ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , mental illness issues , psychiatry incidents , psychiatry issues , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 28th June 2018, 12:04 PM   #81
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,414
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Here's an hour of Trump at work this week, recorded live and unedited. Watch (on an empty stomach) and assess his suitability for the White House:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVVZyUEJKF4
It's a good thing that video came to light. If only we'd been able to see it before the election, it would have changed everything. But better late than never. The Cabinet should be able to start 25th amendment proceedings based on that footage. Or would you prefer Congress simply move to impeach, on the strength of that video?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 12:16 PM   #82
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,411
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
It really is enlightening to read about the Goldwater Rule.
You see the same comments, about Goldwater, literally, that you see now.
https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/goldwater-rule

Some of the responses from the original article in Fact Magazine were more reasonable, similar to those trying keep the common sense response to this thread, here.

The response from the APA:
Is there a point here? Nothing about Goldwater, who some feared would launch a first strike nuke, applies to Trump or the current situation.

I know it looks like it does to you. But it doesn't.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 28th June 2018 at 01:31 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 01:26 PM   #83
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,549
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Is there a point here? Nothing about Goldwater, who some feared would launch a first strike nuke, applies to Trump or the current situation.

I know it looks like it does to you. But it isn't.


That’s just laughable special pleading.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
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 28th June 2018, 10:03 PM   #84
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,012
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"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."
Nah. It's more like,

"We think there are serious issues surrounding Trump and his mental capacity."

"That's only because you hate Republicans!"

"Noooo... look. He fits the profile here in every respect."

"You just hate Trump!"

"We believe we have a duty to warn the public. This is serious."

"That is nothing but political grandstanding!"

"We have evidence stretching back decades."

"Partisan politics!"

"There's a professional organization to which we do not belong which has published a CYA stance we think doesn't apply. Even members of the APA do not agree on this stance."

"PARTISAN POLITICS!!"

"We all agree that Trump's a maniac and not good for the country; even you've said he's nuttier than a wagon load of pralines."

"PPAAAARRRTTTTIISSAAAANNN PPOOOOLLLLIIIIITTTIIICCCCCCCCCCCCCCSSSSSSSSSSSS!!! !!!!"

"I think you're going to stroke out there, pal. Take it easy."

"PPOPPOOOISALLALAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHHHHHHH HHHGGGHHHH..."




Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That’s just laughable special pleading.
At first I was going to disagree, but recalling your past expertise at special pleading, I'll concede you might be correct.
The Norseman 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 28th June 2018, 10:18 PM   #85
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,411
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Nah. It's more like,

"We think there are serious issues surrounding Trump and his mental capacity."

"That's only because you hate Republicans!"

"Noooo... look. He fits the profile here in every respect."

"You just hate Trump!"

"We believe we have a duty to warn the public. This is serious."

"That is nothing but political grandstanding!"

"We have evidence stretching back decades."

"Partisan politics!"

"There's a professional organization to which we do not belong which has published a CYA stance we think doesn't apply. Even members of the APA do not agree on this stance."

"PARTISAN POLITICS!!"

"We all agree that Trump's a maniac and not good for the country; even you've said he's nuttier than a wagon load of pralines."

"PPAAAARRRTTTTIISSAAAANNN PPOOOOLLLLIIIIITTTIIICCCCCCCCCCCCCCSSSSSSSSSSSS!!! !!!!"

"I think you're going to stroke out there, pal. Take it easy."

"PPOPPOOOISALLALAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHHHHHHH HHHGGGHHHH..."
Yep, that is what we have here.

There's no special pleading.
Quote:
Special pleading
Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
No one is citing an exception as evidence or as the argument. The only thing that is an exception are two things that have been thoroughly explained as to why those two things don't apply here.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 11:39 PM   #86
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,408
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
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.
A quote from me, before the election, about Dolt 45's rhetoric:

Quote:
Every party endorses "redistribution" to some extent, that's not the concern.

