals consult other medical professionals on cases, and some of the examples I found were psychiatric consultations and often these are done by providing the case file, so notes and videos not by any one to one interview etc. "remote viewing " diagnostics seems to be quite standard practice in all fields of medicine.

Good point. Sometimes a consult is done by only a phone call or a brief in-person discussion with the consultant, with few written records.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Darat

In the cases I looked at yes. It was some months ago, if I can find the sites in my browser history I'll post them when I'm next on my home PC.

Sometimes they will suggest a second diagnosis that is in addition to what the primary provider is treating.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Resolved: There is no scientific grounds for psychiatric diagnosis of any kind. Now what?

Your hyperbole misrepresents the point in contention here. Physical illnesses are diagnosed by the presence of physical evidence. I have yet to see any substantiated argument that personality disorders are diagnosed by anything other than evidence of consistent and persistent behavior patterns. And I have yet to hear even speculation about what an in-person interview with Donald Trump might reveal -- much less how it would do so -- that would indicate some diagnosis other than malignant, sociopathic narcissism. If you want to say that's not a "diagnosis" because the APA says so, suit yourself, but Trump has already done a lot of damage that can be traced directly to his personality disorder, whatever label whoever puts on it. But "now what" is we just have to sit and watch to see how much damage he inflicts before this is over. Elections have consequences.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by xjx388

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

To be clear, this is a BS assessment of my expertise, but so what? Look at the thread title: "... say psychiatry experts at Yale conferenc[e]". This thread is about what highly respected psychiatric experts have publicly stated.

Certain people in the thread are using things they read on the internet to assert those professionals are wrong.

As for the "neither do you" comment, it's wrong as well.

You have made this about your own expertise. Well, you can easily prove up your expertise. Present your training and experience -your license is irrelevant. What courses/training specifically in psychiatry did you take? What experience do you have in diagnosing psychiatric illnesses?

If I recall correction, according to Skeptic Ginger's earlier posts, the only thing she has ever done regarding mental health practice was to identify a person who did NOT have a mental illness, but was claiming one.

She claims that "simple" mental health disorders are within her purview to diagnose and treat, and I agree with that as regards the role of a general practitioner. Where I disagree is with her next step of claiming that one of the most complex sets of disorders would be considered "simple" by anyone with the appropriate background.

[TragicMonkey]

The term narcissism comes from the myth of Narcissus, who fell in love with his own reflection in a pool. I think its obvious to everyone who's seen him that not even Trump would fall in love with something that looks like Trump. And the malice would be if you tried to attack your own reflection, which would again be futile in Trump's case as he'd only scrabble at a mirror with his tiny crinkled paws, weeping in frustration, or if like in the original myth he encountered his reflection in water Trump would bob helplessly upon the waves, shrieking as his corpulent bulk proves too buoyant for navigation. On these grounds therefore I think it's safe to say that Trump is not a malignant narcissist. He lacks the skill set necessary to be a malignant narcissist. He's just a stupid jerk. With age-related dementia.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

If I recall correction, according to Skeptic Ginger's earlier posts, the only thing she has ever done regarding mental health practice was to identify a person who did NOT have a mental illness, but was claiming one.

You should quote people instead of making stuff up about what people have said. This is nonsense.

But for the record, your premise demonstrates more people believing they understand diagnosing when they have no clue.

I have never diagnosed a person with ebola either but I know how to.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

She claims that "simple" mental health disorders are within her purview to diagnose and treat, and I agree with that as regards the role of a general practitioner. Where I disagree is with her next step of claiming that one of the most complex sets of disorders would be considered "simple" by anyone with the appropriate background.

As far as Trump's diagnosis being complex, hardly. One psychiatry professor said Trump's symptoms were so classic he pondered using them as examples in his classes.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

The term narcissism comes from the myth of Narcissus, who fell in love with his own reflection in a pool. I think its obvious to everyone who's seen him that not even Trump would fall in love with something that looks like Trump. And the malice would be if you tried to attack your own reflection, which would again be futile in Trump's case as he'd only scrabble at a mirror with his tiny crinkled paws, weeping in frustration, or if like in the original myth he encountered his reflection in water Trump would bob helplessly upon the waves, shrieking as his corpulent bulk proves too buoyant for navigation. On these grounds therefore I think it's safe to say that Trump is not a malignant narcissist. He lacks the skill set necessary to be a malignant narcissist. He's just a stupid jerk. With age-related dementia.

Beg to differ with you there. The whole Inaugeration Crowd fiasco / National Park Service telltale was as big a piece of evidence that was ever needed.

That and the giant Trump signs on everything he owns.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Beg to differ with you there. The whole Inaugeration Crowd fiasco / National Park Service telltale was as big a piece of evidence that was ever needed.

