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

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Interesting and I can well believe it. But that does not support Roger Ramjet's statement that 'most psychiatrists' would be able to see through a psychopath's act in an interview.

Are you implying that most psychiatrists are not highly trained professionals?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Are you implying that most psychiatrists are not highly trained professionals?

They are certainly highly trained professionals, and they would probably spot somebody deliberately faking certain kinds of symptoms, especially if he was trying to avoid consequences of misconduct. But there's no reason to think shrinks couldn't be fooled by a sociopath who speaks and presents himself as a "normal" person. Manipulative people are good at manipulating everybody. It's also a truism that people who think they can't be fooled are especially vulnerable. Some of Bernie Madoff's victims were experienced financial professionals. They believed what they wanted to believe. Shrinks can be tricked, too.

[xjx388]

If you guys are right, then it seems to me that psychiatry/psychology isn’t very good at doing what it says it’s supposed to do.

If they can’t tell when their patients are manipulating them, how can they accurately assess the sincerity of third-party informants?

If they can’t overcome their own biases in an unstructured or semi-structured interview, how are they overcoming biases in their interpretation of the data provided by informants, public appearances, etc?

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by Delvo

I'm not convinced that that new wall thing around the White House is just to keep protesters far away. It's also what he'd do to set up the next step of having the walls even more thoroughly locked in place by whatever means and fortified, as his way of trying to stay there and "fight" to keep it after losing the election. The only real reason to think otherwise is that it probably exceeds his ability to plan ahead for anything at all. (But it could still be the plan of one of his equally insane sycophants.)

I doubt it, actually. The US being what it is, it'd be like a kid barricading himself in a pillow fort, or hanging a sign saying "dont come in" on his bedroom door. He'll convince himself he's safe, and then a parent will come drag him out.

Then again, Trump does think like a small (special needs) child, so you never know.

[dann]

Originally Posted by xjx388

If you guys are right, then it seems to me that psychiatry/psychology isn’t very good at doing what it says it’s supposed to do.

No, it doesn't. It just means that you have to find ways to remove biases. That is true in all fields of research, not just in the field of psychology/psychiatry. There is a reason why (modern) medical research uses double-blinded studies, and the reason is not that doctors don't know what they are doing. On the contrary, you double-blind studies in order to avoid the bias.

Quote:

If they can’t tell when their patients are manipulating them, how can they accurately assess the sincerity of third-party informants?

They can't, but when you are dealing with psychopaths, there is reason to assume that almost everybody else is a much more honest informer than the psychopath. By the way, this is also not a problem that is specific to psychiatry. You have the same problem in every court of law when you are dealing with testimonies from eyewitnesses as well as form alleged experts.

Quote:

If they can’t overcome their own biases in an unstructured or semi-structured interview, how are they overcoming biases in their interpretation of the data provided by informants, public appearances, etc?

Since we are talking about Trump, that question is very easy to answer: When Trump says that he had more people in the crowd attending his inaugural address than Obama, you don't have to rely on witnesses contradicting him. You have actual footage. When he claims that an elderly man behaves like a clandestine antifa spy, you can watch the clip yourself and try to find out more about the background of this victim of police brutality: Does anything at all seem to support Trump's conspiracy theory? When he claims that he never paid hush money to a porn star, you don't have to rely on her claims. It is not a he-said-she-said situation. You have actual the actual contract.

When it comes to relying on witnesses only, you have to consider: Are there corroborating witnesses? Are these witnesses reliable? Have they been caught telling lies in the past or not?
It's the same thing you have to do in a court of law, and it's the reason why some expert witnesses sometimes turn out to have been so biased that it casts doubt on all their past testimonies.

Trump's lies are often very easy to fact check, which also makes it easier to tell that he is a psychopath. When you are dealing with psychopaths who have done their utmost to stay out of the public eye, it is not always as easy as that, but often there are old records of theirs that can be compared with their tales.

But all in all, you make a tactic mistake when you ask the questions you just did because it is so much easier for somebody, whether biased or not, to find information about Trump than it is to find information about almost anybody else, so it's also so much easier to determine that he is a psychopath.
Your questions just help to make your own bias obvious.

[dann]

Originally Posted by TheSupermeerkat

It more succinctly summarises this thread.

One things that leapt out at me:

Quote:

Motta: Regarding covid-19, Trump is pushing for states to re-open, and a large number of his supporters are over age 50, putting them at higher risk, so he could be potentially killing his own supporters. *This does not make sense.

Lee: You are thinking rationally, Trump is not rational. *He wins through bullying, and re-formulating reality, not by fixing it.

