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 19th July 2018, 08:37 AM   #401
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,152
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Hey guys, just dropping by to see how your plan to make a case in this forum that Donald Trump is clinically insane so that then somehow you can go from there to get him impeached, is going.
Not impeached, removed under the 25th Amendment. Something like:

YALE GROUP: He's dangerous, the Cabinet should remove him per the 25th Amendment.

CABINET: Yes, let's do that. Mike Pence is now Acting President.

TRUMP (via Twitter): Nope.

CABINET: Damn, foiled by a simple tweet!

CONGRESS: Hold my beer.
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 19th July 2018, 08:40 AM   #402
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,152
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I'm holding him to account for his own Trump beliefs.
You don't even know my own Trump beliefs. You've made some minimal gestures towards finding out, but they've turned out to be empty gestures.
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 19th July 2018, 08:45 AM   #403
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,879
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
It's not going well. The inmates are running the GOP asylum.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins 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 19th July 2018, 08:58 AM   #404
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,800
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
He's an admitted Trump supporter. Whatever thought processes that allowed him to reach the conclusion that Trump should still be supported are deeply flawed.
But you replied to a question about something unrelated to his being a Trump supporter by saying he's a Trump supporter.

That's a pretty big sign of bias on your part.


Quote:
A. The salient point is that he is a Trump supporter.
No, it really isn't. It has literally nothing to do with what I asked you. If you were calling out Flat Earthers for not being breathairians, I'd think that was ridiculous as well. One has nothing to do with the other.

Quote:
B. I don't think it's a character flaw to distance yourself from despicable people. If one keeps distancing oneself from a certain type of person (e.g., conservatives), it's evidence that maybe you're not as compatible with that belief system as you thought.
Or maybe it's evidence that your understanding of his beliefs is less nuanced than his actual beliefs and you are basing your views on a hopelessly inaccurate stereotype.



Quote:
I'm holding him to account for his own Trump beliefs. This is a skeptic's forum. When people believe crazy stuff, we call them out on it.
Sure, that's fine. But "you support Trump" shouldn't be your response to literally everything he says.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 19th July 2018, 10:04 AM   #405
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,761
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Hey guys, just dropping by to see how your plan to make a case in this forum that Donald Trump is clinically insane so that then somehow you can go from there to get him impeached, is going.
Well, making the case that he's mentally ill has been thwarted by an ingenious defense: If you're not a psychiatrist, then you don't know what you're talking about, but if you are, then you're not allowed to talk about it, and if you do that proves you don't know what you're talking about. And furthermore, having a mentally ill president is either not dangerous or it's a danger voters deserve, so the issue is moot anyway.

And yet, everyone here knows why this thread is still alive.
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
Old 19th July 2018, 10:05 AM   #406
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,471
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Not impeached, removed under the 25th Amendment. Something like:

YALE GROUP: He's dangerous, the Cabinet should remove him per the 25th Amendment.

CABINET: Yes, let's do that. Mike Pence is now Acting President.

TRUMP (via Twitter): Nope.

CABINET: Damn, foiled by a simple tweet!

CONGRESS: Hold my beer.


Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You don't even know my own Trump beliefs. You've made some minimal gestures towards finding out, but they've turned out to be empty gestures.
There is no need. Your describing his presidency as a "**** show" is straight out of Fox-News / GOP talking points.

The above is sarcasm. If you find yourself having quoted the sentence above as if it were serious, here is your chance to hit the back or escape button on your browser.

Last edited by carlitos; 19th July 2018 at 10:06 AM.
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 19th July 2018, 10:09 AM   #407
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,353
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Well, making the case that he's mentally ill has been thwarted by an ingenious defense: If you're not a psychiatrist, then you don't know what you're talking about, but if you are, then you're not allowed to talk about it, and if you do that proves you don't know what you're talking about. And furthermore, having a mentally ill president is either not dangerous or it's a danger voters deserve, so the issue is moot anyway.