What you fail to understand is that, in this arena, policy simply does not matter. Black people hear rants about how we "take all the jobs", "refuse to find jobs" and "are thugs", and we leave. Hispanic people, mostly, hear that they're "illegals" and "rapists", and they run away. People who say that kind of crap are not trusted to include black/hispanic people in whatever plans for prosperity they have - and it's because we've heard that crap thousands of times before, and we know exactly what it means.

It means "I want to break up your family." It means "I'm fine with your kids being killed in the street."
You can't vote for something that's this easy to predict (and yes, it was easy), and then say "But but I didn't vote for this!" If you voted for Dolt 45, then yes, you voted for this. And most of the rest of what you claim "nobody wanted", there are still people running to his rallies and loudly cheering for. Nothing he has done was unpredictable, and much of it he had been doing years beforehand. It can be tough to tell where his pathologies end and where his corruption and hatreds begin, but he clearly has both.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2018, 08:36 AM   #87
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,603
I suppose the Marxists among you might think that using improper psychiatric diagnoses to paint a political opponent as incapable of doing work is OK. I mean, it was a tactic utilized by the USSR for many decades.

But you can continue to hallucinate that arguing against psychiatric evaluations by Doctors who have not examined the patient, is simply because the arguer is Pro Trump.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2018, 12:20 PM   #88
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,743
I feel like there are just so many ways to talk about this and it seems like they're all getting mixed up. There are essentially three or four different things being discussed in ways that are muddying the waters and guaranteed to never go anywhere. Questions about one facet are being answered from a totally different direction making those answers irrelevant even if they raise good points about some other part of the issue.

It's a mess, is what I'm saying.

I'd say these are the broad questions:

1. Is there currently a general consensus among professionals in the field or from a reasonably powerful or well-respected organization of those professionals that says you shouldn't publicly diagnose people who aren't your patient?

2. If so, are there good reasons for that in general?

3. If so, do those reasons apply to this particular case?

4. Are there other reasons specific to this case why this shouldn't be done?

5. Are there other reasons specific to this case why this should be done?

6. Totally separate from the above, is it reasonably *possible* to diagnose people without them being a patient?

7. Is it reasonably possible to diagnose this particular person without them being a patient of the professionals in question?

8. If so, what if any actions should be taken as a result of it?

Personally I would say the answers are: Yes, yes, only partly, no, arguably yes, sometimes, yes, probably nothing will happen regardless but if it hypothetically did a much more direct study would be required to confirm.

I don't expect anyone to stop the ongoing debate at this point but if you feel like it I'd be really interested to hear how others would answer these questions.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2018, 02:06 PM   #89
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
This is what a person who isn't aware of the difference between pathology and just being narcissistic would say.
Since we are ignorant of the difference, can you please explain it to us?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2018, 02:07 PM   #90
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Oh like that's relevant, carlitos.

It's the other way around. It's the folks that read a couple things on the internet that are trying to tell some of the top professionals in the psychiatric field that the Net cruisers know better than the professionals.
I challenge this assumption.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2018, 02:15 PM   #91
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Right or wrong, I've been a nurse practitioner since 1985. I know some people in this thread have tried to belittle that as if... whatever.
Nobody has tried to belittle your profession. Most of the participants in this thread have expressed deep appreciation of nurse practitioners, and on more than one occasion. What we have done, however, is to point out that a family practice nurse practitioner is not an expert in psychiatry, and does not constitute a reasonable authority with respect to complex psychiatric diagnoses. As I've said before, this is very comparable to my own profession - I am a health actuary, and that does not make me a reliable authority if the topic is property insurance.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Bottom line, I didn't just read a rule on the Internet.
Nor does anyone believe that's all you've done. But to date, you have not backed up your claim to authority on this, you've merely insulted anyone who disagrees with you, while not supporting your claims with anything other than accusations of Duning-Kruger.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2018, 02:17 PM   #92
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,411
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
I feel like there are just so many ways to talk about this and it seems like they're all getting mixed up. There are essentially three or four different things being discussed in ways that are muddying the waters and guaranteed to never go anywhere. Questions about one facet are being answered from a totally different direction making those answers irrelevant even if they raise good points about some other part of the issue.

