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 20th August 2018, 01:25 PM   #681
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,195
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
They're using their authority as doctors to influence politics.
If I'd said they were using their insights to persuade the undecided, would that be okay?

And is it unethical for a newspaper to publish an editorial, a policeman to support a candidate, an environmentalist weigh in on proposed legislation . . .
__________________
"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 20th August 2018, 06:31 PM   #682
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,077
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Isn't that what they should do if he's deeply mentally unwell? If not them, who?
The people who do have the authority to comment on the mental stability of our president - all of us.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets 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 August 2018, 06:37 PM   #683
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,846
I haven't been following this thread (so I don't know if this is an old joke), but I heard someone say that Mueller should show Trump a picture of his inauguration and Obama's inauguration, followed by one simple question to be answered under oath: "Which crowd is bigger?"
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain 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 August 2018, 10:25 PM   #684
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,994
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
If I'd said they were using their insights to persuade the undecided, would that be okay?

And is it unethical for a newspaper to publish an editorial, a policeman to support a candidate, an environmentalist weigh in on proposed legislation . . .
It's not unethical for psychiatrists to support a candidate, weigh in on legislation or publish an editorial.

What is unethical for psychiatrists (any doctor, really) to do is to make and publicly reveal a diagnosis about a person they've never met. The reasons for that have been spelled out pretty clearly but I think there's one reason that stands out: The potential for harm to the status of the mentally ill in this country if a mental health diagnosis can be used as a weapon against someone. I don't think you can get around that one. All by itself, science and other ethical concerns aside, it is a good enough reason to proscribe shrinks from publicly diagnosing people they've never met. So how do you get around that one?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 11:08 PM   #685
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 74,394
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I haven't been following this thread (so I don't know if this is an old joke), but I heard someone say that Mueller should show Trump a picture of his inauguration and Obama's inauguration, followed by one simple question to be answered under oath: "Which crowd is bigger?"
__________________
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 August 2018, 11:11 PM   #686
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,984
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I haven't been following this thread (so I don't know if this is an old joke), but I heard someone say that Mueller should show Trump a picture of his inauguration and Obama's inauguration, followed by one simple question to be answered under oath: "Which crowd is bigger?"
Mueller should show him a picture of both their hands and ask Trump whose hands are bigger.
Stacyhs 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 August 2018, 11:14 PM   #687
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 74,394
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
.... What is unethical for psychiatrists (any doctor, really) to do is to make and publicly reveal a diagnosis about a person they've never met.
So sayeth the guy who read it on the internet.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
.... The reasons for that have been spelled out pretty clearly but I think there's one reason that stands out: The potential for harm to the status of the mentally ill in this country if a mental health diagnosis can be used as a weapon against someone. I don't think you can get around that one. All by itself, science and other ethical concerns aside, it is a good enough reason to proscribe shrinks from publicly diagnosing people they've never met. So how do you get around that one?
OMG! There's a mentally ill POTUS running the country who is deteriorating by the day and you're worried we might do harm to the general reputation of the mentally ill?
__________________
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 21st August 2018, 04:05 AM   #688
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,186
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
OMG! There's a mentally ill POTUS running the country who is deteriorating by the day and you're worried we might do harm to the general reputation of the mentally ill?
I think he's talking about how psychiatry really was routinely used as a political tool of actual oppression in the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...e_Soviet_Union

I don't think we'd be risking it, really. I mean, the potential always exist, technically, but it's far from some inevitable outcome.

eta:
Looks like the laws prohibiting free speech came first, and then the psychiatric diagnosis stuff came later just to supplement the law.

Quote:
Article 58-10 of the Stalin-era Criminal Code, "Anti-Soviet agitation", was to a considerable degree preserved in the new 1958 RSFSR Criminal Code as Article 70 "Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda". In 1967, a weaker law, Article 190-1 "Dissemination of fabrications known to be false, which defame the Soviet political and social system", was added to the RSFSR Criminal Code. These laws were frequently applied in conjunction with the system of diagnosis for mental illness, developed by Academician Andrei Snezhnevsky. Together they established a framework within which non-standard beliefs could easily be defined as a criminal offence and the basis, subsequently, for a psychiatric diagnosis.[7]
So, no. We're not actually risking anything like that.
__________________
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; 21st August 2018 at 04:10 AM.
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 21st August 2018, 05:40 AM   #689
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,195
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
It's not unethical for psychiatrists to support a candidate, weigh in on legislation or publish an editorial.