And yet, everyone here knows why this thread is still alive.
__________________
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 19th July 2018, 10:10 AM   #408
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,513
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
We all have issues. Are you offering a diagnosis of Pence here, or just "saying whatever you want," or what exactly?
No diagnosis, mental illness isn't the issue with Pence. Just saying Trump will be replaced with a Trump worshiper if he were removed from office.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
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 19th July 2018, 10:11 AM   #409
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,513
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
It's not going well. The inmates are running the GOP asylum.
This ^.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
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 19th July 2018, 10:12 AM   #410
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,513
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Well, making the case that he's mentally ill has been thwarted by an ingenious defense: If you're not a psychiatrist, then you don't know what you're talking about, but if you are, then you're not allowed to talk about it, and if you do that proves you don't know what you're talking about. And furthermore, having a mentally ill president is either not dangerous or it's a danger voters deserve, so the issue is moot anyway.

And yet, everyone here knows why this thread is still alive.
And this ^.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
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 19th July 2018, 10:18 AM   #411
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,131
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Well, making the case that he's mentally ill has been thwarted by an ingenious defense: If you're not a psychiatrist, then you don't know what you're talking about, but if you are, then you're not allowed to talk about it, and if you do that proves you don't know what you're talking about. And furthermore, having a mentally ill president is either not dangerous or it's a danger voters deserve, so the issue is moot anyway.



And yet, everyone here knows why this thread is still alive.


Well, the Bigfoot threads are still alive so...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 19th July 2018, 10:49 AM   #412
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,761
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Well, the Bigfoot threads are still alive so...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So... what? I don't read those threads; are there zoologists claiming that Bigfeet are a serious threat to the country?
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
Old 19th July 2018, 12:09 PM   #413
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,205
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
So... what? I don't read those threads; are there zoologists claiming that Bigfeet are a serious threat to the country?
Nah, the issue is that reputable zoologists aren't supposed to speculate about an animal that they haven't actually observed, and the speculations of non-zoologists are simply useless, so . . . who knows?
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller 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 19th July 2018, 12:15 PM   #414
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,152
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
Nah, the issue is that reputable zoologists aren't supposed to speculate about an animal that they haven't actually observed, and the speculations of non-zoologists are simply useless, so . . . who knows?
Should a remote diagnosis by a psychiatrist be sufficient justification to remove an elected official from office?

Should psychiatrists publish remote diagnoses with the purpose of removing elected officials from office?
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 19th July 2018, 12:37 PM   #415
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,205
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Should a remote diagnosis by a psychiatrist be sufficient justification to remove an elected official from office?

Should psychiatrists publish remote diagnoses with the purpose of removing elected officials from office?
Do you seriously see no middle ground between "Any psychiatrist should be able to have any elected official removed from office based on a quick glance at a newspaper article" and "absent a consensual multi-session series of interviews in a nice comfy office, no observed behavior is sufficient for any mental health professional to speculate about the underlying mental health of an elected official?"
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller 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 19th July 2018, 12:59 PM   #416
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,152
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
Do you seriously see no middle ground between "Any psychiatrist should be able to have any elected official removed from office based on a quick glance at a newspaper article" and "absent a consensual multi-session series of interviews in a nice comfy office, no observed behavior is sufficient for any mental health professional to speculate about the underlying mental health of an elected official?"
If you see a middle ground between your chosen extremes that answers my questions, then by all means please answer my questions.

If you don't see a middle ground that answers my questions, then it doesn't really matter whether I see your middle ground or not.
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 19th July 2018, 01:00 PM   #417
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,131
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
So... what? I don't read those threads; are there zoologists claiming that Bigfeet are a serious threat to the country?
The point was that the longevity of a thread says nothing about the validity of the woo in question. In this case, the specific woo is "distant diagnosis." There are parallels between the kinds of arguments made in support of "distant diagnosis" and the arguments made in support of stuff like stage hypnosis, psychics, aliens, etc.