However, Covid-19 disproportionately kills people from racial and ethnic minorities, and they don't tend to vote for Trump:

Quote:

The effects of COVID-19 on the health of racial and ethnic minority groups is still emerging; however, current data suggest a disproportionate burden of illness and death among racial and ethnic minority groups. A recent CDC MMWR report included race and ethnicity data from 580 patients hospitalized with lab-confirmed COVID-19 found that 45% of individuals for whom race or ethnicity data was available were white, compared to 59% of individuals in the surrounding community. However, 33% of hospitalized patients were black, compared to 18% in the community, and 8% were Hispanic, compared to 14% in the community.
COVID-19 in Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups (CDC)

So in this case, Trump may actually be acting rationally, but it is the rationality of a psychopath, of course.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

I find that hard to believe. Most psychiatrists are psychopaths themselves highly trained professionals so they would see through it immediately.

I don't think that's true, unless they are trained specifically in the field of psychopathy. Psychiatrists from most other fields where they aren't used to people deliberately lying to them all the time might not see through the lies of psychopaths immediately. They have to be highly trained specialists, not just ordinary psychiatrists. If they have spent their career dealing with bipolar patients, it wouldn't prepare them for dealing with psychopaths.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by dann

No, it doesn't. It just means that you have to find ways to remove biases. That is true in all fields of research, not just in the field of psychology/psychiatry. There is a reason why (modern) medical research uses double-blinded studies, and the reason is not that doctors don't know what they are doing. On the contrary, you double-blind studies in order to avoid the bias.

We aren’t talking about research. We are talking about clinical practice. If individual practitioners are not good at spotting manipulation and removing their biases, then they can’t be very good at their jobs. If this idea is true, it calls into question the entire field of practice.

Quote:

They can't, but when you are dealing with psychopaths, there is reason to assume that almost everybody else is a much more honest informer than the psychopath.

How do they know they are dealing with a psychopath in the first place? They can’t start with that assumption.

Quote:

By the way, this is also not a problem that is specific to psychiatry. You have the same problem in every court of law when you are dealing with testimonies from eyewitnesses as well as form alleged experts.

This is an inapt comparison. The goals of psychiatry/psychology are different from the goals of the court system.

Quote:

Since we are talking about Trump, that question is very easy to answer: When Trump says that he had more people in the crowd attending his inaugural address than Obama, you don't have to rely on witnesses contradicting him. You have actual footage. When he claims that an elderly man behaves like a clandestine antifa spy, you can watch the clip yourself and try to find out more about the background of this victim of police brutality: Does anything at all seem to support Trump's conspiracy theory? When he claims that he never paid hush money to a porn star, you don't have to rely on her claims. It is not a he-said-she-said situation. You have actual the actual contract.

It’s possible to be a manipulative liar who pays to keep porn stars quiet about affairs and not be mentally ill. The dividing line can’t just be some checklist in a book or a pronouncement by an expert.

Quote:

When it comes to relying on witnesses only, you have to consider: Are there corroborating witnesses? Are these witnesses reliable? Have they been caught telling lies in the past or not?
It's the same thing you have to do in a court of law, and it's the reason why some expert witnesses sometimes turn out to have been so biased that it casts doubt on all their past testimonies.

Precisely my point: The Mental Health professions are nothing like a court of law. Clinicians don’t spend time trying to figure out whether something is true beyond a reasonable doubt, they are concerned with diagnosing mental illness. If what you are arguing is true, then it casts a lot of doubt on the validity of the Mental Health field. I don’t think you argument reflects what the Mental Health professions are all about.

Quote:

Trump's lies are often very easy to fact check, which also makes it easier to tell that he is a psychopath. When you are dealing with psychopaths who have done their utmost to stay out of the public eye, it is not always as easy as that, but often there are old records of theirs that can be compared with their tales.

But psychiatrists are much more than fact checkers. They are attempting to reliably determine whether a subject has a mental illness. A history of documented lies does not establish psychopathy.

Quote:

But all in all, you make a tactic mistake when you ask the questions you just did because it is so much easier for somebody, whether biased or not, to find information about Trump than it is to find information about almost anybody else, so it's also so much easier to determine that he is a psychopath.

Psychopathy is, ostensibly, a mental illness. It’s not a term you just apply to someone who lies a lot, is a womanizer, etc. Diagnosing mental illness requires the application of validated tools to a large body of information. Those tools are a necessary component. The further psychiatry veers from validated diagnostic methodologies the further it gets from being a scientific endeavor, because without those validated methodologies, you can’t eliminate bias, manipulation, etc.

Quote:

Your questions just help to make your own bias obvious.

