Continuation Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness' say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 3

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Lurch

And a system structured so that the rest of us must wait years for an election to oust (and no guarantee there, either) the bastard(s) points to the societal abdication of a means for more immediate redress. Impeachment? Hasn't worked yet (Nixon quit because shame in politics had not yet died). The 25th? As if.

Nixon had so little approval he would have been impeached. To get rid of a sitting President before his term is up, you pretty much need a supermajority of opinion against him. Otherwise you just have the British system where the Prime Minister serves at the pleasure of Parliament. No President who didn't have Congress on his side would be safe. This seems like a recipe for ratcheting up the tribal warfare.

[Lurch]

"It's just peachy for our President to promulgate unfounded conspiracy theories and demonstrate his replacing fantasy with reality, but God forbid a qualified mental health professional should raise a concern about this without conducting an in-person assessment."

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Lurch

"It's just peachy for our President to promulgate unfounded conspiracy theories and demonstrate his replacing fantasy with reality, but God forbid a qualified mental health professional should raise a concern about this without conducting an in-person assessment."

Perhaps Trump's madness is contagious, so any professional who gets close enough to examine him will become mad themselves, and thus be unqualified to render a professional opinion!

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by xjx388

That isn’t a prediction, it’s an observation of what is currently happening.

Besides, anyone paying attention could have predicted how Trump would act or that he would bungle the response. Labels like, “NPD” or “malignant narcissism,” or “dangerously mentally ill,” were completely unnecessary for such predictions.

And why is it that "anyone paying attention could have predicted how Trump would act"?

Could it be because Trump cannot help himself?

He imagines COVID is going away because he wants it to be gone. It isn't and these attempts to ignore it will backfire as numbers of cases start rising.

He'll blame that on more testing and he'll continue to believe his fantasy, the disease is going away.

He'll claim it was the governors' doing and they didn't follow Trump's guidelines.

Having two contradictory beliefs at the same time is common for Trump.

Trump is ending Fauci and Birx from being in press conferences reminding the public Trump's version of reality is a fantasy.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Lurch

"It's just peachy for our President to promulgate unfounded conspiracy theories and demonstrate his replacing fantasy with reality, but God forbid a qualified mental health professional should raise a concern about this without conducting an in-person assessment."

This ^

Are you quoting someone?

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And why is it that "anyone paying attention could have predicted how Trump would act"?

Because you don’t need a diagnosis to observe someone and make predictions about their behavior.

Quote:

Could it be because Trump cannot help himself?

Maybe, but it’s an irrelevant factor. Doesn’t matter if he can or can’t help himself, what matters is what he actually does.

Quote:

He imagines COVID is going away because he wants it to be gone. It isn't and these attempts to ignore it will backfire as numbers of cases start rising.

Again, the internal mental state that leads to his actions doesn’t matter. What matters are the actions he takes. We can guess that he will be bad at managing a pandemic because we’ve seen him being bad at managing everything else, going back to his businesses. If he can’t keep a friggin’ casino open, I mean jeez, what can he do? Who he is and what he does is far more important to us as voters than why he does it.

Quote:

He'll blame that on more testing and he'll continue to believe his fantasy, the disease is going away.

He'll claim it was the governors' doing and they didn't follow Trump's guidelines.

Having two contradictory beliefs at the same time is common for Trump.

And common for many of us as well. It isn’t a sign of mental illness, though.

[dann]

Originally Posted by xjx388

That isn’t a prediction, it’s an observation of what is currently happening.

Besides, anyone paying attention could have predicted how Trump would act or that he would bungle the response. Labels like, “NPD” or “malignant narcissism,” or “dangerously mentally ill,” were completely unnecessary for such predictions.

Yes, when mental disorders are this obvious, labels are unnecessary. (By the way, nothing is easier to diagnose at a distance than mental disorders. Disorders of the body usually require hands-on diagnostics.)

[dann]

Originally Posted by xjx388

And common for many of us as well. It isn’t a sign of mental illness, though.