-Look, here are a bunch of experts that agree!
-I myself am an expert and I'm telling you it's real!
-This is just obvious stuff!
-Why are you so dogmatic in your support of science?

Stuff like that can go on forever . . .
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 19th July 2018, 01:30 PM   #418
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,471
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
No diagnosis, mental illness isn't the issue with Pence. Just saying Trump will be replaced with a Trump worshiper if he were removed from office.
Isn't the absence of mental illness a diagnosis?
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 19th July 2018, 01:48 PM   #419
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,205
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If you see a middle ground between your chosen extremes that answers my questions, then by all means please answer my questions.
very well.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Should a remote diagnosis by a psychiatrist be sufficient justification to remove an elected official from office?
No.

Quote:
Should psychiatrists publish remote diagnoses with the purpose of removing elected officials from office?
Yes, under some circumstances. I think the phrase "with the purpose of removing elected officials from office" is problematic, though. I wouldn't limit it to elected officials, nor would I say that "removing them from office" is the preferred purpose.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller 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 19th July 2018, 05:14 PM   #420
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,286
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I feel you were going to feel disgusted and contemptuous no matter what I did.
That's really too bad. You could ask me next time. After all, our interactions on the rest of the forum kinda point to the opposite; at least from my POV.


Quote:
So your expressions of contempt and disgust do nothing to make me reconsider my positions. Do you have any other conversational strategies you want to try?
If that was the intent, sure. But it wasn't.




Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
I'm not a Trumper, never been a fan. I'm not a fan of people diagnosing mental conditions that also, somehow, coincide with their own personal beliefs.
This is an assumption on your part and belies the supposed-neutrality you're trying to present.


Quote:
It's the assume the worst nonsense that is tiresome.
Isn't that the precise thing you're doing by dismissing a group of people obviously professionally alarmed at the state of our president? Can you not see even one tiny iota of a possibility that they just might be on to something important?



Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Also, I think they're all, by and large, unfit to be president. My choices were a professionally political, venal and corrupt progressive; versus an amateur, venal and corrupt opportunist.
I feel the exact same way which is why I personally had to look beyond what possible benefit I personally may have gotten to seeing how the rest of the nation (and further down, the rest of the world) could benefit from his whomever was to be the next president.

I'm not a Democrat, btw, nor Republican so I'm very comfortable in saying that Obama provided no "hope" nor "change" except getting worse. Hillary might have kept that trajectory but if there was a way that the country could nose-dive even faster, it was Trump at the helm. And he is proving it, every day.




Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Other evidence besides them breaking with the ethical standards of their profession, you mean? What would you accept as evidence?
They don't even belong to that profession as has been said a million times that you claim prevents such pronouncements. So if possible ethics violations are your only criticism and you are totally neutral in your view of this topic then why are you fighting so hard in dismissing the reports?




Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That's an uncharitable misreading of my posts.
Well, if nothing else, now you know how we feel.




Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
We already have a system that eliminates too many qualified leaders, whether due to lack of pay, lack of interest, or overly-intrusive background vetting. If we start to police "borderline" personality disorders we would only make it worse...
If that's your complain then how about reducing the OTHER qualifications rather than on mental health first?

"Golly! I had to turn away ANOTHER psychotic today because the mental health standards are just too high! Where are we gonna find another guy that has that high of a credit score AND not a mass murderer?"




Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Normal? By what standard? I don't see it as dangerous.

I do see what the Yale group is trying to accomplish as dangerous.
Because discovering more antisocial and psychopathic people in high government office is a terrible, terrible thing! Who else will have the capacity to not-declare war on the rest of the planet to force "democracy" down their throats?




Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
I'm not saying that it is "normal" as I really have no idea what that means in the context of mental health. What I am saying is that having a diagnoses and then forcing the evidence to fit is not the best way to determine the sanity of a person.
I think you're gonna have to come up with some pretty solid evidence that this is true if you want some credibility discussing it.




Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
And beyond that, it colors everything. Because I’m not just falling in line, accepting these shrink’s opinions, well, I must be a Trumpkin. That’s not the case at all. But it makes it easier to dismiss my arguments, I guess.
Just like every psychiatrist who signed the letter are doing it purely for partisan reasons because they all hate Trump, right?
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 19th July 2018, 06:12 PM   #421
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,595
Just throwing this in...

https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...-x-lee-2018-07

Quote:
Trump’s Psychopathology Is Getting Worse
Quote:
Trump shows signs of at least three dangerous traits: paranoia, lack of empathy, and sadism. Paranoia is a form of detachment from reality in which an individual perceives threats that do not exist. The paranoid individual can create dangers for others in the course of fighting against imaginary threats. Lack of empathy can derive from an individual’s preoccupation with the self and a view of others as mere tools. Harming others causes no remorse when it serves one’s own purposes. Sadism means finding pleasure in inflicting pain or humiliating others, especially those who represent a perceived threat or a reminder of one’s weaknesses.1

We believe that Trump has these traits. We base our conclusion on observations of his actions, his known life history, and many reports by others, rather than as the finding of an independent psychiatric examination, which we have previously called for, and call for again. But we do not need a complete picture to recognize that Trump is already a growing danger to the world. Psychological expertise tells us that such traits tend to worsen in individuals who gain power over others.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 19th July 2018 at 06:13 PM.
kellyb 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 19th July 2018, 06:21 PM   #422
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,471
I’ll take logical fallacies for $600.
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 19th July 2018, 07:18 PM   #423
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,131
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
That's really too bad. You could ask me next time. After all, our interactions on the rest of the forum kinda point to the opposite; at least from my POV.







If that was the intent, sure. But it wasn't.











This is an assumption on your part and belies the supposed-neutrality you're trying to present.







Isn't that the precise thing you're doing by dismissing a group of people obviously professionally alarmed at the state of our president? Can you not see even one tiny iota of a possibility that they just might be on to something important?









I feel the exact same way which is why I personally had to look beyond what possible benefit I personally may have gotten to seeing how the rest of the nation (and further down, the rest of the world) could benefit from his whomever was to be the next president.



I'm not a Democrat, btw, nor Republican so I'm very comfortable in saying that Obama provided no "hope" nor "change" except getting worse. Hillary might have kept that trajectory but if there was a way that the country could nose-dive even faster, it was Trump at the helm. And he is proving it, every day.











They don't even belong to that profession as has been said a million times that you claim prevents such pronouncements. So if possible ethics violations are your only criticism and you are totally neutral in your view of this topic then why are you fighting so hard in dismissing the reports?











Well, if nothing else, now you know how we feel.











If that's your complain then how about reducing the OTHER qualifications rather than on mental health first?



"Golly! I had to turn away ANOTHER psychotic today because the mental health standards are just too high! Where are we gonna find another guy that has that high of a credit score AND not a mass murderer?"











Because discovering more antisocial and psychopathic people in high government office is a terrible, terrible thing! Who else will have the capacity to not-declare war on the rest of the planet to force "democracy" down their throats?











I think you're gonna have to come up with some pretty solid evidence that this is true if you want some credibility discussing it.











Just like every psychiatrist who signed the letter are doing it purely for partisan reasons because they all hate Trump, right?


All of your fears and criticism of Trump could be ascertained simply by looking at him. I share those fears -to some extent anyway. However, I see no value in elevating the same kind of criticism that a lot of America is engaging in to some kind of authoritative criticism. We gain nothing by such “professional criticism “ and have a lot to lose. With this precedent, I’m sure we will come to a point when the “professional criticism” applies to a non-GOP candidate. We’ll just have to see if there is some consistency at that point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 19th July 2018, 07:24 PM   #424
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,513
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
All of your fears and criticism of Trump could be ascertained simply by looking at him. I share those fears -to some extent anyway. However, I see no value in elevating the same kind of criticism that a lot of America is engaging in to some kind of authoritative criticism. We gain nothing by such “professional criticism “ and have a lot to lose. With this precedent, I’m sure we will come to a point when the “professional criticism” applies to a non-GOP candidate. We’ll just have to see if there is some consistency at that point...
If you recognize Trump has serious problems, and you yourself are not a clinician, why on Earth are you criticizing people who are clinicians?