Please tell me what you think this obvious bias is. That I’m a Trump supporter? Ha! No... if I have a bias, it’s towards ensuring that the Medical field remains a science-based endeavor.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by dann

I don't think that's true, unless they are trained specifically in the field of psychopathy. Psychiatrists from most other fields where they aren't used to people deliberately lying to them all the time might not see through the lies of psychopaths immediately. They have to be highly trained specialists, not just ordinary psychiatrists. If they have spent their career dealing with bipolar patients, it wouldn't prepare them for dealing with psychopaths.

This is simply false. There aren’t “specialties” like this in psychiatry.

[dann]

There are psychiatrists specializing in all kinds of psychiatric problems. Try googling "psychiatrists specializing in" and see what you come up with. If you would like to talk to a specialist in psychopaths, you should probably search for "psychiatrists specializing in personality disorders." They will be the ones who are least likely to be confused by the lies of psychopaths because they are aware of the warning signs to look out for.

[dann]

Originally Posted by xjx388

We aren’t talking about research. We are talking about clinical practice. If individual practitioners are not good at spotting manipulation and removing their biases, then they can’t be very good at their jobs. If this idea is true, it calls into question the entire field of practice.

Which is why somebody who specializes in psychopaths needs to be trained in the field of psychopathy, which they are, obviously. That is what makes them good at spotting manipulation if they haven't already got a knack for it.

Quote:

How do they know they are dealing with a psychopath in the first place? They can’t start with that assumption.

No, of course they can't. Not if they are trying to find out whether somebody is a psychopath or not. That is why they have a checklist for this purpose, which, in principle, isn't very different from what MDs have when they are trying to find out if a patient has a particular physiological problem.

Quote:

This is an inapt comparison. The goals of psychiatry/psychology are different from the goals of the court system.

Yes, they are.

Quote:

It’s possible to be a manipulative liar who pays to keep porn stars quiet about affairs and not be mentally ill. The dividing line can’t just be some checklist in a book or a pronouncement by an expert.

Of course it can. You might as well tell a medical doctor that the dividing line can't be a checklist. By the way, it isn't just some checklist, obviously. When MDs are trying to establish if you have appendicitis, they also won't use some checklist. They will use the one that is relevant when you are trying to find out if somebody has appendicitis and not some other bodily malfunction with similar symptoms. The checklist for measles would be the wrong one.

Quote:

Precisely my point: The Mental Health professions are nothing like a court of law. Clinicians don’t spend time trying to figure out whether something is true beyond a reasonable doubt, they are concerned with diagnosing mental illness.

Yes, and in this concern they have to make sure that their diagnosis is correct, so of course they spend time trying to figure out if they are right about it.

Quote:

If what you are arguing is true, then it casts a lot of doubt on the validity of the Mental Health field. I don’t think you argument reflects what the Mental Health professions are all about.

No, I guess you don't. I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

Quote:

But psychiatrists are much more than fact checkers. They are attempting to reliably determine whether a subject has a mental illness. A history of documented lies does not establish psychopathy.

Yes, they are analyzing a piece of reality, and one of the many clues to the particular piece of reality called psychopaths is that they lie. They lie a lot. And when the psychiatrists have established that the person they are diagnosing lies a lot, they move on to the next characteristic of psychopaths and look at that one.
You might as well argue against the MD trying to establish if you have appendicitis by saying that: 'Yes, but poking the patient exactly there to see if it hurts does not establish appendicitis!'
No, it doesn't, but it is one of the very many steps along the way to finding out what is wrong with the person. One of them! Get it?!
The absurdity of your argument is your idea that since it's only one of them, it doesn't say anything at all. Your argument is childish and ignorant.

Quote:

Psychopathy is, ostensibly, a mental illness. It’s not a term you just apply to someone who lies a lot, is a womanizer, etc. Diagnosing mental illness requires the application of validated tools to a large body of information. Those tools are a necessary component. The further psychiatry veers from validated diagnostic methodologies the further it gets from being a scientific endeavor, because without those validated methodologies, you can’t eliminate bias, manipulation, etc.

Yes, and these tools are the checklist in a book. You go through that checklist to establish how many points a person scores, and that is what a psychiatrist does when he establishes that Trump is a psychopath: A Duty To Differentially Diagnose: The Validity Underpinning The Diagnosis Of The President (Medium)

Quote:

Please tell me what you think this obvious bias is. That I’m a Trump supporter? Ha! No... if I have a bias, it’s towards ensuring that the Medical field remains a science-based endeavor.

If you had any interest at all in "ensuring that the Medical field remains a science-based endeavor," you would spend a little time looking into how diagnostics in the field work. That you don't is what makes any discussion with you about this theme incredibly boring and a waste of time.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by xjx388

This is simply false. There aren’t “specialties” like this in psychiatry.

