IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


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

Closed Thread
Old 27th May 2017, 07:03 PM   #1921
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
There you go again, conveniently forgetting more than a few mainstream well qualified psychiatrists have noted Trump's mental disorder. I suppose your straw men are so much easier to battle.
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 Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 05:56 AM   #1922
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
All Trump appears to want is pats on the back and adoration. Isn't that some sort of inferiority complex?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 06:00 AM   #1923
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
All Trump appears to want is pats on the back and adoration. Isn't that some sort of inferiority complex?
It is also a symptom of NPD.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 06:02 AM   #1924
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
I guess.

I don't know. He doesn't seem quite that confident. It's almost as if he _wishes_ he was that cool and awesome and loved, so he acts the part. It's quite pathetic actually. Sad.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 30th May 2017 at 06:03 AM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 12:02 PM   #1925
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Trump is not their patient. They are not treating him. It doesn't matter what causes him distress or what his "inner life" is like. They have no obligation to obtain consent or maintain confidentiality. The public record is a compelling document of his thinking and his behavior. Federal courts -- at least four, by last count -- have accepted his public remarks as proof of his thinking and intentions regarding Muslims. It's astonishing to me that you don't want to know -- and you don't think you are entitled to know -- everything you can about a man who literally holds your life in his hands.
Yes they do! Their own professional standards obligate them to obtain consent or authority!

Just because you and others keep ignoring that bit doesn't make it go away.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
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 Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 12:05 PM   #1926
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Yeah, I guess mainstream psychiatry is just a bunch of dummies! I'll drop them a line and let them know that there's a person on the internet who claims to be a Family Nurse Practitioner who has a thing or two to teach them about their own profession.
FTFY
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
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 Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 12:07 PM   #1927
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
There you go again, conveniently forgetting more than a few mainstream well qualified psychiatrists have noted Trump's mental disorder. I suppose your straw men are so much easier to battle.
For the bazillionth time: what do you consider to be "more than a few"? Because right now we've got on the order of 40 people, many of whom are not psychiatrists, and many of whom are academics who don't practice medicine.

That's in a field of several thousands.

I think "few" is a pretty apt description here.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
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 Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 12:50 PM   #1928
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Yes they do! Their own professional standards obligate them to obtain consent or authority!

Just because you and others keep ignoring that bit doesn't make it go away.
Once again, the APA is a voluntary membership organization. They are not a licensing authority or certification board. Nobody is required to join. Their recommendations have no legal weight. They have no enforcement power.

It's fine to say shrinks should keep their mouths shut. But that doesn't invalidate the observations and conclusions that they choose to share, especially when supported by universally accessible evidence.
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 Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 12:51 PM   #1929
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
For the bazillionth time: what do you consider to be "more than a few"? Because right now we've got on the order of 40 people, many of whom are not psychiatrists, and many of whom are academics who don't practice medicine.

That's in a field of several thousands.

I think "few" is a pretty apt description here.
Dr. Gartner's Duty to Warn petition had over 52,000 signatures from mental health professionals. Even Dr. Frances "diagnosed" DJT as a "world class narcissist" and he's the only one I know of who has offered an actual technical argument for why it isn't NPD.
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 Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 01:07 PM   #1930
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Dr. Gartner's Duty to Warn petition had over 52,000 signatures from mental health professionals. Even Dr. Frances "diagnosed" DJT as a "world class narcissist" and he's the only one I know of who has offered an actual technical argument for why it isn't NPD.
The petition doesn't appear to require the petitioners to be mental health practitioners.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 30th May 2017 at 01:09 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 02:48 PM   #1931
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
The petition doesn't appear to require the petitioners to be mental health practitioners.
It begins, "We, the undersigned mental health professionals..." and asks for credentials, but I don't know if there is any verification process. I don't find that number unbelievable, given that DJT is certainly NPD if the label means anything at all.
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 Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 03:16 PM   #1932
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
It begins, "We, the undersigned mental health professionals..." and asks for credentials, but I don't know if there is any verification process. I don't find that number unbelievable,
Perhaps I have a wrong link. The one I found didn't include that phrasing, nor did it ask for credentials.


Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
given that DJT is certainly NPD if the label means anything at all.
The diagnosis has meaning if done properly with consideration for confounding conditions.

There is no "given", and the "label" means nothing other than that this is likely to be politically motivated. Although you're pretty spot on calling it a label as opposed to a diagnosis.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
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 Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 03:57 PM   #1933
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
There is no "given", and the "label" means nothing other than that this is likely to be politically motivated. Although you're pretty spot on calling it a label as opposed to a diagnosis.
Put any label on it that you like; I'm still 100% sure that DJT will continue to exhibit the behavior pattern described in the DSM as NPD. And that's very bad for the country, as we've already seen. If your preferred diagnostic technique produced a different prediction, I'd bet a lot of money that it's wrong.
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 Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 04:22 PM   #1934
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Latest relative news:

Aljazeera:The United States of insanity
Apparently Trump is making us all look bad.
Quote:
Trump's America may seem like a cruel new psychology experiment but US society has been sick for quite some time.
Beyond that they are following the discussion:
Quote:
Since the ascent to power of US President Donald Trump, two discussion topics have become increasingly popular: whether or not the man is insane and whether or not it's appropriate to talk about whether or not the man is insane.

While many psychiatrists, mental health workers and media figures have abided by the idea that it is unethical to publicly debate the head of state's mental soundness, others view the taboo as reckless.

In an interview with The Independent, for example, Yale University's Dr Bandy Lee cited Trump's "taunting of North Korea" and spontaneous bombing of Syria as indications that his "instability, unpredictability and impulsivity … point to dangerousness due to mental impairment."

In February, The New York Times ran a letter to the editor signed by 35 mental health professionals concerned that Trump's "words and behaviour suggest a profound inability to empathise".

Such traits, the authors note, cause people to "distort reality to suit their psychological state, attacking facts and those who convey them".
The rest goes on with a bunch of false equivalency.

Dr Lee is making the rounds to make her case and raise the alarm:
Salon: LISTEN: The “state of emergency” around Donald Trump and mental health

A Patheos psychiatrist weighs in:

Patheos: On the Necessity and Perils of Declaring Trump Mentally Unfit for the Presidency
Quote:
Never in my five decades have I felt the same existential fear for the future of our republic, not to mention the safety of our entire globe. Never has there been such a toxic stranglehold on our executive, legislative, and judicial branches by the reactionary wing of one political party, such that America substantially functions as a one party state. Never have I felt such peril that our country could cave to an unstable autocrat and degrade into fascism.
Writing about our president’s mental health carries professional risk for me, about which I’ll have more to say later.
Dr Spitznas goes with anti-social personality disorder and cites the DSM-V:
Quote:
Second, I am convinced that Trump meets the criteria for the diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD). To make my case here, allow me to walk you through the symptoms and behaviors of this disorder, as elaborated in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), the gold standard for making psychiatric diagnoses in the United States.
He goes on to cite the criteria and evidence line by line.

He doesn't dispute the NPD diagnosis:
Quote:
Other writers have suggested that Trump could also be diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I won’t dispute this claim, but my strong suspicion is that many political figures on a national level suffer from this condition, and it doesn’t necessarily render them occupationally nonfunctional.
And like a few others have documented evidence of:
Quote:
I also have a moderate degree of suspicion that Trump is in the early stages of dementia.
Dr Spitznas agrees with many of us who have been posting here, that the diagnosis is not hard to make and Trump is so public an in-person exam is not going to add anything:
Quote:
Obviously, I have not examined Trump personally, which is a major limitation. However, our president has chosen to make himself one of the most publicly exposed figures in American history, by way of his Apprentice shows, his frequent appearances on news programs, his bloviating rallies, and his Twitter feed. He used all of this coverage to his immense advantage, for without it he would have never been elected president.
This exposure is a double-edged sword, however, as it elevates my degree of certainty in Trump’s clinical diagnoses. And these are not diagnoses that require a high level of sophistication to make. This is nowhere near as tricky, say, as differentiating Bipolar Disorder from Borderline Personality Disorder, or discerning the etiology of an atypically presenting psychosis. An impartial individual with a Bachelor’s of Science in Psychology could arrive at the same conclusions as I have.
He discusses why he's foregone the Goldwater Rule in this case. I thought this was an interesting statement:
Quote:
In the APA’s demands that its members adhere to the Goldwater Rule, steadily repeated in its publications of late, my professional organization is rigidly and irresponsibly abandoning a higher call to use our hard-earned clinical wisdom to protect America’s citizenry.
I find this cowardice to be hypocritical, since the APA simultaneously loves to tout its ethnic and religious diversity.
And as for the professional consequences he speaks of, it's all about APA membership, not any legal threat to one's license:
Quote:
I realize that publishing this essay puts me at risk for suffering professional consequences. But for me, disregarding the Goldwater Rule in America in 2017 is analogous to a professional soldier disregarding an immoral order, knowing that he or she may have to answer for it. I’m willing to surrender my APA membership if I must. (Though I think my personal risk is relatively low: considering the 55,000 people who have already signed the Duty to Warn petition, the APA and other professional organizations would have to invest a lot of time and money to instigate a purge against us.)