You can believe their assessments lack any practical or other value. But why do you feel the need to judge said clinicians when you know you lack said clinician skills?
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
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 19th July 2018, 07:24 PM   #425
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,761
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The point was that the longevity of a thread says nothing about the validity of the woo in question. In this case, the specific woo is "distant diagnosis." There are parallels between the kinds of arguments made in support of "distant diagnosis" and the arguments made in support of stuff like stage hypnosis, psychics, aliens, etc.

-Look, here are a bunch of experts that agree!
-I myself am an expert and I'm telling you it's real!
-This is just obvious stuff!
-Why are you so dogmatic in your support of science?

Stuff like that can go on forever . . .
In other words, your attempt at an analogy bears no resemblance to this thread. You keep appealing to secret science that you assume exists somewhere but can't produce, while dismissing out of hand experts and studies that say your position is not scientifically founded. If what you're asserting were true, one would expect that the profession would police itself and shred the Yale group on scientific grounds, and I wouldn't think it should be so hard to find that criticism.

Yes, stuff like this can go on forever. Suit yourself, but the "woo in question" is yours.
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
Old 20th July 2018, 09:35 AM   #426
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,131
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
If you recognize Trump has serious problems, and you yourself are not a clinician, why on Earth are you criticizing people who are clinicians?

You can believe their assessments lack any practical or other value. But why do you feel the need to judge said clinicians when you know you lack said clinician skills?
Excellent questions. I'm going to try to answer without repeating myself too much. Forget ethics codes; forget science (not that those aren't important, but I've made my arguments in regards to that). Medicine is a healing profession. In the area of mental health, clinicians' primary responsibility is to help people who have mental illness to feel better and live more productive lives. In order to do that, patients need to trust that they aren't going to be judged -that's a huge barrier to people seeking help from the mental health professions. When prominent clinicians use mental illness labels in the media in order to say that "The President is dangerously mentally ill; remove him from office," that is the exact kind of stigma that people are seeking to avoid. It only serves to perpetuate the negative stereotypes of "dangerous mental illness." In other words, it only serves to hinder the primary aim of the profession: to help people feel better.

Psychiatry and psychology should not be weaponized; history has already shown us the harm that comes from that.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 20th July 2018, 09:48 AM   #427
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,131
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
In other words, your attempt at an analogy bears no resemblance to this thread. You keep appealing to secret science that you assume exists somewhere but can't produce, while dismissing out of hand experts and studies that say your position is not scientifically founded. If what you're asserting were true, one would expect that the profession would police itself and shred the Yale group on scientific grounds, and I wouldn't think it should be so hard to find that criticism.

Yes, stuff like this can go on forever. Suit yourself, but the "woo in question" is yours.
The profession has shredded the Yale group . . .but in the way the profession handles such things. You can find plenty of equally prominent psychiatrists and psychologists speaking out against the Yale group's actions.