From your beloved APA:

Quote:

Some psychiatrists also complete additional specialized training after their four years of general psychiatry training. They may become certified in:

Child and adolescent psychiatry
Geriatric psychiatry
Forensic (legal) psychiatry
Addiction psychiatry
Pain medicine
Psychosomatic (mind and body) medicine
Sleep medicine

Some psychiatrists choose additional training in psychoanalysis or in psychiatric research.

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-...-is-psychiatry

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Bob001

From your beloved APA:

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-...-is-psychiatry

Yes, those are fellowships/certifications. But any psychiatrist can diagnose and treat psycopathy. And please note that there is no "Personality Disorder" or "Psychopathy," certification, fellowship or specialty.

Dann is specifically saying that not just any shrink can diagnose and treat psychopathy/personality disorders -that it takes specialized training to see through the manipulation. This is not true and there is no such training. Better said, it's part of the training of every psychiatrist and not some added thing that only some do.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Insert emoji walking backward here.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by dann

There are psychiatrists specializing in all kinds of psychiatric problems. Try googling "psychiatrists specializing in" and see what you come up with. If you would like to talk to a specialist in psychopaths, you should probably search for "psychiatrists specializing in personality disorders." They will be the ones who are least likely to be confused by the lies of psychopaths because they are aware of the warning signs to look out for.

Pure fantasy. I can Google "Psychiatrist specializing in" just about anyting. Those "specialties" are not Board Specialties and they aren't even really certifications that mean anything. There are recognized certifications, which Bob001 kindly linked to, and you will note nothing there about psycopathy or personality disorders.

There is no special training to make people less "confused by the lies of psychopaths." That's why diagnostic tools like semi-structured interviews, diagnostic questionaires, personality inventories, etc etc exist -to eliminate as much as possible such confusion.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Insert emoji walking backward here.

Be specific, what am I walking back here?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bob001

They are certainly highly trained professionals, and they would probably spot somebody deliberately faking certain kinds of symptoms, especially if he was trying to avoid consequences of misconduct. But there's no reason to think shrinks couldn't be fooled by a sociopath who speaks and presents himself as a "normal" person. Manipulative people are good at manipulating everybody. It's also a truism that people who think they can't be fooled are especially vulnerable. Some of Bernie Madoff's victims were experienced financial professionals. They believed what they wanted to believe. Shrinks can be tricked, too.

Exactly. The fact that psychopaths CAN fool people so well is one of the reasons they're often so successful. Look at how many people Trump has fooled into thinking he's a 'successful businessman' and 'leader'.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by dann

Which is why somebody who specializes in psychopaths needs to be trained in the field of psychopathy, which they are, obviously. That is what makes them good at spotting manipulation if they haven't already got a knack for it.

No such thing. You are wrong.

Quote:

No, of course they can't. Not if they are trying to find out whether somebody is a psychopath or not. That is why they have a checklist for this purpose, which, in principle, isn't very different from what MDs have when they are trying to find out if a patient has a particular physiological problem.

There are no tools that are designed to be used as checklists in the way you are implying. You don't diagnose Flu because it checks off "Fever, cough, etc". You suspect flu because it's in the differential and then you run lab tests to be sure. The same is true for every other physiological problem.

Quote:

Yes, they are.

Of course it can. You might as well tell a medical doctor that the dividing line can't be a checklist. By the way, it isn't just some checklist, obviously. When MDs are trying to establish if you have appendicitis, they also won't use some checklist. They will use the one that is relevant when you are trying to find out if somebody has appendicitis and not some other bodily malfunction with similar symptoms. The checklist for measles would be the wrong one.

Again, they aren't checklists. They are differential diagnoses - a list of possible diagnoses based on the presenting signs and symptoms. Some things are obvious: Open fracture, for example. But the signs and symptoms of appendecitis could be a lot of things. There is no checklist a doctor is ticking off: "Rebound pain? Check. Guarding? Check. Fever? Check. Must be appendicitis; prep an OR STAT!" The differential narrows down the tests you do but it doesn't diagnose all on it's own. You need imaging for that.

Quote:

Yes, and in this concern they have to make sure that their diagnosis is correct, so of course they spend time trying to figure out if they are right about it.

Yes. But they don't just decide that by ticking off boxes. It's a process that involves more than that.

Quote:

No, I guess you don't. I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

You can think what you like. I know you don't have any idea what you are talking about if you think medical diagnosis comes down to checklists.