What is unethical for psychiatrists (any doctor, really) to do is to make and publicly reveal a diagnosis about a person they've never met. The reasons for that have been spelled out pretty clearly but I think there's one reason that stands out: The potential for harm to the status of the mentally ill in this country if a mental health diagnosis can be used as a weapon against someone.
Never? No matter how severe the mental illness, no matter how clear the indicators, no matter how much power we'd be conferring? Never? No nuance?
__________________
"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 21st August 2018, 07:52 AM   #690
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 74,394
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I think he's talking about how psychiatry really was routinely used as a political tool of actual oppression in the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...e_Soviet_Union
Which is not happening here. Just because one needs to be cautious about abuse of psychiatric diagnoses does not mean one should not consider those diagnoses when they are applicable.
__________________
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 21st August 2018, 08:06 AM   #691
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,645
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
If I'd said they were using their insights to persuade the undecided, would that be okay?
Using their medical authority to support a political opinion is never okay, no matter how disingenuously you try to phrase it.

Quote:
And is it unethical for a newspaper to publish an editorial, a policeman to support a candidate, an environmentalist weigh in on proposed legislation . . .
Oh! Yes, I see!

If I agree to some vaguely-referenced property of policemen, then by analogy I must also agree to some other vaguely-referenced (but definitely analogous) property of psychiatrists. Thus, by winning the "argument" about policemen, you automatically "win" the analogous argument about psychiatrists, without having to actually make an argument about psychiatrists.

Very clever! Does it ever work?

Last edited by theprestige; 21st August 2018 at 08:07 AM.
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 21st August 2018, 08:50 AM   #692
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,195
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Using their medical authority to support a political opinion is never okay, no matter how disingenuously you try to phrase it.
I don't see the disingenuity.

Quote:
If I agree to some vaguely-referenced property of policemen, then by analogy I must also agree to some other vaguely-referenced (but definitely analogous) property of psychiatrists. Thus, by winning the "argument" about policemen, you automatically "win" the analogous argument about psychiatrists, without having to actually make an argument about psychiatrists.
Psychiatrists are doing exactly the same thing that people in other professions do routinely. When people in other professions do it, it seems to be acceptable and, in many cases, a helpful public service. But that's irrelevant to psychiatrists because it's "analogous?"

Are you suggesting that the word "authority" has one meaning when applied to police officers, nurses, biologists, firemen, economists, mothers, congressmen, physicians (other than psychiatrists), teachers, religious leaders, but something else for psychiatrists?

And if "authority" means something different in every case (a theory which is not supported by the dictionary, btw), how are we to decided in which cases it can be used in ways which might influence politics?
__________________
"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 21st August 2018, 08:57 AM   #693
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,994
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So sayeth the guy who read it on the internet.
You keep saying this as if the fact that I read it on the internet makes it invalid or something. Is it the official ethical position of the APA? Yes, it is.

Quote:
OMG! There's a mentally ill POTUS running the country who is deteriorating by the day and you're worried we might do harm to the general reputation of the mentally ill?
I will not respond to your appeal to OMG outrage. I am concerned with how the mentally ill are viewed in this country. Why do you think it's OK to add to the continued stigmatization of the mentally ill by equating "mentally ill" with "dangerous?"
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 21st August 2018 at 09:25 AM.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2018, 08:57 AM   #694
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,250
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Using their medical authority to support a political opinion is never okay, no matter how disingenuously you try to phrase it.

...snip...
That's a crafty way to say they can never comment on pretty much anything in the public arena that crosses their authority for example a proposed policy from the government on mental healthcare because they would be using their medical authority to support "a political opinion".
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 21st August 2018, 09:02 AM   #695
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,645
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
I don't see the disingenuity.
I regret that I cannot solve your problem.

Quote:
Psychiatrists are doing exactly the same thing that people in other professions do routinely.
I disagree. I don't think they're doing the same thing at all. But whatever. It's your analogy. It's up to you to make it work.

Or, you know, just talk about psychiatric diagnoses, medical authority, and the duty to warn in their own terms, instead of trying to first convince me that policemen having a policy opinion is analogous to doctors having a medical opinion. Or whatever you imagine the operative analogy to be.
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 21st August 2018, 09:03 AM   #696
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,250
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
You keep saying this as if the fact that I read it on the internet makes it invalid or something. Is it the official ethical position of the APA? Yes, it is.