Look, in the end, this is something the profession itself has to sort out. There are complex issues involved and none of us here are qualified to really argue them. What I'm really saying, in the end, is that until the profession sorts this all out, it's inappropriate to break clear ethical codes and standards of practice.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 20th July 2018, 09:54 AM   #428
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,967
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Psychiatry and psychology should not be weaponized; history has already shown us the harm that comes from that.
Assumes that they are employing the technique as a weapon, and not out of genuine concern for the future of America.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 20th July 2018, 10:01 AM   #429
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,876
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
.....
In the area of mental health, clinicians' primary responsibility is to help people who have mental illness to feel better and live more productive lives.
.....
No, that is only true for people who have entered into a doctor-patient relationship. No ethical standard prevents, for example, forensic psychiatrists from assessing whether a criminal defendant is fit for trial, even though their decision might ultimately result in the defendant's imprisonment, even death. Nothing prevents shrinks from testifying against the defendant in court, or even predicting the likelihood of future offenses. The clinician's responsibility is to his employer and the society, not the defendant. For that matter, nothing prevents a clinician like Dr. Oz from observing that a public figure is displaying symptoms of Parkinson's, TB, obesity, alcoholism or any other illness that is in plain view. It's no different from lawyer-client privilege. A lawyer is not prohibited from commenting or speculating about a public figure who is not a client. The airwaves are full of lawyers discussing the potential legal liability of Cohen, Manafort, Trump, etc.

The problem here is that you insist that a shrink's obligation to his patients in a clinical setting extends to everyone everywhere. That's a shaky contention.

Last edited by Bob001; 20th July 2018 at 10:02 AM.
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 20th July 2018, 10:53 AM   #430
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,139
Yuri Andropov called, he wants his psikhushkas back.
__________________
"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 20th July 2018, 10:58 AM   #431
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,513
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The profession has shredded the Yale group . . .but in the way the profession handles such things. You can find plenty of equally prominent psychiatrists and psychologists speaking out against the Yale group's actions.

Look, in the end, this is something the profession itself has to sort out. There are complex issues involved and none of us here are qualified to really argue them. What I'm really saying, in the end, is that until the profession sorts this all out, it's inappropriate to break clear ethical codes and standards of practice.
Did you post supporting links and how are you defining "the profession"?
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
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 20th July 2018, 11:05 AM   #432
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,513
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Excellent questions. I'm going to try to answer without repeating myself too much. Forget ethics codes; forget science (not that those aren't important, but I've made my arguments in regards to that). Medicine is a healing profession. In the area of mental health, clinicians' primary responsibility is to help people who have mental illness to feel better and live more productive lives. In order to do that, patients need to trust that they aren't going to be judged -that's a huge barrier to people seeking help from the mental health professions. When prominent clinicians use mental illness labels in the media in order to say that "The President is dangerously mentally ill; remove him from office," that is the exact kind of stigma that people are seeking to avoid. It only serves to perpetuate the negative stereotypes of "dangerous mental illness." In other words, it only serves to hinder the primary aim of the profession: to help people feel better.

Psychiatry and psychology should not be weaponized; history has already shown us the harm that comes from that.
"Weaponized" is pure BS. And you are spouting a false equivalence if you think this situation matches any other in history, because this is not a partisan issue.

The biggest problem in your POV is suggesting people hearing/reading psychiatric opinions on Trump's NPD won't get it. Could just as easily be the other way around, people could be upset psychiatrists aren't weighing in publicly on this important matter that involves all of us.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
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 20th July 2018, 11:07 AM   #433
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,131
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Assumes that they are employing the technique as a weapon, and not out of genuine concern for the future of America.
"Using psychiatry/psychology as a weapon," is a specific action: using mental illness diagnostic labels in order to discredit someone; character assassination, IOW. Someone might employ that weapon out of concern, sure.

My issue is not so much with the motivations of the psychs involved but whether or not such weaponization of mental health professions is appropriate, no matter the justification.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 20th July 2018, 11:11 AM   #434
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,761
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The profession has shredded the Yale group . . .but in the way the profession handles such things. You can find plenty of equally prominent psychiatrists and psychologists speaking out against the Yale group's actions.

Look, in the end, this is something the profession itself has to sort out. There are complex issues involved and none of us here are qualified to really argue them. What I'm really saying, in the end, is that until the profession sorts this all out, it's inappropriate to break clear ethical codes and standards of practice.