Quote:

Yes, they are analyzing a piece of reality, and one of the many clues to the particular piece of reality called psychopaths

Oof. See, right there is a very controversial thing in psychiatry/psychology. Is psychopathy a real thing? It's not in the DSM. It's not a "diagnosis." From https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...o-don-t-exist:

Quote:

The other component to psychopathy that makes it so desirable and so very inadequate is its ability to boil down entire groups of very different people doing very different things into one damnable population. The Wall Street banker who fires staff without a thought for their families, the former partner who made your life miserable and the architects of genocide can all have something in common. As absurd as that might seem, it allows us to preserve the validity of our own choices without having to consider the complex perspectives of those that we demonize.

It's a nice scary label we use to describe people we think of as evil and give it some cachet. Which, as that article discusses, is a circular argument: What is an evil person? A person who does evil things. Psycopathy is exactly the same.

Quote:

is that they lie. They lie a lot. And when the psychiatrists have established that the person they are diagnosing lies a lot, they move on to the next characteristic of psychopaths and look at that one.
You might as well argue against the MD trying to establish if you have appendicitis by saying that: 'Yes, but poking the patient exactly there to see if it hurts does not establish appendicitis!'
No, it doesn't, but it is one of the very many steps along the way to finding out what is wrong with the person. One of them! Get it?!

Oh, I get it. But I don't think you do.

Quote:

The absurdity of your argument is your idea that since it's only one of them, it doesn't say anything at all. Your argument is childish and ignorant.

The absurdity of your argument is that psychiatrists look at behaviors and check them off a list. If there are enough checkmarks, boom, diagnosis. That isn't how it works and such an argument is just plain wrong.

Quote:

Yes, and these tools are the checklist in a book. You go through that checklist to establish how many points a person scores, and that is what a psychiatrist does when he establishes that Trump is a psychopath: A Duty To Differentially Diagnose: The Validity Underpinning The Diagnosis Of The President (Medium)

I don't think that particular psychiatrist is making a good argument. For starters, "psychopathy," isn't a diagnosis, as I've discussed. Using that concept as the basis for his essay is just wrongheaded.

Quote:

If you had any interest at all in "ensuring that the Medical field remains a science-based endeavor," you would spend a little time looking into how diagnostics in the field work. That you don't is what makes any discussion with you about this theme incredibly boring and a waste of time.

The fact that you think dianosis is done by checklist shows just how misguided you are. It isn't that simple. You can take some time to educate yourself, or not; but I will be here to point out when you make such mistakes.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Exactly. The fact that psychopaths CAN fool people so well is one of the reasons they're often so successful. Look at how many people Trump as fooled into thinking he's a 'successful businessman' and 'leader'.

But they aren't psychiatrists. Psychiatrists have training and use validated tools to try and see through the lies.

If I'm wrong and they are just as susceptible as the rest of us, I think that is a huge problem for the validity of psychiatry as a whole.

[dann]

Originally Posted by xjx388

Yes, those are fellowships/certifications. But any psychiatrist can diagnose and treat psycopathy. And please note that there is no "Personality Disorder" or "Psychopathy," certification, fellowship or specialty.

Dann is specifically saying that not just any shrink can diagnose and treat psychopathy/personality disorders -that it takes specialized training to see through the manipulation. This is not true and there is no such training. Better said, it's part of the training of every psychiatrist and not some added thing that only some do.

You are not very good at reading and comprehending, are you?! I am not saying what you claim I'm saying. What you now require is a formalized education specifically about psychopathy and nothing else. If psychopathy is what you are particularly interested in, you should probably go for "Forensic (legal) psychiatry" on Bob001's list.

By the way, this still doesn't mean that you will now forever and ever be prevented from making mistakes, which is the weird requirement you are calling for. It just means that somebody who is trained in using the psychopathy checklist will probably be less likely to make mistakes when diagnosing psychopathy than somebody who isn't.

Again: The mistakes that you continue to make in your reading are so ******* childish that it's a bore trying to elucidate you about these things.

[dann]

Originally Posted by xjx388

But they aren't psychiatrists.

What makes you think that not a single one of them are psychiatrists? Do you think that the study of psychiatry somehow makes them immune?

Quote:

Psychiatrists have training and use validated tools to try and see through the lies.

Yes, they do. When they are diagnosing somebody. There is absolutely no reason to assume that psychiatrists use their "training" and "validated tools" every single individual that they encounter in real life or on TV.

Quote:

If I'm wrong and they are just as susceptible as the rest of us, I think that is a huge problem for the validity of psychiatry as a whole.

If they sit down with somebody and use their "training" and "validated tools" to diagnose them, be that in a clinical setting or when studying a historical figure or even the current president, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that "they are just as susceptible as the rest of us."
And since you actually are wrong, it presents no "huge problem for the validity of psychiatry as a whole."