It's a question of degree. Most people may exhibit small signs of narcissism occasionally. Trump exhibits them all, and he does so all the time. They have been posted in this thread several times already.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by xjx388

Because you don’t need a diagnosis to observe someone and make predictions about their behavior.

How is this relevant to professionals weighing in using their professional credentials?

Originally Posted by xjx388

Maybe, but it’s an irrelevant factor. Doesn’t matter if he can or can’t help himself, what matters is what he actually does.

Again, the internal mental state that leads to his actions doesn’t matter. What matters are the actions he takes. We can guess that he will be bad at managing a pandemic because we’ve seen him being bad at managing everything else, going back to his businesses. If he can’t keep a friggin’ casino open, I mean jeez, what can he do? Who he is and what he does is far more important to us as voters than why he does it.

No, that he cannot help himself is because of his diagnosis.

Originally Posted by xjx388

And common for many of us as well. It isn’t a sign of mental illness, though.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by dann

Yes, when mental disorders are this obvious, labels are unnecessary. (By the way, nothing is easier to diagnose at a distance than mental disorders. Disorders of the body usually require hands-on diagnostics.)

The American Psychiatric Association disagrees with you.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by xjx388

The American Psychiatric Association disagrees with you.

The APA is claiming that the Yale docs need to keep their mouths shut, not that they're wrong.

[Bob001]

Trump still thinks he's on reality TV:

Quote:

Trump claimed Wednesday that he did, in fact, wear a mask during a visit to a mask production facility in Arizona on Tuesday — but that he did so “backstage.”
....
“I had it on back, backstage,” Trump said. When a reporter noted that members of the media did not observe Trump wearing the mask, the president replied, “I can’t help it if you didn’t see me.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...DNDT4V2XYAOQQE [several items down]

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Trump still thinks he's on reality TV:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...DNDT4V2XYAOQQE [several items down]

Hmmmmmm.....wanna take any bets?

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This ^

Are you quoting someone?

No one in particular. I was channeling the generic Trump apologist's attitude.

Highlighting the way they and their Chosen One eschew, decry and ignore science when inconvenient and uncomfortable, but then demand that only the most rigorous science be employed by the Emperor's detractors.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Bob001

The APA is claiming that the Yale docs need to keep their mouths shut, not that they're wrong.

They have made it clear that "remote diagnosis" is not a valid form of psychiatry.

[Lurch]

At this juncture I don't care a whit about knowing what mental factors go into his actions. About *why* his "a-brain" short-circuits and misfires the way it does. His actions and their consequences all by themselves tell us all we need to know. He's not just unfit. He's dangerously so.

A body of political scientists rated him as the worst President a couple years back. Worse by far than Nixon, who had to scarper outta town because he was gonna be convicted in his impeachment trial. And who himself HAS ALREADY BEEN IMPEACHED. And since then the evidence of his malignant unfitness and criminality has only piled on.

To hell with arguing *why* Trump is *****. The fact that he *is* ***** is enough to know. We can leave the "why" 'til after he's sent packing.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Lurch

At this juncture I don't care a whit about knowing what mental factors go into his actions. About *why* his "a-brain" short-circuits and misfires the way it does. His actions and their consequences all by themselves tell us all we need to know. He's not just unfit. He's dangerously so.

A body of political scientists rated him as the worst President a couple years back. Worse by far than Nixon, who had to scarper outta town because he was gonna be convicted in his impeachment trial. And who himself HAS ALREADY BEEN IMPEACHED. And since then the evidence of his malignant unfitness and criminality has only piled on.

To hell with arguing *why* Trump is *****. The fact that he *is* ***** is enough to know. We can leave the "why" 'til after he's sent packing.

Maybe the Dean of Harvard should vet all future presidential candidates before lay people are allowed to hear about them?

[Bob001]

Doc Lee weighs in again.