Where are these "equally prominent psychiatrists and psychologists speaking out against the Yale group's actions" on scientific grounds, rather than ethical or political grounds, please? I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist, but when confronted by conflicting opinions by experts, I like to hear what both sides have to say. So far, what you're claiming about an in-person interview being required for a "scientific" diagnose of malignant narcissism just doesn't make logical sense to me. If you can't support that claim, I do wish you would quit making it, and at least this endless loop might end.
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
Old 20th July 2018, 11:55 AM   #435
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,131
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Where are these "equally prominent psychiatrists and psychologists speaking out against the Yale group's actions" on scientific grounds, rather than ethical or political grounds, please?
Nobody is arguing this on scientific grounds. I think they are being very careful not to bring the science into it because, as the studies you linked to point out, it seems the foundation of psychiatric evaluation is on pretty shaky ground as it is. There are plenty of pieces about the ethical dilemma, which is important also, but I can't find a single source defending the science of an in-person exam. At the same time, I can't find a single source that defends the science of distant diagnosis.
Quote:
I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist, but when confronted by conflicting opinions by experts, I like to hear what both sides have to say. So far, what you're claiming about an in-person interview being required for a "scientific" diagnose of malignant narcissism just doesn't make logical sense to me. If you can't support that claim, I do wish you would quit making it, and at least this endless loop might end.
I will drop it but in doing so, I do have to point out that if the foundation of the profession -evaluating someone for mental illness- has such little support in science, then how can we be sure that any of it has any support at all?

ETA: I should also point out that if lack of scientific support for in-person exams renders it useless, then the exact same thing can be said for distant diagnosis.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 20th July 2018 at 11:58 AM.
xjx388 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 20th July 2018, 12:35 PM   #436
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,967
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
"Using psychiatry/psychology as a weapon," is a specific action: using mental illness diagnostic labels in order to discredit someone; character assassination, IOW. Someone might employ that weapon out of concern, sure.

My issue is not so much with the motivations of the psychs involved but whether or not such weaponization of mental health professions is appropriate, no matter the justification.
Even calling it a "weapon" to use it, is being pejorative. Why not call it a tool?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 20th July 2018, 02:46 PM   #437
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,513
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Nobody is arguing this on scientific grounds. I think they are being very careful not to bring the science into it because, as the studies you linked to point out, it seems the foundation of psychiatric evaluation is on pretty shaky ground as it is. There are plenty of pieces about the ethical dilemma, which is important also, but I can't find a single source defending the science of an in-person exam. At the same time, I can't find a single source that defends the science of distant diagnosis.
I will drop it but in doing so, I do have to point out that if the foundation of the profession -evaluating someone for mental illness- has such little support in science, then how can we be sure that any of it has any support at all?

ETA: I should also point out that if lack of scientific support for in-person exams renders it useless, then the exact same thing can be said for distant diagnosis.
My my my, your expertise in the field of psychiatry is growing by the post.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
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 20th July 2018, 02:55 PM   #438
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,131
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
My my my, your expertise in the field of psychiatry is growing by the post.
If you are saying I'm wrong, you are, of course free to show the science backing up distant diagnosis.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 20th July 2018, 03:15 PM   #439
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,513
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
If you are saying I'm wrong, you are, of course free to show the science backing up distant diagnosis.
We're on page 11, I've not seen you post any scientific citations yet. You assert that the APA and whomever must have scientific evidence to back up their positions. That is not evidence.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
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 20th July 2018, 05:55 PM   #440
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,131
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
We're on page 11, I've not seen you post any scientific citations yet. You assert that the APA and whomever must have scientific evidence to back up their positions. That is not evidence.


Not exactly. I’m willing to concede that the APA has no scientific backing for the in-person requirement. This weakens their position. However, the Yale group is arguing from a weak position as well -there is no scientific support for their methodology either.

This throws the whole thing into a different light. Maybe psychiatry should fix itself before it’s practitioners start spouting off about public figures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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
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 09:41 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.