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 30th May 2017 at 04:23 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 Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 04:26 PM   #1935
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Once again, the APA is a voluntary membership organization.
This is true.
Quote:
They are not a licensing authority or certification board.
Not directly, no. They are, however, the body that puts out the DSM which is the industry standard in diagnostic classification of mental illness. They are also one of the organizations responsible for creating the standards that the residency programs and the American Board of Psychology and Neurology use to train and certify psychiatrists.
Quote:
Nobody is required to join.
This is true.
Quote:
Their recommendations have no legal weight. They have no enforcement power.
This is not so true. For members, they definitely do have enforcement power and some legal weight. For non-members, the standards of care that the APA promulgates are still the standards that they are judged by in cases of malpractice. The APA also has a large role, as the principal lobbying group, in creating the legal standards that apply to the profession.

Doctors don't have to be members of any professional organization but those professional organizations still have a huge influence on the way they practice medicine and the legal framework under which they do so.

Quote:
It's fine to say shrinks should keep their mouths shut. But that doesn't invalidate the observations and conclusions that they choose to share, especially when supported by universally accessible evidence.
That "universally accessible evidence" is not even close to being universally accepted as evidence of anything. This is like saying, "Look at all the evidence we have for Bigfoot! The mountain of evidence proves he exists!" Eh-heh.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 04:36 PM   #1936
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,624
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Once again, the APA is a voluntary membership organization. They are not a licensing authority or certification board. Nobody is required to join. Their recommendations have no legal weight. They have no enforcement power.

It's fine to say shrinks should keep their mouths shut. But that doesn't invalidate the observations and conclusions that they choose to share, especially when supported by universally accessible evidence.

Doesn't it though?

Isn't that "rule" abided by because these opinions and conclusions aren't considered reliable in the first place? Otherwise why the rule at all?
__________________
Why bother?
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 04:57 PM   #1937
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Latest relative news:

Aljazeera:The United States of insanity
Apparently Trump is making us all look bad.


Beyond that they are following the discussion:
The rest goes on with a bunch of false equivalency.
That isn't really a professional diagnosis, now is it? They are free to make such commentary but it has no bearing on anyone's actual mental state nor is it intended to be a "professional opinion." Irrelevant.

Quote:
Dr Lee is making the rounds to make her case and raise the alarm:
Salon: LISTEN: The “state of emergency” around Donald Trump and mental health
Yes, we all know that Dr. Lee is one of the main alarmists.

Here is a snippet you missed:
Originally Posted by Salon
The proceedings from this conference will be featured in a forthcoming book due out later this year.
So money is her motive. Can't say I'm surprised.

Quote:
A Patheos psychiatrist weighs in:

Patheos: On the Necessity and Perils of Declaring Trump Mentally Unfit for the Presidency

Dr Spitznas goes with anti-social personality disorder and cites the DSM-V:He goes on to cite the criteria and evidence line by line.
Why didn't you quote these parts?
Originally Posted by Dr. Spitznas
Never has there been such a toxic stranglehold on our executive, legislative, and judicial branches by the reactionary wing of one political party, such that America substantially functions as a one party state. Never have I felt such peril that our country could cave to an unstable autocrat and degrade into fascism.

...