Quote:

"The president's goal is the same as 'How to inflict the maximum damage possible,'" Lee said in an interview with Salon this week. "His psychopathology makes him avoid all the right decisions, while driving him to make all the wrong decisions, He has been visibly deteriorating, and his sheer desire to deny his failures may get us back to the U.K. group's projections of 2.2 million deaths after all — and then there will be even more failures to deny."

Also, there's this:

Quote:

People believe mental health professionals only diagnose mental illness, but mental capacity and dangerousness are different evaluations that do not require a personal exam and have everything to do with fitness and public safety.

https://www.salon.com/2020/05/15/yal...porters-nasty/

[Bob001]

This author makes a strong case that the expansion of the Goldwater rule was promoted by one APA official largely out of fear that an angry Trump would cut federal funds for psychiatry -- and his own particular institution.

Quote:

Numerous psychiatrists believe that the APA’s vehement defense of the Goldwater rule is disingenuous and that something else besides a sudden revival of interest in this ethical guideline accounts for its intransigence. In the fall of 2017, John Zinner, a psychiatrist at George Washington University, told The New Yorker that he had heard a “high official” of the APA acknowledge that its leaders were worried that if psychiatrists started criticizing Trump, the president might retaliate by reducing federal dollars for psychiatric treatment. Zinner is also quoted as saying that the Goldwater rule was laid down “really not out of ethical concern, [but…concern for] our pocketbooks.”

Likewise, NYU’s James Gilligan thinks that following the money might provide an explanation for the APA’s actions. “I wonder if the primary worry of academic psychiatrists like Lieberman may be the loss of NIH funding for their biological research,” he says. Trump’s sudden decision earlier this month to suspend the $500 million in funding that the US gives to the World Health Organization lends credibility to Gilligan’s hypothesis. This is clearly a president who uses the power of the federal purse to support his friends and punish his enemies in the scientific community. So perhaps a strict Goldwater rule is one way for the APA to make sure that it stays on amicable terms with Trump.

If this is, in fact, the APA’s strategy, it appears to be working. As the APA noted in a release at the end of 2019, it is pleased with Congressional funding for psychiatric research during the Trump administration, which now includes $2 billion a year to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)—up $155 million from the previous year. And over at Columbia University, where he heads up the New York State Psychiatric Institute (NYSPI) as well as the medical school’s psychiatry department, Lieberman also continues to be the beneficiary of considerable funding by the feds, even though the NYSPSI was slapped with a roughly $10 million fine for overcharging NIH in 2016. According to the latest publicly available figures, in 2018, the NYSPI received about $64 million in NIH grants and, in 2019, the psychiatry department at Columbia another $17 million.

.....

Quote:

As Richard Painter, who worked as the chief White House ethics lawyer during the presidency of George W. Bush and co-wrote a chapter for the second edition of Lee’s book, stresses, most media outlets readily assume that the American Psychiatric Association formulates its policies based on an assessment of what is likely to be in the best interests of the American people. “But journalists forget that the APA is a guild, and professional guilds—like the APA or the American Bar Association—tend to focus on protecting their members. These guilds often do everything in their power simply to help lawyers or psychiatrists earn a better living,” he says.

https://www.madinamerica.com/2020/04...y-time-crisis/

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Doc Lee weighs in again.


Also, there's this:

https://www.salon.com/2020/05/15/yal...porters-nasty/

Oh jesus . . .

A mental capacity evaluation is a very specific thing -the ability to make decisions for oneself.

"Dangerousness" in mental health, specifically refers to "risk of causing harm to self or others." It's the assessment of whether or not such risk of harm should result in involuntary commitment.

None of that is what Dr. Lee is doing here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Bob001

This author makes a strong case that the expansion of the Goldwater rule was promoted by one APA official largely out of fear that an angry Trump would cut federal funds for psychiatry -- and his own particular institution.