It's a mess, is what I'm saying.

I'd say these are the broad questions:

1. Is there currently a general consensus among professionals in the field or from a reasonably powerful or well-respected organization of those professionals that says you shouldn't publicly diagnose people who aren't your patient?
Nothing in medicine prevents exceptions. So "general consensus" means just that, generally. It does not mean absolutely. Anyone in medicine understands that. Most of the absolutes that do occur apply to treatments and they don't apply to all diagnoses and treatments.

Quote:
2. If so, are there good reasons for that in general?

3. If so, do those reasons apply to this particular case?
Yes, No.

Quote:
4. Are there other reasons specific to this case why this shouldn't be done?

5. Are there other reasons specific to this case why this should be done?
The professionals in the OP link explained their POV.

Quote:
6. Totally separate from the above, is it reasonably *possible* to diagnose people without them being a patient?

7. Is it reasonably possible to diagnose this particular person without them being a patient of the professionals in question?
Of course.

Quote:
8. If so, what if any actions should be taken as a result of it?
Too broad of a question.

Quote:
Personally I would say the answers are: Yes, yes, only partly, no, arguably yes, sometimes, yes, probably nothing will happen regardless but if it hypothetically did a much more direct study would be required to confirm.

I don't expect anyone to stop the ongoing debate at this point but if you feel like it I'd be really interested to hear how others would answer these questions.
You make the same mistake others have in not understanding what a position paper is and what it means.

No position paper from an organization like this one is absolute. I think that's where people are getting this wrong.

Take this one for example from the Australian Medical Association: This position statement sets out AMA policy on euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.

Do you think all Aussie physicians are going to agree with that position whatever it is?

There's no division in position statements: these are absolute and these are up to you.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 29th June 2018 at 02:19 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2018, 02:28 PM   #93
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
1. Is there currently a general consensus among professionals in the field or from a reasonably powerful or well-respected organization of those professionals that says you shouldn't publicly diagnose people who aren't your patient?
Yes

2. If so, are there good reasons for that in general?
Yes

3. If so, do those reasons apply to this particular case?
Yes

4. Are there other reasons specific to this case why this shouldn't be done?
No (assuming that what shouldn't be done is publicly diagnosing people who aren't their patient

5. Are there other reasons specific to this case why this should be done?
There is a reasonable argument that Trump would decline to be evaluated, and that Congress will refuse to press the issue; I disagree with that argument, but concede that it isn't unreasonable

6. Totally separate from the above, is it reasonably *possible* to diagnose people without them being a patient?
Possibly, but with considerably reduced reliability, and with recognition that it cannot control for confounding factors or other conditions that produce similar symptoms - in other words, it would require considerable concession that no differential diagnosis is possible in this case, and that the preliminary diagnosis may be incorrect with a larger than normal margin of error

7. Is it reasonably possible to diagnose this particular person without them being a patient of the professionals in question?
Same answer as above

8. If so, what if any actions should be taken as a result of it?
The citizens of the US and Congress should press to get Trump evaluated by an impartial professional, but we should not accept the diagnosis given without a very large grain of salt, and definitely should not use it as grounds for any action other than to press for a medically appropriate evaluation

Personally I would say the answers are: Yes, yes, only partly, no, arguably yes, sometimes, yes, probably nothing will happen regardless but if it hypothetically did a much more direct study would be required to confirm.

I don't expect anyone to stop the ongoing debate at this point but if you feel like it I'd be really interested to hear how others would answer these questions.
Responses embedded I believe they're fairly similar to yours, but I admit that I lost track of which of your answers went with which questions...
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2018, 02:29 PM   #94
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,166
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
You can't vote for something that's this easy to predict (and yes, it was easy), and then say "But but I didn't vote for this!" If you voted for Dolt 45, then yes, you voted for this. And most of the rest of what you claim "nobody wanted", there are still people running to his rallies and loudly cheering for. Nothing he has done was unpredictable, and much of it he had been doing years beforehand. It can be tough to tell where his pathologies end and where his corruption and hatreds begin, but he clearly has both.