In his recklessness, Trump is a constant danger to our nation and our world. He cannot be trusted to keep us out of impulsively initiated wars. His sickening racism has already created a national environment where Hispanics, Muslims, Jews, and African-Americans live in heightened danger of physical harm and even death.
You probably left these nuggets out because they are so full of hyperbole that it undermines 1)His objectivity and 2)His credibility. He hardly sounds like an objective observer. These statements make it quite obvious that he is not a fan of the Republican Party in general and definitely not a fan of Donald Trump. This obvious bias compromises whatever "professional opinion" he might have about a man he obviously dislikes. Not very professional.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 06:35 PM   #1938
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Trump type demolished by Bertie Wooster in the late 30's:
“The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you have succeeded in inducing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you’re someone. You hear them shouting 'Heil, Spode!' and you imagine it is the Voice of the People. That is where you make your bloomer. What the Voice of the People is saying is: 'Look at that frightful ass Spode swanking about in footer bags! Did you ever in your puff see such a perfect perisher?’ ”
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 06:53 PM   #1939
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Doesn't it though?

Isn't that "rule" abided by because these opinions and conclusions aren't considered reliable in the first place? Otherwise why the rule at all?
Standards are important in medicine, but they are not dogmatic.
There is always room for some leeway that providers' education and experience allow.

This is what some of you are not grasping. If medicine was just a matter of following algorithms then computers could do the diagnosing. But you simply can't cover everything in a protocol. You have to have an educated experienced person evaluate the patient.

In this case the one thing the so called 'rule' is missing is allowing for a patient like Trump whose decades of behavior is easily uncovered without an in-person exam. If one insisted on the in-person exam knowing full well there was not anything you were going to discover, especially given personality disorders where patients lack insight and in most cases live in their alternative-fact world, why would you insist on adding that meaningless addition to your data collection to make the diagnosis because it was in some rule book?

Every protocol and algorithm needs an allowance for exceptions. That is what the provider's judgement adds.
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 Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 07:02 PM   #1940
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post

Here is a snippet you missed:
So money is her motive. Can't say I'm surprised.
Conference proceedings are not big money makers.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 07:10 PM   #1941
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
All Trump appears to want is pats on the back and adoration. Isn't that some sort of inferiority complex?
Put him in a straight jacket, and tie him up in the Capitol Rotonda. Parade the population past him like he's lying in state, patting him on the head and telling him how wonderful he did.
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 Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 07:14 PM   #1942
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That isn't really a professional diagnosis, now is it? They are free to make such commentary but it has no bearing on anyone's actual mental state nor is it intended to be a "professional opinion." Irrelevant.
Talk about dogma, do you think everything I cited in that post went to diagnosis? Who said that was about anyone's professional diagnosis? Of course it was opinion and I'm pretty sure I said nothing else.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Yes, we all know that Dr. Lee is one of the main alarmists.

Here is a snippet you missed:
So money is her motive. Can't say I'm surprised.
No, Dr Lee was not the initial alarmist. She's actually a late comer. Dr G and Dr F have been at the forefront of this discussion and Dr Gartner started the Duty to Warn petition that the 55,000 professionals signed on Change.org.

Dr Lee organized a conference on Trump. People do write books out of passion. Not everyone writes shock-jock books to sell to the people they've riled up.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Why didn't you quote these parts?
It's against the MA to quote too much. I tried to quote small snippets then discussed them. The thread reader can then decide if they want to read more from the link.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
You probably left these nuggets out because they are so full of hyperbole that it undermines 1)His objectivity and 2)His credibility. He hardly sounds like an objective observer. These statements make it quite obvious that he is not a fan of the Republican Party in general and definitely not a fan of Donald Trump. This obvious bias compromises whatever "professional opinion" he might have about a man he obviously dislikes. Not very professional.
I suspect you should look in the mirror to see the person here that lacks objectivity.

As for the hyperbole, some professionals actually are alarmed. We have a POTUS with a serious mental disorder. That should worry everyone.