.....

https://www.madinamerica.com/2020/04...y-time-crisis/

I'm not surprised to find one individual pushing their agenda. The guy who insisted Trump didn't have a mental illness because it gave mental illness a bad name was another one.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Doc Lee weighs in again.

Also, there's this:

https://www.salon.com/2020/05/15/yal...porters-nasty/

Originally Posted by Bob001

This author makes a strong case that the expansion of the Goldwater rule was promoted by one APA official largely out of fear that an angry Trump would cut federal funds for psychiatry -- and his own particular institution.
.....
https://www.madinamerica.com/2020/04...y-time-crisis/

Interesting articles - especially the one about the APA and Liebermann, the lab-coat guy: Muzzled by Psychiatry in a Time of Crisis (Mad in America, April 25, 2020)

A lot of people will go down in history as the ones who enabled and helped Trump kill hundreds of thousands of Americans. It is astonishing to see an article from April 25 say, "With over 50,000 Americans already dead from the coronavirus pandemic." Now it's already 88,507.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by xjx388

Oh jesus . . .

A mental capacity evaluation is a very specific thing -the ability to make decisions for oneself.

"Dangerousness" in mental health, specifically refers to "risk of causing harm to self or others." It's the assessment of whether or not such risk of harm should result in involuntary commitment.

None of that is what Dr. Lee is doing here.

Do you have any hesitation about proclaiming how a board-certified Yale professor of psychiatry should practice psychiatry?

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Do you have any hesitation about proclaiming how a board-certified Yale professor of psychiatry should practice psychiatry?

None whatsoever when my “proclamation” is limited to: follow the standards of practice and ethical code of your profession.

[3point14]

"Nobody's allowed to say that the obviously lunatic and dangerous man in the White House is a dangerous lunatic. Especially not people who specialise in dangerous lunatics, they're not allowed to say it most of all"


This is brilliant.



There was thick, black smoke coming out of my car the other day. My mate, a mechanic said "You want to get that looked at." I put him straight, of course, there's no way he could possibly have worked that out.


Here, have a metaphor.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by 3point14

"Nobody's allowed to say that the obviously lunatic and dangerous man in the White House is a dangerous lunatic. Especially not people who specialise in dangerous lunatics, they're not allowed to say it most of all"


This is brilliant.



There was thick, black smoke coming out of my car the other day. My mate, a mechanic said "You want to get that looked at." I put him straight, of course, there's no way he could possibly have worked that out.


Here, have a metaphor.

Exactly. The experts may not comment. And if anyone does say that maybe Trump is unstable, and losing contact with reality, one can reply that if it's obvious, then medical expert opinions are not needed.

Deny until it gets far worse than this, then claim that nobody could have known earlier.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by dann

Interesting articles - especially the one about the APA and Liebermann, the lab-coat guy: Muzzled by Psychiatry in a Time of Crisis (Mad in America, April 25, 2020)

A lot of people will go down in history as the ones who enabled and helped Trump kill hundreds of thousands of Americans. It is astonishing to see an article from April 25 say, "With over 50,000 Americans already dead from the coronavirus pandemic." Now it's already 88,507.

From the link:

Quote:

In his unexpected rebuttal, Jeffrey Lieberman, whose one-year term as president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) ended six years ago, compared the two guest speakers to Nazi and Soviet psychiatrists who relied on bogus diagnoses to punish enemies of the state. His comments revolved around their alleged violation of the so-called “Goldwater rule,” which the APA incorporated into its ethical guidelines in 1973 and which prohibits members of this influential trade association—to which neither Lee nor Gilligan happens to belong—from diagnosing public figures.