I will not respond to your appeal to OMG outrage! I am concerned with how the mentally ill are viewed in this country. Why do you think it's OK to add to the continued stigmatization of the mentally ill by equating "mentally ill" with "dangerous?"
She wasn't doing that. What she was saying is that someone with a deteriorating mental health issue in the role of the president of the USA has the increased potential to be dangerous. It's akin to why, for example, pilots with certain mental health issues aren't allowed to fly commercial jets.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 21st August 2018, 09:16 AM   #697
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
It's not unethical for psychiatrists to support a candidate, weigh in on legislation or publish an editorial.

What is unethical for psychiatrists (any doctor, really) to do is to make and publicly reveal a diagnosis about a person they've never met. The reasons for that have been spelled out pretty clearly but I think there's one reason that stands out: The potential for harm to the status of the mentally ill in this country if a mental health diagnosis can be used as a weapon against someone. I don't think you can get around that one. All by itself, science and other ethical concerns aside, it is a good enough reason to proscribe shrinks from publicly diagnosing people they've never met. So how do you get around that one?
I don't think that can be said enough...
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2018, 09:20 AM   #698
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,539
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I don't think that can be said enough...
No, it can't be said often enough to justify having a mentally ill president.
__________________
"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"
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 21st August 2018, 09:20 AM   #699
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Just because one needs to be cautious about abuse of psychiatric diagnoses does not mean one should not consider those diagnoses when they are applicable.
Of course they should be considered. But publicly grandstanding about it in a divisive political environment, where there is extremely strong emotional reactions to a candidate makes it a POLITICAL TOOL rather than genuine medical concern.

FFS, if it were a genuine medical concern, they would be reaching out to his family, his doctors, and his advisers directly and discretely to express their concern for him as well as those around him. The would not, however, be hollering it to the media and starting political petitions and writing ******* books about it!

Seriously, how can you not manage to consider more than one thing at a time? It's is entirely possible that Trump is mentally ill, likely even. But that does NOT make these doctor's actions magically turn into something altruistic instead of the partisans that they really are.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 21st August 2018 at 09:30 AM. Reason: Because I don't know what the heck I was trying to write there...
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2018, 09:26 AM   #700
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
Psychiatrists are doing exactly the same thing that people in other professions do routinely. When people in other professions do it, it seems to be acceptable and, in many cases, a helpful public service. But that's irrelevant to psychiatrists because it's "analogous?"
I don't think this is the case.

In other professions, the profession itself doesn't add credibility and authority to their opinion. If a cop says "As a cop, I think Trump is nuts", well, so what? Cops aren't doctors and can't tell. If on the other hand, a cop had not done an investigation of Trump and had no permission to do such an investigation, but went out and publicly stated "Trump is a serial killer", then there'd be a similar objection... at least from me, and I suspect from several others.

That's one of the important factors here. It's not that the shrinks have political opinions. It's that they're using their implied authority and credibility as medical professionals in order to push their opinions in the guise of a diagnosis.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2018, 09:28 AM   #701
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
No, it can't be said often enough to justify having a mentally ill president.
Then start a petition and GET HIM EVALUATED - I'll be one of the first in line to sign it! Don't just take the words of a small handful of partisans who are violating the ethical foundation of their own professions in order to make a political statement!
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2018, 09:46 AM   #702
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,645
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Then start a petition and GET HIM EVALUATED
I don't think even that is necessary. One of the through-lines of this thread, from the fans of the Yale group, is that it doesn't take a doctor or a medical exam to see that Trump is dangerously insane. According to this line of thinking, we (citizens, electors, Congress, and the Cabinet) have already performed the necessary and sufficient evaluation of Trump's fitness for office. Barring a mental breakdown that prevents him from contesting the presidency on 25th Amendment grounds, there's not going to be another evaluation until 2020. Interestingly, it is exactly that 25th Amendment due process that the Yale group is trying to jump start/short circuit with their "diagnosis".

Last edited by theprestige; 21st August 2018 at 09:47 AM.
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 21st August 2018, 09:52 AM   #703
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,186
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I will not respond to your appeal to OMG outrage. I am concerned with how the mentally ill are viewed in this country. Why do you think it's OK to add to the continued stigmatization of the mentally ill by equating "mentally ill" with "dangerous?"
Mental illness of certain types renders one unfit for the office of POTUS.

I'm not officially diagnosed with anything of that sort, but I know I'm too crazy to be given the nuclear codes and put in charge of the whole country.