[dann]

Originally Posted by xjx388

No such thing. You are wrong.
There are no tools that are designed to be used as checklists in the way you are implying. You don't diagnose Flu because it checks off "Fever, cough, etc". You suspect flu because it's in the differential and then you run lab tests to be sure. The same is true for every other physiological problem.
Again, they aren't checklists. They are differential diagnoses - a list of possible diagnoses based on the presenting signs and symptoms. Some things are obvious: Open fracture, for example. But the signs and symptoms of appendecitis could be a lot of things. There is no checklist a doctor is ticking off: "Rebound pain? Check. Guarding? Check. Fever? Check. Must be appendicitis; prep an OR STAT!" The differential narrows down the tests you do but it doesn't diagnose all on it's own. You need imaging for that.
Yes. But they don't just decide that by ticking off boxes. It's a process that involves more than that.
You can think what you like. I know you don't have any idea what you are talking about if you think medical diagnosis comes down to checklists.
Oof. See, right there is a very controversial thing in psychiatry/psychology. Is psychopathy a real thing? It's not in the DSM. It's not a "diagnosis." From https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...o-don-t-exist:
It's a nice scary label we use to describe people we think of as evil and give it some cachet. Which, as that article discusses, is a circular argument: What is an evil person? A person who does evil things. Psycopathy is exactly the same.
Oh, I get it. But I don't think you do.
The absurdity of your argument is that psychiatrists look at behaviors and check them off a list. If there are enough checkmarks, boom, diagnosis. That isn't how it works and such an argument is just plain wrong.
I don't think that particular psychiatrist is making a good argument. For starters, "psychopathy," isn't a diagnosis, as I've discussed. Using that concept as the basis for his essay is just wrongheaded.
The fact that you think dianosis is done by checklist shows just how misguided you are. It isn't that simple. You can take some time to educate yourself, or not; but I will be here to point out when you make such mistakes.

Psychopaty Checklist (Wikipedia)

You should read it: A Duty To Differentially Diagnose: The Validity Underpinning The Diagnosis Of The President (Medium)
You won't like it, but it might do you good.

[3point14]

Can I just check, have we gone back to 'he's perfectly sane' or are we still on 'he might be mental but you're not allowed to prove it and you're only allowed to ask the questino if it's not your field?

[dann]

I think it's more like, 'It doesn't matter what he is since psychiatry is not an exact science and therefore prone to error.'
I also think that xjx388 has realized that something is seriously wrong with Trump, but he doesn't want it on his record that he used to like the guy.

[3point14]

Oh, so we've retreated into: "Nobody can say anyone has any mental issues with any certainty, therefore let's leave the lunatic in the white house to paint the oval office with his excrement?"

Seems a decent position. From a certain point of view.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Are you implying that most psychiatrists are not highly trained professionals?

I think Stacy's taking issue with the other part of your post.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by 3point14

Oh, so we've retreated into: "Nobody can say anyone has any mental issues with any certainty, therefore let's leave the lunatic in the white house to paint the oval office with his excrement?"

And urine!

[dann]

No, I think he pays people to do that.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by 3point14

Can I just check, have we gone back to 'he's perfectly sane' or are we still on 'he might be mental but you're not allowed to prove it and you're only allowed to ask the questino if it's not your field?

Originally Posted by dann

I think it's more like, 'It doesn't matter what he is since psychiatry is not an exact science and therefore prone to error.'
I also think that xjx388 has realized that something is seriously wrong with Trump, but he doesn't want it on his record that he used to like the guy.

Originally Posted by 3point14

Oh, so we've retreated into: "Nobody can say anyone has any mental issues with any certainty, therefore let's leave the lunatic in the white house to paint the oval office with his excrement?"

Seems a decent position. From a certain point of view.

I thought it was

1) You cannot diagnose someone unless you're an expert medic and you're conducting a proper psychiatric assessment in person.

2) If you are a medic conducting a proper psychiatric assessment, then you're bound by patient confidentiality

3) When it gets so bad that non-medics can see he's deranged, then the psychiatric assessment wasn't needed. If it's not that bad, go to 1.

Of course (1) is debatable. Maybe exact diagnoses for subtle mental health issues might need an in-depth personal assessment. But you don't need to give an exact diagnosis to spot when something is seriously wrong. And, as a lot of it at the moment is dementia-related, it's only going to get more obvious. Compare Trump's speech, gait and stance now with even 2016.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by dann

You are not very good at reading and comprehending, are you?! I am not saying what you claim I'm saying. What you now require is a formalized education specifically about psychopathy and nothing else. If psychopathy is what you are particularly interested in, you should probably go for "Forensic (legal) psychiatry" on Bob001's list.