I like the white coat effect, right out of a commercial. Which makes one wonder, which Merchants of Doubt are at play here:

Quote:

Lieberman’s invective at Lee’s book talk constituted just one rung in a carefully orchestrated public relations campaign against Lee and her co-authors. That fall and winter, Lieberman and senior officials at the APA kept up the pressure. Lieberman also cranked out a series of articles in both academic journals and the popular press and sat for numerous interviews on national TV. This biological psychiatrist, best known for his numerous studies on antipsychotics, also added a dose of online trolling. For example, in a middle-of-the-night tweet on January 7, 2018, Lieberman challenged Lee’s expertise simply because he assumed she was only an assistant professor; along with that demeaning comment, he also expressed his agreement with a psychiatry professor at Stanford University that the Goldwater rule needed to be bypassed in order to “do something” about Lee and “the grave risks” she posed.

A couple of days later, the APA issued a press release that articulated a new, stricter version of the Goldwater rule. And a few days after that, The New York Times lined up with the APA against Lee, publishing both an editorial in support of the new Goldwater rule and an op-ed by Lieberman in which he accused Lee of engaging in “clinical name-calling.”

No wonder xjx388 continues to harp on this faux excuse not to look at Trump from a professional POV. Not that he's being paid or anything like that. But clearly the Merchants of Doubt campaign provides fuel for denying the obvious.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Look what Lieberman puts on his own web page:

https://www.jeffreyliebermanmd.com/media

It's rounds and rounds of Sunday talk shows et al with him spewing his position in classic Merchants of Doubt format.

Quite telling.

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is a history. This article addressed Lieberman soon after the false alarm HI experienced that a nuke-armed missile was incoming:

HuffPo Part XVI. “THIS IS NOT A DRILL”: Response to Jeffrey Lieberman

Lieberman accuses Lee of being like a Nazi, this article starts with death camp survivor, Elie Wiesel, quote about not sitting by.

Quote:

Yesterday morning, Hawaiians awakened to the horror of imminent extinction from incoming ballistic missiles, with official alerts that “THIS IS NOT A DRILL.” The false alarm was identified after 38 minutes of panic and dread. A day later, Trump himself still has not been heard from on the subject. ...

We are all aware of Trump’s befuddlement as to why we have a nuclear arsenal if we do not intend to use it. We are all aware of him blurting out his “fire and fury” threats against North Korea, along with his myriad unfiltered tweets attacking “Little Rocket Man,” Kim Jong-Un. He has shamed nuclear-armed Pakistan and India in other tweets. Staggeringly, many Americans continue to see this as strategic “crazy like a fox” behavior despite mounting evidence that it is uncontained “crazy like a crazy” recklessness and disconnection from reality.

And yet a vocal few in the mental health field pontificate on the so-called Goldwater Rule of the American Psychiatric Association, with schizophrenia drug researcher Jeffrey Lieberman as the chief mouthpiece.

The Biden thread was bogged down (hopefully that is ending) with complaints about the character of his accuser so I'm going to let you all read the parts of the article that point out Lieberman's own serious ethical problems with how he treated schizophrenics.

Suffice it to say I am reminded of the scientists who denied global warming, evolution, the harm from second hand smoke (the original Merchants of Doubt), Reyes Syndrome's connection to aspirin and so on. The point is, there always seem to be these rogue doctors and scientists who take up a fringe position and get lots of attention and often funding for it from the science deniers.

This guy Lieberman has an agenda besides some dedication to the ethics of the APA. This explains that his 'power' or influence in the APA is not what it seems. I thought it was being loved, admired and influential in the APA but that's not it at all. It was/is a conscious concerted effort to discredit Lee. Unless Lieberman is a one-man sycophant on a crusade for Trump, there is more behind this. And I don't think my suspicion belongs in the CT forum.

The article suggests maybe he is a Trumper:

Quote:

... despite Mr. Lieberman’s slanderous assertion that the book is “tawdry, indulgent, fatuous, tabloid psychiatry” driven by partisan politics.

I dunno, is he vying for a position in the Trump administration? Did someone hire him to go on all those talk shows?


The article's authors support the Goldwater Rule, within limits:

Quote:

We support the prohibition against thoughtless, gratuitous commentary that the Goldwater Rule originally intended. Mental health professionals should indeed be restrained from careless psychological speculation on the young children of presidents, unstable celebrities, or public figures who pose no danger. But the anachronistic rule itself has no more applicability to Trump than a buggy whip used to get a car moving that has no gas.