The only thing that's predictable when you vote for somebody is that you empower them. In principle, you give them the power to rule over you and your compatriots. You never actually know what they are going to do. Based on their campaign promises, you assume that you know what they'll do, but you never really know if they'll keep their promises or do the opposite of what they promised. Within the limitations of the Constitution, the elected leader is now the decider. Your (wrong) decision was to make him so - unless you voted for somebody else, which still implies that you accept that you have to obey whoever wins.
In the democratic election, the voters hand over the right to rule to a commander in chief.
That the commander in chief is going to use that power is the one outcome of the election that should never surprise you.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2018, 03:22 PM   #95
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,811
top professionals in the field

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I challenge this assumption.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Last edited by carlitos; 29th June 2018 at 03:23 PM.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2018, 05:47 PM   #96
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,743
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Nothing in medicine prevents exceptions. So "general consensus" means just that, generally. It does not mean absolutely. Anyone in medicine understands that. Most of the absolutes that do occur apply to treatments and they don't apply to all diagnoses and treatments.
That's a really long way to not answer the question. But since your answer to #2 was "yes" rather than "N/A" I'll take is as a yes.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The professionals in the OP link explained their POV.
Again, not really answering but okay.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You make the same mistake others have in not understanding what a position paper is and what it means.
Not sure what I said that makes you think that.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
No position paper from an organization like this one is absolute.
I never said it was.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I believe they're fairly similar to yours, but I admit that I lost track of which of your answers went with which questions...
Very similar, yup. And yes, I didn't want to answer each one as I asked it because it would make it hard for others to quote as a list so I know it made it harder than it should be to parse.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2018, 05:51 PM   #97
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 41,756
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
I suppose the Marxists among you might think that using improper psychiatric diagnoses to paint a political opponent as incapable of doing work is OK. I mean, it was a tactic utilized by the USSR for many decades.

But you can continue to hallucinate that arguing against psychiatric evaluations by Doctors who have not examined the patient, is simply because the arguer is Pro Trump.
McCarthy Lives!
If you don't like Trump, you are a dirty commie.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2018, 06:15 PM   #98
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,411
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
That's a really long way to not answer the question. But since your answer to #2 was "yes" rather than "N/A" I'll take is as a yes.

Again, not really answering but okay.

Not sure what I said that makes you think that.

I never said it was....
I did not dodge your questions. They may not be the answers you were looking for but they were my answers.

Some people in this thread want there to be a black and white, one size fits all, the rule they read on the internet is absolute answer.

If that doesn't apply to you, what was the point of your first question?

Given all this has been thoroughly discussed in this very long thread, tell me, how is it you think your 8 yes or no questions can sort it out?

As for your asking me to reiterate once again everything that's already been said, and that the professionals involved already went over as well, sorry the answer to the question was, read the thread.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 29th June 2018 at 06:22 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2018, 10:41 PM   #99
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,743
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I did not dodge your questions.
I wouldn't use the word "dodge" for sure. You also didn't answer some of them to which I say (again) okay.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Some people in this thread want there to be a black and white, one size fits all, the rule they read on the internet is absolute answer.

If that doesn't apply to you, what was the point of your first question?
That particular question is one where I would expect everyone to say yes, but I felt it should be included to make it clear that it wasn't what the others were asking. Also as a bonus if anyone actually said no to that I would be really interested to hear their explanation.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Given all this has been thoroughly discussed in this very long thread, tell me, how is it you think your 8 yes or no questions can sort it out?
That's a really strange question. Like most threads on this forum that go past about two pages I'd say nothing at all will change the fact that people are going to go in circles arguing about the topic at hand. If that was a reason to not post my thoughts I'd have to just never comment on anything here ever again. Honestly, ask yourself the same question. Which of your posts do you really think are going to magically "sort it out" for everyone?