JFC.
__________________
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.
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 21st August 2018, 09:57 AM   #704
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,539
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't think even that is necessary. One of the through-lines of this thread, from the fans of the Yale group, is that it doesn't take a doctor or a medical exam to see that Trump is dangerously insane. According to this line of thinking, we (citizens, electors, Congress, and the Cabinet) have already performed the necessary and sufficient evaluation of Trump's fitness for office. Barring a mental breakdown that prevents him from contesting the presidency on 25th Amendment grounds, there's not going to be another evaluation until 2020. Interestingly, it is exactly that 25th Amendment due process that the Yale group is trying to jump start/short circuit with their "diagnosis".

If we can make it that far.
__________________
"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"
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 21st August 2018, 10:01 AM   #705
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,186
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
FFS, if it were a genuine medical concern, they would be reaching out to his family, his doctors, and his advisers directly and discretely to express their concern for him as well as those around him. The would not, however, be hollering it to the media and starting political petitions and writing ******* books about it!
He's surrounded himself with Yes Men. There's nobody "normal" to reach out to, and additionally, the disorder isn't like epilepsy where you just take a med and it probably goes away.

Quote:
It's is entirely possible that Trump is mentally ill, likely even. But that does NOT make these doctor's actions magically turn into something altruistic instead of the partisans that they really are.
I think we've probably already had a kind of soft military coup, maybe partially as a result of these folks speaking out, if so.
So...
__________________
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.
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 21st August 2018, 10:21 AM   #706
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,984
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't think even that is necessary. One of the through-lines of this thread, from the fans of the Yale group, is that it doesn't take a doctor or a medical exam to see that Trump is dangerously insane. According to this line of thinking, we (citizens, electors, Congress, and the Cabinet) have already performed the necessary and sufficient evaluation of Trump's fitness for office. Barring a mental breakdown that prevents him from contesting the presidency on 25th Amendment grounds, there's not going to be another evaluation until 2020. Interestingly, it is exactly that 25th Amendment due process that the Yale group is trying to jump start/short circuit with their "diagnosis".
Trump was not given a thorough mental health test last January. He was given a 15 minute test that checks only for cognitive problems. No one has suggested that Trump has a memory problem.

Quote:
The 15-minute exam that Jackson administered is called the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, or MoCA, and is widely used to test for early signs of diseases like Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia. None of the questions are difficult for someone who does not suffer from cognitive impairment, but “the test is very sensitive to early stages of these conditions,” says Dr. Ziad Nasreddine, who developed the assessment in 1996. “It’s unlikely that [Trump] has dementia or Alzheimer’s.”
http://time.com/5106569/donald-trump...l-health-exam/

Malignant narcissism and pathological lying are not covered by the MoCA.
Stacyhs 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 21st August 2018, 10:36 AM   #707
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,293
Riots in the streets, a military coup, mass suicides, domestic terrorism.



Obviously, the folks supporting the OP don't expect to be taken seriously, so I will grant them their wish. This whole thing belongs in conspiracy theories.
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 21st August 2018, 10:47 AM   #708
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,779
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Riots in the streets, a military coup, mass suicides, domestic terrorism.



Obviously, the folks supporting the OP don't expect to be taken seriously, so I will grant them their wish. This whole thing belongs in conspiracy theories.
I do know that the federal authorities seemed to misjudge what Koresh would do, whilst the information was sufficient for profilers to be concerned of the risk, based on diagnosis on his observed behaviour.

I don't know how likely such a course of action is with people suffering from the particular strain of NPD that Trump suffers from - that is what professionals could answer.

However dismissing their concerns out of hand because it sounds unlike something a normal person would do misses the point. Trump is abnormal.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 21st August 2018, 10:56 AM   #709
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,645
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
If we can make it that far.
We're already almost halfway there.

Trump's in his 70s. Whatever he was going to become, it's already happened. All the madmen and tyrants he's been compared to had already come into their full power by the time they were around half his age. A lot of them had already peaked, or been killed, or both, by that point in their lives. Don't expect any sudden revelations or transformations from the next two years of Donald Trump. The lack of catastrophe you see is the lack of catastrophe you get.
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 21st August 2018, 11:48 AM   #710
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,539
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
We're already almost halfway there.