This one's for you xjx388 and your continual harping that you wanted to see the research:

There's plenty more in the article including discussion of a scientific meta-analysis that concludes:

Quote:

... that the research thoroughly debunks any scientific basis to the claim of higher value in personal interviews:

And this addresses my gripe at the beginning of this thread about Dr Frances and his "I wrote the book" and Trump isn't mentally ill because he's successful and the other arguments Dr Frances made:

Quote:

An inane argument has been raised by psychiatrist Allen Frances and mimicked by Mr. Lieberman: bad behavior is not necessarily indicative of emotional instability, just as emotional instability is not necessarily indicative of bad behavior. What’s the point? Eating pretzels is not necessarily indicative of emotional instability and the converse is also true. Sophistry is the term for the use of arguments that sound clever and plausible but are in fact false, often with the intention of tricking or deceiving.

This article was written long before Trump's failure in a real crisis. It was written after Trump failed to respond to a false alarm that there were incoming nukes. GW didn't stop reading the goat story to kids when told of the first tower being hit. His staff pulled him out after the second tower was hit. At that time I thought and still think Bush really did have a deer in the headlights look because he didn't know what to do.

Well when there was an alarm of incoming nukes in HI, Trump was golfing and kept golfing surpassing even the stupidity of GW. At least Bush had decent people around him that acted. Not Trump. Trump had only sycophants around him, afraid to express any independent thought in Trump's presence.


[SG- second thread vindication ]

[Bob001]

Crap, did you miss this from your link:

Quote:

Lieberman himself has had to rebut his own ethical questions regarding his treatment of human experimental subjects exposed in a Boston Globe investigation that made author Robert Whitaker a Pulitzer Prize finalist.

In a 1997 publication, Lieberman himself fully acknowledges that he led a study involving 18 people as young as 14, experiencing a first-break psychotic episode typically involving terrifying hallucinations and paranoid delusions. The subjects were withheld from anti-psychotic medication that would have made them better, and instead were injected with methylphenidate (a variation of what is commonly known as meth), making their terrifying symptoms much worse. They were then contained for observation regarding drug effects.

And this guy is making pronouncements about ethics?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Crap, did you miss this from your link:


And this guy is making pronouncements about ethics?

No, didn't miss it. Given all the grief people are getting for dissing Reade in the Biden thread, I wanted to steer clear of what could then be claimed I was attacking something other than his belonging to the Merchants of Doubt crowd.

But I'm glad you saw it and brought it up

[Resume]

Quote:

Trump Tweets

A blow to her head? Body found under his desk? Left Congress suddenly? Big topic of discussion in Florida...and, he’s a Nut Job (with bad ratings). Keep digging, use forensic geniuses!
Quote Tweet

Matt Couch
@RealMattCouch
Trump Calls For Investigation Into Joe Scarborough For Murder of Staffer in 2001 https://thedcpatriot.com/trump-calls...affer-in-2001/

Nah, he's not nuts.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Resume

Nah, he's not nuts.

He's either nuts or one of the most pathetic excuses for a human being I've ever seen.

[wasapi]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

He's either nuts or one of the most pathetic excuses for a human being I've ever seen.

Isn't it possible he is both?

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's more of, that's just nuts. He is definitely both.


I've been meaning to post something else in this thread. Do you recall that twice (at least) when Trump has been asked by a reporter, 'Are there any words you want to say to the country at this time?' or something to that effect, Trump has gotten angry at the reporters?

He's incapable of feeling any empathy. He can barely get the words out when someone gives him a script to read that includes a message of empathy for lives lost. He manages on days like Memorial Day, to speak general words of empathy, again, in a speech written for him that he knows he has to read.

But it's clear he is utterly absent of the emotion of empathy.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by wasapi

Isn't it possible he is both?