But anyway, as I said in my original post I just feel like people are blurring lines between issues. To use that first question as an example, some people have said things that really come across as if they're saying the existence of that rule means that any such proclamation is untrue even though the accuracy of the diagnosis logically is a totally separate question from whether or not there's a rule against it.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
As for your asking me to reiterate once again everything that's already been said
Never asked you to do that, no idea what you're talking about.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2018, 11:44 PM   #100
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,411
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
I wouldn't use the word "dodge" for sure. You also didn't answer some of them to which I say (again) okay.
The only questions I didn't answer asked for a term paper that has already been written in the thread.

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
That particular question is one where I would expect everyone to say yes, but I felt it should be included to make it clear that it wasn't what the others were asking. Also as a bonus if anyone actually said no to that I would be really interested to hear their explanation.
Well you know, language is a funny thing. You may think what you asked was clear as day, but it turns out there are several ways to interpret "generally". That you think everyone should say yes suggests you are using one of two definitions.

1) 'Generally' means it applies to all situations. The answer to the question would then be, no.

2) 'Generally' means it applies to almost all situations, with some exceptions. The answer to the question would then be, yes.

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
That's a really strange question. Like most threads on this forum that go past about two pages I'd say nothing at all will change the fact that people are going to go in circles arguing about the topic at hand. If that was a reason to not post my thoughts I'd have to just never comment on anything here ever again. Honestly, ask yourself the same question. Which of your posts do you really think are going to magically "sort it out" for everyone?
My posts won't magically sort anything out for the people in this thread who read some **** on the internet and don't have the requisite background in medical diagnostics to apply it, even though they believe they do.

But not everyone who reads something on the internet believes they are now experts in applying what they read. So if it doesn't apply, then don't apply it.

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
But anyway, as I said in my original post I just feel like people are blurring lines between issues. To use that first question as an example, some people have said things that really come across as if they're saying the existence of that rule means that any such proclamation is untrue even though the accuracy of the diagnosis logically is a totally separate question from whether or not there's a rule against it.
You lost me here.

There are people in the thread using some organizations' position statements as gospel. That's not how position statements work.

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Never asked you to do that, no idea what you're talking about.
This is where you asked that:
Quote:
4. Are there other reasons specific to this case why this shouldn't be done?

5. Are there other reasons specific to this case why this should be done.
It's been answered ad nauseum. It gets tiring to repeat answers too many times.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2018, 07:58 AM   #101
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,743
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The only questions I didn't answer asked for a term paper that has already been written in the thread.
No, they didn't. Sure, you could answer anything you want with as much as you want. It's a free country, knock yourself out. But they didn't *ask* for that. Two people other than you have answered those questions and no term papers were involved. So the fact that you think that's somehow a requirement is interesting.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Well you know, language is a funny thing. You may think what you asked was clear as day, but it turns out there are several ways to interpret "generally".
I mean, it's a pretty common word. I think you're over-analyzing this. Honestly it's a straightforward question and it really seems to me like all the confusion on your part is coming from trying to assume some hidden meaning or agenda. There isn't one. It's just a question, and you can use the actual meanings of the words.

Not that it matters, you already said the answer was "yes" for you, since you said "yes" to the second question which wouldn't make sense if the answer to the first was "no". So I don't know why we're still talking about this.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
My posts won't magically sort anything out for the people in this thread who read some **** on the internet and don't have the requisite background in medical diagnostics to apply it, even though they believe they do.