You are welcome to dismiss all these thousands of psychiatrists and mental health professionals. You already have. You told us over and over that you read something on the Internet so you know better than all of them.
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 08:05 AM   #1943
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Conference proceedings are not big money makers.
No, but a book written by psychiatrists about how crazy the President is will definitely sell to a certain audience.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 08:12 AM   #1944
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Talk about dogma, do you think everything I cited in that post went to diagnosis? Who said that was about anyone's professional diagnosis? Of course it was opinion and I'm pretty sure I said nothing else.
Ah, so it was off topic.

Quote:
No, Dr Lee was not the initial alarmist. She's actually a late comer. Dr G and Dr F have been at the forefront of this discussion and Dr Gartner started the Duty to Warn petition that the 55,000 professionals signed on Change.org.
She is now one of the alarmists and we've had a lot of quotes from her making the press rounds selling her upcoming book.

Quote:
Dr Lee organized a conference on Trump. People do write books out of passion. Not everyone writes shock-jock books to sell to the people they've riled up.
Ok.

Quote:
It's against the MA to quote too much. I tried to quote small snippets then discussed them. The thread reader can then decide if they want to read more from the link.

I suspect you should look in the mirror to see the person here that lacks objectivity.
I am not diagnosing Trump. Those who are should check their biases before rendering a "professional" opinion.

Quote:
As for the hyperbole, some professionals actually are alarmed. We have a POTUS with a serious mental disorder. That should worry everyone.

You are welcome to dismiss all these thousands of about 50 psychiatrists and mental health professionals. You already have. You told us over and over that you read something on the Internet so you know better than all of them.
FTFY.

I sure did. I read the practice and ethical standards of the profession. When professionals don't follow those I think it's important to point that out. I don't think it's something that we should accept as an actual professional opinion with any validity -even if it does confirm our biases. It's sensationalism and we should want mental health professionals to refrain from that. I think it cheapens the medical profession as a whole -a profession I have a great deal of respect for.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 08:12 AM   #1945
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
No, but a book written by psychiatrists about how crazy the President is will definitely sell to a certain audience.
Contributors to conference proceedings do not get paid, in my experience. I don't know whether editors of the proceedings get paid. I would guess not, but I could be wrong.

Academic publications are generally aimed at increasing the prestige of the authors and their institutions. They are not about money, but citations.

So I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 08:45 AM   #1946
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Ah, so it was off topic.
No it wasn't.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
FTFY.
Currently 55,751 mental health professionals have signed the petition. Are you claiming only 50 of them count?
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 08:48 AM   #1947
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Standards are important in medicine, but they are not dogmatic.
There is always room for some leeway that providers' education and experience allow.

This is what some of you are not grasping. If medicine was just a matter of following algorithms then computers could do the diagnosing. But you simply can't cover everything in a protocol. You have to have an educated experienced person evaluate the patient.
Exactly the point! You are finally getting it!

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
In this case the one thing the so called 'rule' is missing is allowing for a patient like Trump whose decades of behavior is easily uncovered without an in-person exam. If one insisted on the in-person exam knowing full well there was not anything you were going to discover, especially given personality disorders where patients lack insight and in most cases live in their alternative-fact world, why would you insist on adding that meaningless addition to your data collection to make the diagnosis because it was in some rule book?

Every protocol and algorithm needs an allowance for exceptions. That is what the provider's judgement adds.
Never mind. I see you still don't get it.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 09:03 AM   #1948
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Currently 55,751 mental health professionals have signed the petition.
So we're now up to 55,751 out of 552,000... so around 10%.

Point of order - that 552,000 includes only explicit mental health professionals:
Psychologists, Psychiatrists, Mental Health & Substance Abuse Social Workers and Counselors, and Marriage & Family Therapists. It doesn't include the other social workers, counselors, and Family Practitioners who make up over 600,000 more people, nor does it include any psychiatric or mental health nurses not specifically licensed as social workers or counselors.

Depending on what the petition includes as an acceptable profession, and whether it accepts non-practicing academics, we're looking at somewhere between about 3% and 10%.

https://psychcentral.com/lib/mental-...us-statistics/
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 09:24 AM   #1949
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Contributors to conference proceedings do not get paid, in my experience. I don't know whether editors of the proceedings get paid. I would guess not, but I could be wrong.

Academic publications are generally aimed at increasing the prestige of the authors and their institutions. They are not about money, but citations.