Sure, but if someone is mentally ill you have to cut them some slack (but not have them be president, for god's sake!). They aren't entirely in control of themselves. If Trump isn't mentally ill (which I think he is) then he's even a sorrier excuse for a human being because he is in control of what he says and does.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That's more of, that's just nuts. He is definitely both.


I've been meaning to post something else in this thread. Do you recall that twice (at least) when Trump has been asked by a reporter, 'Are there any words you want to say to the country at this time?' or something to that effect, Trump has gotten angry at the reporters?

He's incapable of feeling any empathy. He can barely get the words out when someone gives him a script to read that includes a message of empathy for lives lost. He manages on days like Memorial Day, to speak general words of empathy, again, in a speech written for him that he knows he has to read.

But it's clear he is utterly absent of the emotion of empathy.

I totally agree with this. He has no empathy. He cannot put himself in anyone else's shoes. He cannot feel how they feel or see through their eyes. It's all about him. He's also not immoral; he's amoral. He only judges things on how they affect him.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I totally agree with this. He has no empathy. He cannot put himself in anyone else's shoes. He cannot feel how they feel or see through their eyes. It's all about him. He's also not immoral; he's amoral. He only judges things on how they affect him.

Yes, earlier, he managed to sometimes* work this out, but now he can't keep the mask up.

Sometimes not - see the pussy grabbing quote. He told a story that he thought made him seem good rather than a creep.

[newyorkguy]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

...He has no empathy. He cannot put himself in anyone else's shoes. He cannot feel how they feel or see through their eyes. It's all about him. He's also not immoral; he's amoral. He only judges things on how they affect him.

Those are sociopathic traits as well. Found this on Google:

Quote:

Profile of the Sociopath

• Glibness and Superficial Charm.
• Manipulative and Conning. They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. ...
• Grandiose Sense of Self. ...
• Pathological Lying. ...
• Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt. ...
• Shallow Emotions. ...
• Incapacity for Love.
• Need for Stimulation.

Remind you of anyone?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

Those are sociopathic traits as well. Found this on Google:


Remind you of anyone?

Yeah.....the name is on the tip of my tongue....

Sociopaths can be violent, but most aren't. I think Trump falls into this category. He is a narcissistic sociopathic.

Quote:

In business and political leadership, (narcissists) have the best grandiose plans for changing the world, with no basis for accomplishing them. Yet their belief in themselves can be blinding and contagious.

Sound familiar:

Quote:

Sociopaths can also be extremely charming and seductive until they get what they want (money, sex, connections, sense of power over someone). Then, they may disappear, or stick around and become extremely cruel or manipulative. Those with antisocial personality disorder (an equivalent term for sociopath) may be extremely aggressive and reckless, may be skilled con artists, engage in criminal behavior, and lack all remorse. Some enjoy humiliating and hurting people.

Yet many are not involved in the criminal justice system and instead are active in business, politics, or even community leadership. When they are involved in romantic relationships, they can be very deceptive about where they’re going and what they’re doing when they’re away from their partners. This also can be true in the workplace, with endless excuses to supervisors and co-workers. They are repeatedly conning and lying, so that very little of what they say may be true. Words are just a tool they use to get what they want. Their theme is dominance.

Sound familiar?

Quote:

They both demand loyalty, while not giving it in return. Narcissists, from cases I have worked with, often pursue 2 or 3 romantic relationships at the same time. They have an excessive need for “narcissistic supply,” which often takes more than one partner. This pattern of behavior can be devastating for their primary partner and, despite numerous promises, may never go away.
Sociopaths, on the other hand, seem to have the most promiscuous personality, even more than most narcissists. They may be more sexually abusive and irresponsible. According to the DSM-5: “They may have a history of many sexual partners and may never have sustained a monogamous relationship.” However, occasionally they do have long-term relationships, but mostly for convenience, such as being supported in a comfortable lifestyle.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...es-differences

You know where I'm going with this by now.....