By the way, this still doesn't mean that you will now forever and ever be prevented from making mistakes, which is the weird requirement you are calling for. It just means that somebody who is trained in using the psychopathy checklist will probably be less likely to make mistakes when diagnosing psychopathy than somebody who isn't.

Again: The mistakes that you continue to make in your reading are so ******* childish that it's a bore trying to elucidate you about these things.

dann . . . you are making a serious error in your argument about this. There is no specialized training, certification or any other formal recognition of a specialist in psychopathy. I am well versed, in my personal and professional life, on physician education, licensing and certification.

Can a psychiatrist have an interest in that and take CME courses about it? Sure. But this doesn't mean anything special. There simply is no such thing as a general class of psychiatrists who are not equipped to deal with psychopathy and a more specialized class of psychiatrists who are. This is exactly what you are saying and it's wrong.

Forensic Psychology doesn't provide any special training about psychopathy. It simply concerns the interface of psychiatry and the law.

You are simply wrong and it would be nice if you could acknowledge it and stop the personal attacks. I don't think you will, but it would be nice.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by dann

Psychopaty Checklist (Wikipedia)

You should read it: A Duty To Differentially Diagnose: The Validity Underpinning The Diagnosis Of The President (Medium)
You won't like it, but it might do you good.

You should read about the concept of psychopathy in modern psychiatry. It's controversial to say the least.

I read your article and I find it at odds with modern psychiatry. The Pyschopath Checklist is not used much, if at all, in general psychiatric practice. It's used, controversially, in prison populations and in research. It faces some valid criticism which even your wiki link addresses.

You can stop spamming that one article now.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by dann

I think it's more like, 'It doesn't matter what he is since psychiatry is not an exact science and therefore prone to error.'
I also think that xjx388 has realized that something is seriously wrong with Trump, but he doesn't want it on his record that he used to like the guy.

This isn't about what xjx388 wants on his record. I'll ask you again to please not make it about the arguer but their arguments.

This is about: Psychiatric diagnoses are not bludgeons to use to attack people you don't like. Mental Health Professionals should not be engaging in that.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I think Stacy's taking issue with the other part of your post.

Roger Ramjets knows that which is why I didn't bother to reply to his post.

[dann]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Maybe exact diagnoses for subtle mental health issues might need an in-depth personal assessment. But you don't need to give an exact diagnosis to spot when something is seriously wrong. And, as a lot of it at the moment is dementia-related, it's only going to get more obvious. Compare Trump's speech, gait and stance now with even 2016.

Nobody claims that an exact diagnosis is necessary. And it is obvious that "something is seriously wrong" with Trump. The question is what that something is.
Feel freed to compare 2020 Trump with 2016 Trump or even earlier. He was a psychopath back then, and that hasn't changed. He may be losing some of his mental capacities right now, but I think that it is due to the pressure that he finds himself under now, i.e. he is discovering that his worst fears are about to come true, he is losing not only the support of the people but also of the military that he thought that he owned as his property as the president.
He may also have ordinary age-related dementia on top of that, I don't know.

[dann]

Originally Posted by xjx388

dann . . . you are making a serious error in your argument about this. There is no specialized training, certification or any other formal recognition of a specialist in psychopathy. I am well versed, in my personal and professional life, on physician education, licensing and certification.

Can a psychiatrist have an interest in that and take CME courses about it? Sure. But this doesn't mean anything special. There simply is no such thing as a general class of psychiatrists who are not equipped to deal with psychopathy and a more specialized class of psychiatrists who are. This is exactly what you are saying and it's wrong.

You just don't want to acknowledge reality, do you? On the one hand, you claim that there are psychiatrists who don't understand psychopaths, can't diagnose them because they buy their lies, and on the other hand, you now claim that there is no psychiatrist who is "not equipped to deal with psychopathy."
In almost any field you will need special training make you able to deal with specific corners of the more general theme that your educations qualifies you to deal with, and you know that this goes for psychiatrists, too. Can they "take CME courses about it? Sure." Do such courses give them further insight into and help them deal with a certain corner of their general field of competence? Yes, of course they do. That's what they are there for.

Quote:

Forensic Psychology doesn't provide any special training about psychopathy. It simply concerns the interface of psychiatry and the law.

Yes, and since psychopaths are of particular interest to the law, that is why they learn about them in forensic psychiatry:

Quote:

The work of forensic psychiatry tends toward a heavy focus on science, and forensic psychiatrists diagnose (!!!) and treat mental disorders in the context of the criminal justice system. Their work involves assessing clients, providing diagnoses, and prescribing medication.

