Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale conferenc

[Emily's Cat]

Are you talking about Trump's history of self-adulation? The Trump photos are one example, not the full range of evidence.

Are you in the same camp as blutoski's psychiatrist wife who thinks Trump has more dementia than narcissism?

I respectfully disagree and frankly think any professionals that can't see Trump's pathologic narcissism are not looking at all the evidence.

I do think his vocabulary suggests mild cognitive decline. Evidence has been in the news reports that he used to be much more articulate. But that's not his main issue.

Let me get this straight - you're dismissing out of hand the opinion of another qualified ARNP, as well as that of an actual psychiatrist... in favor of your own opinion?

 

[blutoski]

Not only that, a duty to warn only applies when there is an imminent threat: a patient makes a specific threat towards a person or the public. In Trump's case, what's the specific threat? Funny how no one can tell us that despite the mountain of "evidence" that leads them to warn us about his dangerousness...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the reference to evidence is focusing on the credibility of the diagnosis itself.

The second hurdle is, as you say, validating that there's a danger. For this condition, I don't see any special danger from NPD that we wouldn't be menaced by if he was a mentally healthy colossal jackass, no diagnosis required.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You know, what depresses me the most about this, is that everything that's going on right now in the United States is almost a carbon copy of the exact situation that happened when Chavez became President.

He too, was a controversial figure that no one ever considered would run for President, let alone win.

He too, won by a landslide.

He too was received with immense backlash from the media, which he accused of being biased against him, launching a never ending conflict between him and the media, which he constantly disqualified.

And now, this: People, in their desperation, are trying to get "experts" to say publicly that he's clinically insane.

Well, let me tell you: You're wasting your time. I've lived this whole **** and I know how it ends: And it doesn't end with the guy in power getting impeached.



Yes, I'm aware the United States is a very different country from Venezuela. But some patterns of behavior never change.

Trump won by the opposite of a landslide.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This, I agree with. The procedure should be to advocate for him to get a psychiatric exam. I'm all for it.

Absolutely agree with that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've never seen a law requiring a medical provider to report a diagnosed mental illness in a legislator. In this state such a report would be serious a violation of confidentiality. If one has evidence of child abuse, sexual abuse, or a crime (I once reported welfare fraud) then reporting is mandatory. But reporting someone's mental illness, we are prohibited by law from telling anyone not involved in the patient's care.

So if you know of any law in Canada or the US, I'd be interested in reading it.

A diagnosis of a mental illness is required to be reported in the military, and can revoke a security clearance.

 

[Emily's Cat]

While personality qualities like narcissism do fall on a continuum, Trump's clearly crosses the line into pathology.

I don't need to argue my opinion, many other professionals share it, and the evidence Trump meets the diagnostic criteria is overwhelming.

Many others that represent a very, very small portion of practicing mental health professionals. Those professionals are not your peers; do not count yourself among them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Duty to Warn is not a list of occupations that are reportworthy. It's a high level "if there's a danger to self or the public" qualification. Politicians aren't special in that regard, and I think it's actually taken for granted within government operations that mentally ill politicians who are genuinely dangerous need to be identified and either treated or forced to resign.

There's actually some documentation of the increased formal White House psychiatric monitoring of Lyndon B. Johnson, as he was becoming unstable during the expansion of the Vietnam War. They were genuinely worried he'd crack and be useless in a domestic or defense crisis.

Duty to Warn legally protects the MD from confidentiality breach charges - arguably, that's the purpose of the legislation.

This site lists which US states have psychiatric mandatory/permissive Duty to Report legislation.

[MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS’ DUTY TO WARN]

Washington is a Mandatory Duty to Warn state, which means that not only is there no conflict with patient confidentiality, a psychiatrist who neglected this responsibility could be criminally liable.

DC is Permissive, which means in DC a psychiatrist is protected from privacy violations if they report a potentially dangerous diagnosed patient in good faith, but they don't have to report.

Basically, what I was trying to clarify is that there's no "Catch-22" for the scenario where an actual in-person exam produces a diagnosis, the MD can report it to the appropriate authorities without concern of conflicting with patient confidentiality.

You are conflating different issues.

I said there were things I had a duty to warn several times now. I described what they were.

What I don't have a duty to do is tell someone a legislator has a mental illness diagnosis.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I respect your opinion but don't share it. No one yet in this thread has been able to describe just what would be gained from an in-person exam that we don't already have overwhelming evidence of.

This is untrue. There have been numerous examples of why a proper clinical evaluation are needed, you've simply refused to acknowledge them.

So once again... being able to distinguish between behaviors caused by a mental disorder and very similar behaviors caused by a physical disorder is a very important reason for that evaluation.

But let's not forget, that you're also comfortable diagnosing epilepsy one the basis of an observed seizure without screening and testing for other potential causes of seizure... because seizures are so incredibly straightforward and easy to see!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You know, what depresses me the most about this, is that everything that's going on right now in the United States is almost a carbon copy of the exact situation that happened when Chavez became President.

He too, was a controversial figure that no one ever considered would run for President, let alone win.

He too, won by a landslide.

He too was received with immense backlash from the media, which he accused of being biased against him, launching a never ending conflict between him and the media, which he constantly disqualified.

And now, this: People, in their desperation, are trying to get "experts" to say publicly that he's clinically insane.

Well, let me tell you: You're wasting your time. I've lived this whole **** and I know how it ends: And it doesn't end with the guy in power getting impeached.

Yes, I'm aware the United States is a very different country from Venezuela. But some patterns of behavior never change.

Trump did not win by a landslide and there is simply no comparison here between the US and Venezuela. I fail to see any reason you have for going there.