But not everyone who reads something on the internet believes they are now experts in applying what they read.
You've said a lot I agree with throughout this thread but honestly I think you're assuming the problem is something it's not. Even in this side-conversation with me you're making some really strange assumptions and arguing with things I didn't say. So you might want to take a step back. Part of the reason this conversation is going in circles is that people aren't really responding to what the others are saying.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You lost me here.
I think you should scroll back up and read my posts again without assuming I'm saying stuff not actually contained in my posts. It might make more sense to you.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
There are people in the thread using some organizations' position statements as gospel.
But that's not something I've said, nor is it a logical response to anything I said. So I don't know why you're bringing it up here.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
This is where you asked that
Nope. Again, not sure how you're misreading those two lines so badly.

Last edited by SOdhner; 30th June 2018 at 08:02 AM.
SOdhner 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 2nd July 2018, 06:40 PM   #102
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Has anyone brought up the fact that other countries certainly employ medically trained people to evaluate the mental state of foreign leaders?

Does anyone have any doubts what those professionals think? I don't. I think they've come to the same conclusion we all have: Narcissistic personality disorder.

"Narcissistic personality disorder — one of several types of personality disorders — is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

A narcissistic personality disorder causes problems in many areas of life, such as relationships, work, school or financial affairs. People with narcissistic personality disorder may be generally unhappy and disappointed when they're not given the special favors or admiration they believe they deserve. They may find their relationships unfulfilling, and others may not enjoy being around them."


Does that sound like anyone we know? Hmmm...
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2018, 09:24 AM   #103
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,549
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Has anyone brought up the fact that other countries certainly employ medically trained people to evaluate the mental state of foreign leaders?

Does anyone have any doubts what those professionals think? I don't. I think they've come to the same conclusion we all have: Narcissistic personality disorder.

"Narcissistic personality disorder — one of several types of personality disorders — is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

A narcissistic personality disorder causes problems in many areas of life, such as relationships, work, school or financial affairs. People with narcissistic personality disorder may be generally unhappy and disappointed when they're not given the special favors or admiration they believe they deserve. They may find their relationships unfulfilling, and others may not enjoy being around them."


Does that sound like anyone we know? Hmmm...


1)Yup, every country has psychological profilers. Have you ever seen a public statement re: a political leader’s psychology by those countries? No, you haven’t and you never will. And there’s a big difference between a psych profile and what these OP docs are doing.

2)Talk about reading something on the internet! You are doing the same kind of pop psychology you see in magazines: “The Seven Signs Your Lover is a Narcissist!” This is not what real psychologists/psychiatrists do and exactly the kind of misunderstanding and misapplication of professional practice I’m arguing against.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2018, 09:26 AM   #104
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
1)Yup, every country has psychological profilers. Have you ever seen a public statement re: a political leader’s psychology by those countries? No, you haven’t and you never will. And there’s a big difference between a psych profile and what these OP docs are doing.
You missed my point. What do you think the medical professionals other countries use to evaluate leaders are saying about Trump?

Quote:
2)Talk about reading something on the internet! You are doing the same kind of pop psychology you see in magazines: “The Seven Signs Your Lover is a Narcissist!” This is not what real psychologists/psychiatrists do and exactly the kind of misunderstanding and misapplication of professional practice I’m arguing against.
The link was from the Mayo Clinic.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2018, 09:29 AM   #105
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,414
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Has anyone brought up the fact that other countries certainly employ medically trained people to evaluate the mental state of foreign leaders?
Not yet. Why, are you about to?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2018, 12:51 PM   #106
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,811
Saying that the leader of the free world has an "inflated sense of their own importance" is quite a thing. I think that Trump is a narcissist for sure, but hmm. I mean, you wake up every day and people refer to you as "leader of the free world" - this is why presidents need young children, a combative press and a strong life partner *- to keep their egos in check.