So I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
Maybe. But my understanding is that this is going to be a mass-market book, not an academic publication. As Dr. Gartner said in his speech:

4) We have signed a contract with an agent to sell an edited book, entitled Duty to Warn, edited by Bandy Lee, Lance Dodes and myself that puts in one volume 25 senior academic psychiatrists and psychologists, and journalists, including two of today’s featured speakers Judith Herman and Robert J. Lifton. They collectively make the case for warning the public about Trump’s illness, explore what that illness might be, discuss how he has damaged the mental health of the large parts of the general public and specific vulnerable populations, and what the dire consequences of his presidency might entail.

It's just too easy to see the gleaming hardcover in racks at Barnes' and Noble's: DUTY TO WARN: Donald Trump's Dangerous Mental Illness and the Potential for America's Destruction. $28.95. And, as far as I know, this was not really an official conference with any academic standing whatsoever.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 09:41 AM   #1950
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
If we're lucky the book will be out before the county goes down in flames.
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 10:02 AM   #1951
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,709
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
They collectively make the case for warning the public about Trump’s illness, explore what that illness might be, discuss how he has damaged the mental health of the large parts of the general public and specific vulnerable populations, and what the dire consequences of his presidency might entail.

.
Really? "he has damaged the mental health of the large parts of the general public" Hyperbole, much?
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 10:16 AM   #1952
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
No it wasn't.
The topic is the psychiatrists/ologists who have diagnosed Donald Trump with a mental illness. The article is not by a mental health professional nor is it diagnosing him with anything.

Quote:
Currently 55,751 mental health professionals have signed the petition. Are you claiming only 50 of them count?
I don't see any evidence that all 55k + signatories to the petition are mental health professionals. I could sign it if I felt so inclined.

OTOH there are somewhere in the vicinity of 50 MHPs who have publicly either sent a letter to someone, participated in this meeting or otherwise come out with a professional opinion.

I stand by 50 MHPs until the evidence shows otherwise.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 10:26 AM   #1953
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Really? "he has damaged the mental health of the large parts of the general public" Hyperbole, much?
Yes, Dr. Gartner is a bit of an exaggerator.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 10:36 AM   #1954
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
So we're now up to 55,751 out of 552,000... so around 10%.
It's still a yuge number. Don't know what your point is.

If 10% of all Americans sign a petition about something, would it be insignificant?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 11:02 AM   #1955
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It's still a yuge number. Don't know what your point is.

If 10% of all Americans sign a petition about something, would it be insignificant?
Depends. If 10% of Americans sign a petition saying that abortions are immoral and should be outlawed, would you consider that significant? What if 20% didn't believe Obama was a US citizen?
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 11:38 AM   #1956
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Depends. If 10% of Americans sign a petition saying that abortions are immoral and should be outlawed, would you consider that significant? What if 20% didn't believe Obama was a US citizen?
What we don't know (and never will) is how many psychiatrists agree with the diagnosis but abide by the Goldwater Rule. I'd say 10% willing to "go public" is fairly significant.
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 11:46 AM   #1957
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
What we don't know (and never will) is how many psychiatrists agree with the diagnosis but abide by the Goldwater Rule. I'd say 10% willing to "go public" is fairly significant.
I still question the objectivity of the people signing the petition.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 11:50 AM   #1958
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
What we don't know (and never will) is how many psychiatrists agree with the diagnosis but abide by the Goldwater Rule. I'd say 10% willing to "go public" is fairly significant.
Not to mention public opinion is not analogous to professional diagnoses. It's not a popularity contest, it's professional judgement.
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 11:53 AM   #1959
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
What we don't know (and never will) is how many psychiatrists agree with the diagnosis but abide by the Goldwater Rule. I'd say 10% willing to "go public" is fairly significant.
IF all 55k of the signatures are indeed mental health professionals, then you might have something there. However, there is no evidence that this is the case.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 11:57 AM   #1960
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Depends. If 10% of Americans sign a petition saying that abortions are immoral and should be outlawed, would you consider that significant? What if 20% didn't believe Obama was a US citizen?
How about you answer my question rather than ask me to answer it for you?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:43 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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