That and the giant Trump signs on everything he owns.

I think he was joking.

[Bob001]

I hadn't seen this particular link before. Bandy Lee explains her thinking.

Quote:

To make a diagnosis one needs all the relevant information – including, I believe, a personal interview. But to assess dangerousness, one only needs enough information to raise alarms. It is about the situation rather than the person. The same person may not be a danger in a different situation, while a diagnosis stays with the person.

It is Trump in the office of the presidency that poses a danger. Why? Past violence is the best predictor of future violence, and he has shown: verbal aggressiveness, boasting about sexual assaults, inciting violence in others, an attraction to violence and powerful weapons and the continual taunting of a hostile nation with nuclear power. Specific traits that are highly associated with violence include: impulsivity, recklessness, paranoia, a loose grip on reality with a poor understanding of consequences, rage reactions, a lack of empathy, belligerence towards others and a constant need to demonstrate power.

There is another pattern by which he is dangerous. His cognitive function, or his ability to process knowledge and thoughts, has begun to be widely questioned. Many have noted a distinct decline in his outward ability to form complete sentences, to stay with a thought, to use complex words and not to make loose associations. This is dangerous because of the critical importance of decision-making capacity in the office that he holds. Cognitive decline can result from any number of causes – psychiatric, neurological, medical, or medication-induced – and therefore needs to be investigated. Likewise, we do not know whether psychiatric symptoms are due to a mental disorder, medication, or a physical condition, which only a thorough examination can reveal.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...s-psychiatrist

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I hadn't seen this particular link before. Bandy Lee explains her thinking.

Let's see...

Originally Posted by Bandy Lee

To make a diagnosis one needs all the relevant information – including, I believe, a personal interview. But to assess dangerousness, one only needs enough information to raise alarms. It is about the situation rather than the person. The same person may not be a danger in a different situation, while a diagnosis stays with the person.

Makes sense to me.

Quote:

It is Trump in the office of the presidency that poses a danger. Why? Past violence is the best predictor of future violence, and he has shown: verbal aggressiveness, boasting about sexual assaults, inciting violence in others, an attraction to violence and powerful weapons and the continual taunting of a hostile nation with nuclear power. Specific traits that are highly associated with violence include: impulsivity, recklessness, paranoia, a loose grip on reality with a poor understanding of consequences, rage reactions, a lack of empathy, belligerence towards others and a constant need to demonstrate power.

This is all stuff that was known to voters before the election. It's all stuff that voters are called upon to assess, without requiring any specialized knowledge of psychiatry. The Yale group offers nothing of value to what voters already know and can decide for themselves.

Quote:

There is another pattern by which he is dangerous. His cognitive function, or his ability to process knowledge and thoughts, has begun to be widely questioned. Many have noted a distinct decline in his outward ability to form complete sentences, to stay with a thought, to use complex words and not to make loose associations. This is dangerous because of the critical importance of decision-making capacity in the office that he holds.

Appeal to popularity. He's not dangerous because people perceive that he's dangerous, nor because people worry that he might be dangerous, but that's what Lee is arguing here.

Quote:

Cognitive decline can result from any number of causes – psychiatric, neurological, medical, or medication-induced – and therefore needs to be investigated. Likewise, we do not know whether psychiatric symptoms are due to a mental disorder, medication, or a physical condition, which only a thorough examination can reveal.

It's not necessary to investigate the cause of bad behavior, to conclude that the behavior is bad and should be curtailed.

This passage also seems to be a non-sequitur. Yes, a thorough examination can reveal causes of bad behavior, but why bring it up? Is Lee saying Yale group have conducted such an examination? Is she saying such an examination is necessary in this case?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by theprestige

.....
This is all stuff that was known to voters before the election. It's all stuff that voters are called upon to assess, without requiring any specialized knowledge of psychiatry. The Yale group offers nothing of value to what voters already know and can decide for themselves.
.....

Historians and sociologists will write books about what motivated voters in 2016. We should always note that three million more people voted for Clinton than Trump, and less than half of the people eligible to vote actually voted. Trump won less than a quarter of the votes that could have been cast. And the votes he won weren't a license to do anything he wants.

That said, what any candidate says during the campaign ("a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage!") can be taken with a grain of salt. President Trump has behaved in numerous ways -- his smug ignorance, his dishonesty, his corruption, his belligerent threats, his demeaning of federal judges and the entire judicial process, his willful abuse of immigrant children, his affection for vicious dictators and his contempt for our closest allies, etc., etc., etc. -- that nobody voted for. His speech and acts during his presidency are legitimate causes for alarm.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The idea voters had a clue how bad Trump's mental illness was when they voted for him in 2016 presumes facts not in evidence.