*ETA - and pets that occasionally mess on the floor.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2018, 01:01 PM   #107
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,414
I think you probably need an inflated sense of your own importance just to consider applying for the job.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2018, 01:26 PM   #108
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,549
Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 2

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
You missed my point. What do you think the medical professionals other countries use to evaluate leaders are saying about Trump?
I have no idea, nor do I care...until some world leader makes a public statement like, “Our top doctors think Trump has X mental illness.” That would be irresponsible and a misapplication of mental health practice.
Quote:
The link was from the Mayo Clinic.
As a description of the current psychiatric understanding of NPD, there is nothing wrong with your link. It’s your using of that link to apply it to “anyone we know,” that is the problem.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 4th July 2018 at 01:28 PM.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2018, 02:04 PM   #109
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I have no idea, nor do I care...until some world leader makes a public statement like, “Our top doctors think Trump has X mental illness.” That would be irresponsible and a misapplication of mental health practice.
Are you American? Of course I care what other world leaders think of our President. An an American, how could I not care?


Quote:
As a description of the current psychiatric understanding of NPD, there is nothing wrong with your link. It’s your using of that link to apply it to “anyone we know,” that is the problem.
Why is that a problem? Does Mayo Clinic's NPD description fit Trump or not? I think it's obvious the description fits, I don't see how anyone could think it doesn't fit, and for the President to be a narcissist is a big problem.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2018, 02:30 PM   #110
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,411
June 2018: Harvard Psychiatrist Confirms What We’ve All Been Thinking, Trump Suffering From Mental Health Disorder —
Quote:
Dr. Lance Dodes, a former teacher at Harvard Medical School, who currently serves as a supervising analyst at the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, is also a contributor to the upcoming book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.”

Dodes believes that Donald Trump is a sociopath, an individual who lies and cheats as a way of life. In the revealing new interview, the psychiatrist claims that Trump’s narcissism “is particularly severe because he also is out of touch with reality whenever he becomes upset.”

“When he says, ‘I had the largest crowd at an inauguration in history,’ it does not matter that you can tell him that it is not true, he still insists on it,” he added. “Well, that is very troublesome because what it means is that he needs to believe it. He is able to give up reality in exchange for his wished-for belief. Sometimes we call that a delusion.”

Dodes continues on to say that he believes Trump is qualified for “antisocial personality disorder,” but believes the best diagnosis for him is “malignant narcissist.”...

“It is expressed in his inability to empathize with others and his lack of genuine loyalty to anyone,” Dodes said. “You will notice that Trump wants everyone to be loyal to him, but he is loyal to nobody.”

June 2018: Psychiatrists call for rollback of policy banning discussion of public figures’ mental health
Quote:
Twenty-two psychiatrists and psychologists, including some of the field’s most prominent thinkers, are calling on the American Psychiatric Association on Thursday to substantially revise its controversial Goldwater rule, which bars APA members from offering their views of a public figure’s apparent psychological traits or mental status.

In a letter to be delivered to the APA, Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, one of the world’s leading experts on the psychological effects of war and political violence; Philip Zimbardo of the “Stanford prison experiment”; violence expert Dr. James Gilligan; and their colleagues argued that the Goldwater rule, which the APA adopted in 1973, deprives the public of expert opinion on crucial questions, such as the mental health and stability of elected officials. ...

“If you understand character and the typical psychological needs of someone reacting to threats to his self-esteem, you know that that behavior and speech doesn’t change readily,” said Glass, who helped organize the letter to the APA and is a contributor to the 2017 book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.”

He and the other signers support a prohibition against mental health professionals speaking publicly about anyone they have treated, since doing so would violate patient confidentiality, or about non-public figures, where there is no compelling national interest in making their views known.
It's a twofur:
Quote:
Glass said the signers believe they have not only ethics but also science on their side. The scientific rationale for the Goldwater rule is the idea that only an in-person mental health evaluation (always done via interview; there are no blood tests or brain scans for psychiatric disorders) can yield insights into someone’s motivations, insecurities, emotions, and other psychological traits. A study last year, however, found both that the interview-based exam can be misleading — because patients lie or obfuscate or have poor self-insight, and because psychiatrists err — and that public behavior, writing, and speech can provide more accurate insights.
Ding ding ding..

Goldwater rule: questioned.
In-person exam: discredited.
Public behavior: credited.