"You are simply wrong and it would be nice if you could acknowledge it and stop the personal attacks. I don't think you will, but it would be nice."

[dann]

Originally Posted by xjx388

This isn't about what xjx388 wants on his record. I'll ask you again to please not make it about the arguer but their arguments.

This is about: Psychiatric diagnoses are not bludgeons to use to attack people you don't like. Mental Health Professionals should not be engaging in that.

No, "psychiatric diagnoses are not bludgeons to use to attack people you don't like." Psychiatric diagnoses are psychiatric diagnoses. They tell us what kind of mental disorder - if any - the person who is diagnosed has. In the case of Trump, he's a psychopath.
Most people tend not to like psychopaths much. Others are enthralled by them. We just happen to be different in that respect.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by jimbob

I thought it was

1) You cannot diagnose someone unless you're an expert medic and you're conducting a proper psychiatric assessment in person.

2) If you are a medic conducting a proper psychiatric assessment, then you're bound by patient confidentiality

3) When it gets so bad that non-medics can see he's deranged, then the psychiatric assessment wasn't needed. If it's not that bad, go to 1.

Of course (1) is debatable. Maybe exact diagnoses for subtle mental health issues might need an in-depth personal assessment. But you don't need to give an exact diagnosis to spot when something is seriously wrong. And, as a lot of it at the moment is dementia-related, it's only going to get more obvious. Compare Trump's speech, gait and stance now with even 2016.

You aren't far off. How about:

1)Proper medical diagnosis, according to the latest guidelines, requires an in-person evaluation by the appropriately trained mental health professional.

2)Such diagnosis and all medical information is confidential.

3)Professionals and Non-professionals alike can observe behavior and form an opinion, but this isn't the same thing as diagnosis and should not be presented or construed as such.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by dann

You just don't want to acknowledge reality, do you? On the one hand, you claim that there are psychiatrists who don't understand psychopaths, can't diagnose them because they buy their lies,

I have never claimed such a thing. In fact, that claim came from the article you keep spamming. What I have said is that: IF that's true, that psychiatrists can be fooled by manipulative people, then it calls all of psychiatry into question.

Quote:

and on the other hand, you now claim that there is no psychiatrist who is "not equipped to deal with psychopathy."

This has been my position all along. That is exactly what the medical specialty of psychiatry is all about: dealing with a wide variety of mental health issues.

Quote:

In almost any field you will need special training make you able to deal with specific corners of the more general theme that your educations qualifies you to deal with, and you know that this goes for psychiatrists, too. Can they "take CME courses about it? Sure." Do such courses give them further insight into and help them deal with a certain corner of their general field of competence? Yes, of course they do. That's what they are there for.

All psychiatrists take this kind of CME. There isn't a specialized group of them that only deal with psychopathy and another group who don't know enough about it to deal with it. Again: Psychiatry is the medical specialty to deal with this. Psychiatry residency and continuing education is the "special training [to] make you able to deal with specific corners of the more general" medical school education.

Quote:

Yes, and since psychopaths are of particular interest to the law, that is why they learn about them in forensic psychiatry:

Your quote does not support your contentions. Forensic psychiatry simply applies the specialized knowledge of psychiatry into law and crime applications. Recidivism, competancy to stand trial, criminal responsibility, etc. It is not, "learn how to spot liars and manipulators so you can spot psychopaths better."

Quote:

"You are simply wrong and it would be nice if you could acknowledge it and stop the personal attacks. I don't think you will, but it would be nice."

I'm right and I haven't made any personal attacks.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by dann

No, "psychiatric diagnoses are not bludgeons to use to attack people you don't like." Psychiatric diagnoses are psychiatric diagnoses. They tell us what kind of mental disorder - if any - the person who is diagnosed has. In the case of Trump, he's a psychopath.
Most people tend not to like psychopaths much. Others are enthralled by them. We just happen to be different in that respect.

That's exactly my point: What's a psychopath? Someone who does things most of us don't like. Not a very good definition of mental illness at all; it's very much applying a label to give us a way to write them off.

Psychopathy is not a mental disorder. At best, it's a collection of personality traits. It has no place in clinical psychiatry and a controversial place in criminal studies.

[xjx388]

Bottom line: When you use "dangerous mental illness" or "psychopath" to describe a politician, you are taking advantage of and perpetuating the negative connotations of those terms.

Trump is a horrible President; a self-centered prick. He has no concern for anyone but himself and his own image. He makes that obvious every day. Why isn't that enough to point out? Why drag an ostensibly noble profession into the fray?