Trump pulled a con job. In Nov 2016 a whole slew of people had no clue yet they were being conned. More and more are recognizing that con every day but even now a significant number of people believe the lies Trump tells.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Historians and sociologists will write books about what motivated voters in 2016.

I'm sure they will. I'm not sure it's relevant here, though.

Quote:

We should always note that three million more people voted for Clinton than Trump, and less than half of the people eligible to vote actually voted. Trump won less than a quarter of the votes that could have been cast.

Kinda puts the whole "three million more votes for Clinton" thing into perspective. I'm not sure it's relevant here, though.

Quote:

And the votes he won weren't a license to do anything he wants.

They were, however, a license to do anything he wants within the authority of the Executive branch, that is uncontested by the other two branches. I'm not sure it's relevant here, though.

Quote:

That said, what any candidate says during the campaign ("a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage!") can be taken with a grain of salt. President Trump has behaved in numerous ways -- his smug ignorance, his dishonesty, his corruption, his belligerent threats, his demeaning of federal judges and the entire judicial process, his willful abuse of immigrant children, his affection for vicious dictators and his contempt for our closest allies, etc., etc., etc. -- that nobody voted for.

Nobody voted for the Cuban Missile Crisis, but that's what President Kennedy gave us. Nobody voted for dropping nukes on Japan, but that's what President Truman gave us. Nobody voted for the Civil War, but that's what President Lincoln gave us. I'm not sure it's relevant here, though.

Quote:

His speech and acts during his presidency are legitimate causes for alarm.

They certainly are. But you keep bringing up points of agreement as if they are the heart of the disagreement. They're not. Any voter is competent enough to evaluate Trump's behavior both during the campaign and after the election, and make their own judgement about it. Can you explain what the Yale group adds to your analysis, that you weren't able to provide on your own?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The idea voters had a clue how bad Trump's mental illness was when they voted for him in 2016 presumes facts not in evidence.

Trump pulled a con job. In Nov 2016 a whole slew of people had no clue yet they were being conned. More and more are recognizing that con every day but even now a significant number of people believe the lies Trump tells.

Trump pulled the same con job every politician pulls. And voters don't need the Yale group to figure this stuff out. You'd be saying the same exact things, with the same exact valid justification, if the Yale group had never formed nor spoken out. Can you explain what the Yale group adds to your assessment, that you weren't able to provide yourself?

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The idea voters had a clue how bad Trump's mental illness was when they voted for him in 2016 presumes facts not in evidence.

So why didn't they hold their Yale conference before the election? That would have been the time to raise the alarm, not after the fact when there's nothing they can do anymore. Surely, these mental health professionals had already had enough information to arrive at the professional opinions in question here. Where was their "duty to warn" that overrides ethical concerns before the election?

Besides, you are begging the question here. You are presuming that the mental health of a candidate is something the voters think about -that is the fact that is not in evidence. Perhaps if someone makes an issue of it, like they did with Goldwater in '64; but, mental illness is not part of the political conversation that usually happens.

Quote:

Trump pulled a con job. In Nov 2016 a whole slew of people had no clue yet they were being conned. More and more are recognizing that con every day but even now a significant number of people believe the lies Trump tells.

I am not disagreeing at all with an assessment that he's a liar, a con man, etc. But those things have nothing to do with any mental illness diagnosis. It adds nothing to the table.

[theprestige]

"Psychiatrists have remotely diagnosed the president as crazy!"

"That doesn't seem like good psychiatric practice, for a number of reasons."

"You just don't want to admit that the president is crazy!"

"No, I fully believe the president is crazy. I just don't think it's good psychiatric practice to diagnose people remotely and publicly."

"You just don't want to admit that the president is crazy!"

"I fully believe the president is crazy. What does remote diagnosis add that I haven't figured out already?"

"You just don't want to admit that the president is crazy!"

"I fully believe that the president is crazy. How is this not getting through to you?"

"You just don't want to admit that the president is crazy!"

"I'm beginning to think that you are crazy."

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by xjx388

So why didn't they hold their Yale conference before the election? ....

This is a red herring and it's naive all in one.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by theprestige

"Psychiatrists have remotely diagnosed the president as crazy!"

"That doesn't seem like good psychiatric practice, for a number of reasons."

"You just don't want to admit that the president is crazy!"

"No, I fully believe the president is crazy. I just don't think it's good psychiatric practice to diagnose people remotely and publicly."

"You just don't want to admit that the president is crazy!"

"I fully believe the president is crazy. What does remote diagnosis add that I haven't figured out already?"

"You just don't want to admit that the president is crazy!"

"I fully believe that the president is crazy. How is this not getting through to you?"

"You just don't want to admit that the president is crazy!"

"I'm beginning to think that you are crazy."

Sorry, you think that Trump is crazy? Or are you paraphrasing xj?