And the Goldwater rule itself:
Quote:
Although an attorney said any complaint to the state licensing board would be dead on arrival because the First Amendment protected her right to speak, Vida instead resigned from the APA, saying she had lost all respect for the APA and its local branch.
IOW the rule is unconstitutional in as far as a licensing board taking any action against a professional.


Yes, there is a book out. But you can't dismiss everyone with expertise on the basis they wrote a book.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 4th July 2018 at 04:05 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2018, 03:46 PM   #111
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,072
More evidence:
Quote:
Donald Trump repeatedly raised the possibility of invading Venezuela in talks with his top aides at the White House, according to a new report.

Trump brought up the subject of an invasion in public in August last year, saying: “We have many options for Venezuela, including a possible military option, if necessary.” But the president’s musings about the possibility of a US invasion were more extensive and persistent than that public declaration, according to the Associated Press.

The previous day Trump reportedly took his top officials by surprise in an Oval Office meeting, asking why the US could not intervene to remove the government of Nicolas Maduro on the grounds that Venezuela’s political and economic unraveling represented a threat to the region.

Quoting an unnamed senior administration official, the AP report said the suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, which included the then national security advisor, HR McMaster, and secretary of state, Rex Tillerson. Both have since left the administration.

The administration officials are said to have taken turns in trying to talk him out of the idea, pointing out that any such military action would alienate Latin American allies who had supported the US policy of punitive sanctions on the Maduro regime.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...nezuela-report
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 5th July 2018, 10:58 AM   #112
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,603
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
McCarthy Lives!
If you don't like Trump, you are a dirty commie.
No, if you choose to utilize improper psychological diagnoses to besmirch an opposing politician, you are using the tactics of commies.

It has nothing to do with whether you like Trump or not.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot 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 July 2018, 11:12 AM   #113
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,411
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
No, if you choose to utilize improper psychological diagnoses to besmirch an opposing politician, you are using the tactics of commies.....
Good thing that wasn't done.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2018, 11:17 AM   #114
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
No, if you choose to utilize improper psychological diagnoses to besmirch an opposing politician, you are using the tactics of commies.

It has nothing to do with whether you like Trump or not.
You think Trump is a politician?


That's adorable.
NoahFence 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 July 2018, 11:21 AM   #115
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
McCarthy Lives!
If you don't like Trump, you are a dirty commie.
To be frank, nobody likes Trump. Even his supporters and, I suspect, his family. There is nothing about the man that is remotely likeable. People just tolerate him for what they can gain from their association with him.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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 July 2018, 11:26 AM   #116
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,411
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
You think Trump is a politician?


That's adorable.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2018, 11:44 AM   #117
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,414
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
You think Trump is a politician?
If I thought he was a politician, I probably wouldn't have voted for him.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2018, 11:51 AM   #118
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If I thought he was a politician, I probably wouldn't have voted for him.
1) You're answering someone else's question

2) Better a professional con man than a politician, huh? Good times.
NoahFence 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 July 2018, 11:55 AM   #119
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If I thought he was a politician, I probably wouldn't have voted for him.
So, knowing what you know now, would you still have voted for him?
Fudbucker 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 July 2018, 12:15 PM   #120
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,000
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
No, if you choose to utilize improper psychological diagnoses to besmirch an opposing politician, you are using the tactics of commies.

It has nothing to do with whether you like Trump or not.

BS. If Donald Trump isn't NPD, then there's no such thing. And if someone remorselessly lies and cheats his way through life as Trump has done, then psychiatrists and laymen alike will "diagnose" him as a sociopath. With Trump, it's hard to tell where the ignorance ends and the lies begin and where the lies end and the delusions begin, but when we're talking about the President of the United States, the distinction hardly matters: He is a thin-skinned, immature, rash, vindictive, sociopathic narcissist who is also seriously disconnected from reality and appears to think he can invent his own. It seems nobody on this thread can tell me why I should ignore not just what the Yale group is saying but what I can see with my own eyes. Nor am I persuaded by people who pretend they can't see it.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.