Trump's in his 70s. Whatever he was going to become, it's already happened. All the madmen and tyrants he's been compared to had already come into their full power by the time they were around half his age. A lot of them had already peaked, or been killed, or both, by that point in their lives. Don't expect any sudden revelations or transformations from the next two years of Donald Trump. The lack of catastrophe you see is the lack of catastrophe you get.
It could be all the Yale group really hopes for is to cover their professional ass when historians look back on this time and wonder how we elected a man who was so obviously a malignant narcissist.
__________________
"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"
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 21st August 2018, 12:01 PM   #711
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,645
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
It could be all the Yale group really hopes for is to cover their professional ass when historians look back on this time and wonder how we elected a man who was so obviously a malignant narcissist.
It's hard to imagine anything more narcissistic than believing you are personally responsible for installing a US president, nor anything more malignantly narcissistic than breaking with the ethical standards of your profession to protect your reputation in future history books. Talk about "physician, heal thyself!"
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 21st August 2018, 12:04 PM   #712
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,186
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's hard to imagine anything more narcissistic than believing you are personally responsible for installing a US president, nor anything more malignantly narcissistic than breaking with the ethical standards of your profession to protect your reputation in future history books. Talk about "physician, heal thyself!"
Would you feel the same way about this if Obama had acted like Trump after Obama was elected?
__________________
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.
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 21st August 2018, 12:26 PM   #713
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,984
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Would you feel the same way about this if Obama had acted like Trump after Obama was elected?
If Obama had acted like Trump has, the GOP would have been saying the same things non-Trump supporters have been saying. And I'd have agreed with them and applauded the Yale professionals for speaking up.
Stacyhs 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 21st August 2018, 12:41 PM   #714
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,539
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's hard to imagine anything more narcissistic than believing you are personally responsible for installing a US president, nor anything more malignantly narcissistic than breaking with the ethical standards of your profession to protect your reputation in future history books. Talk about "physician, heal thyself!"
You still don't understand narcissism, much less malignant narcissism.
__________________
"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"
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 21st August 2018, 12:43 PM   #715
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,645
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Would you feel the same way about this if Obama had acted like Trump after Obama was elected?
You lost me. What do my feelings about WilliamSeger's hypothetical Yale group motivation have to do with your hypothetical Obama behavior?

Are you asking if I would feel the same way about WilliamSeger's hypothetical Yale group motivation, if Obama had acted like a self-aggrandizing no-talent jackass, who beclowned the presidency, embarrassed the country, and undermined national interests on the regular, after he got elected?

If that's what you're asking, then I can answer with complete confidence, yes. I would feel exactly the same way if Obama had acted like Trump after Obama was elected.
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 21st August 2018, 12:48 PM   #716
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,645
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
If Obama had acted like Trump has, the GOP would have been saying the same things non-Trump supporters have been saying. And I'd have agreed with them and applauded the Yale professionals for speaking up.
And I'd have repudiated the GOP party line and told the Yale group to STFU.

It looks like one thing that's starting to fade from the evolving progressive narrative is that electing Trump was also about giving the GOP establishment a sharp poke in the eye.

Last edited by theprestige; 21st August 2018 at 12:50 PM.
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 21st August 2018, 12:50 PM   #717
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,984
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
And I'd have repudiated the GOP party line and told the Yale group to STFU.
OK. We get it. You disagree with what the Yale group did for ethical reasons. Others here and I don't. How many times do we get to do this dance?
Stacyhs 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 21st August 2018, 12:55 PM   #718
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,645
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
You still don't understand narcissism, much less malignant narcissism.
Good point. Maybe we should choose a president by having each candidate submit to an examination* by a board-certified panel** of psychiatrists, and having the Electoral College ratify their diagnosis recommendation.















---
* Actually, if we take the Yale group as our model, we don't even need an examination. The psychiatrists can get everything they need from the candidate's Twitter feed and media reports.
** Actually, if we take the Yale group as our model, we don't even need the panel to be board-certified. Any gaggle of like-minded psychiatrists will do.
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 21st August 2018, 12:57 PM   #719
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 74,394
It should not escape anyone that the excuse to dismiss professional opinions about Trump's NPD is the same excuse Trump uses to dismiss the investigation into Russian interference in the election, and to dismiss any and all criticism of Trump. Trump repeats the mantra many times a day that it's all just partisan.

Sometimes criticism, evidence, criminal charges and professional evaluations are not purely partisan. Sometimes a professional speaking out about a legislator or POTUS is based on observable evidence and not based on any partisan slant.
__________________
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 21st August 2018, 01:00 PM   #720
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,539
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Good point. Maybe we should choose a president by having each candidate submit to an examination* by a board-certified panel** of psychiatrists, and having the Electoral College ratify their diagnosis recommendation.

Before Trump, that would sound like an extremist's position. That should tell you something.
__________________
"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:25 PM.
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.