As far as desperate people looking for ways to get Trump out, that's the right wing narrative, it is not, however, consistent with the available facts.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Washington is a Mandatory Duty to Warn state, which means that not only is there no conflict with patient confidentiality, a psychiatrist who neglected this responsibility could be criminally liable.

As an ARNP practicing in the state of Washington, I'm certain that SG already knew that, and was merely playing Devil's Advocate, right? Right?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the reference to evidence is focusing on the credibility of the diagnosis itself.

The second hurdle is, as you say, validating that there's a danger. For this condition, I don't see any special danger from NPD that we wouldn't be menaced by if he was a mentally healthy colossal jackass, no diagnosis required.

I'm convinced Trump's pathology is interfering with his ability to be a POTUS, and IMO he's not a competent POTUS because of that alone.

As for being a danger though, that would depend on circumstances that have not yet arisen.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You keep referring to it as "pathology" as if wrapping semi-clinical jargon around it makes you sound more credible.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I refer to pathology to distinguish between eccentricity and Trump's behavior/symptoms which clearly cross the line into pathologic.

What's amazing to me are the people in the forum who look at trump's constant preoccupation with his imaginary crowd sizes, with his imaginary accomplishments, with his imaginary assessment of his self worth, all of which are inflated beyond credulity including in the face of pictures and videos of the actual crowd sizes and in the face of irrefutable evidence that Trump constantly describes an imaginary world.

 

[sackett]

Analyzing Donny Dumpster can be taken needlessly far. Let's remember that stupidity can resemble insanity.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Analyzing Donny Dumpster can be taken needlessly far. Let's remember that stupidity can resemble insanity.

How does stupidity result in "constant preoccupation with his imaginary crowd sizes, with his imaginary accomplishments, with his imaginary assessment of his self worth, all of which are inflated beyond credulity including in the face of pictures and videos of the actual crowd sizes and in the face of irrefutable evidence that Trump constantly describes an imaginary world"?

 

[xjx388]

"constant preoccupation with his imaginary crowd sizes,

Really, constant preoccupation?

with his imaginary accomplishments,

Be specific. The dude is POTUS, after all; quite an accomplishment, no? He has been able to successfully sell himself both as a successful TV star and as a real-estate magnate. People and corporations have paid him to use his name on their products. There is no doubt about those things. So which accomplishments that he brags about are imaginary?
I don't seem to recall him talking about dodging sniper fire . . .

with his imaginary assessment of his self worth,

What is his assessment of his self-worth, a direct quote preferably, and then: how can the positive self-image of a person who has had actual success in life be characterized as imaginary?

all of which are inflated beyond credulity

No. What's inflated beyond credulity is the idea that you are conducting an unbiased clinical description of Trump. I think you just illustrated that quite nicely all by yourself.

including in the face of pictures and videos of the actual crowd sizes

Can you be absolutely certain that he actually believes his crowd sizes were the biggest ever? Isn't it possible that he knows they weren't and is 1)Playing it up for his base and/or 2)Screwing with the media and others on left who are so bothered by such meaningless crap?

and in the face of irrefutable evidence that Trump constantly describes an imaginary world"?

The only imaginary world in evidence is the one in which your caricature of Trump is actually true. "God" knows he's a braggart, a liar, a self-promoter and not a very good President but he's also not a cartoon.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Really, constant preoccupation?

From the inauguration to just the other day phoenix and corpus cristi

Seems to bring it up frequently. As if it measured his self-worth...

Be specific. The dude is POTUS, after all; quite an accomplishment, no? He has been able to successfully sell himself both as a successful TV star and as a real-estate magnate. People and corporations have paid him to use his name on their products. There is no doubt about those things. So which accomplishments that he brags about are imaginary?

Here's a sample list:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ist-of-false-and-misleading-claims-tops-1000/


Trump repeatedly takes credit for events or business decisions that happened before he took the oath of office — or had even been elected. Forty-two times, he has touted that he secured business investments and job announcements that had been previously announced and could easily be found with a Google search. And 19 times he has boasted that he achieved a reduction in the cost of Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, even though the price cut had been in the works before he was elected.

But some of the president’s repeated claims have nothing to do with policy but instead rehash discredited campaign rhetoric, such as the false charge that Hillary Clinton gave 20 percent of the U.S. uranium supply to Russia or that the deputy FBI director got $700,000 from Clinton. Both claims were deemed Four-Pinocchios false in 2016. Yet Trump brought them up 11 times.

.

This is a stupid game to play, pretending all this crap hasn't been pointed out, explained, and detailed ad nauseum already.

 

[blutoski]

Can you be absolutely certain that he actually believes his crowd sizes were the biggest ever? Isn't it possible that he knows they weren't and is 1)Playing it up for his base and/or 2)Screwing with the media and others on left who are so bothered by such meaningless crap?

And those are the most probable explanations, IMO. I think I mentioned the [Asch Conformity experiments] earlier.

Loyalty can be shown by pretending one believes a lie in front of others, so the totalitarian brings forth examples, as loyalty demonstration opportunities.

 

[blutoski]

This is a stupid game to play, pretending all this crap hasn't been pointed out, explained, and detailed ad nauseum already.

I didn't see anything in that list that bears relation to a medical diagnosis for NPD.

He's a bold faced liar for political gain - so's every politician in history. Nothing medically debilitating about that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't see anything in that list that bears relation to a medical diagnosis for NPD.

You're trying waaay to hard to support an unsupportable position.

He's a bold faced liar for political gain - so's every politician in history. Nothing medically debilitating about that.

Occam's Razor puts Trump's behavior on the pathologic side of probability. To make up a less than credible claim it is an act for political gain, not to mention that is said at the same time it's being claimed that dementia explains his behavior; that's some heavy duty denial.