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

[blutoski]

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

The list contained examples of lies about policies. Nothing in there was an example of narcissism, none of them were even self-aggrandizing. They were digs at Democrat policies.

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.

? I don't understand that at all. Some of his behavior is explained as lies for political gain. Some of the behavior is dementia. I think McCain has similar presentment, for example, and there are some other politicians I'd list in this sad category. Denial? Not sure how you get that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The risk of diagnosing from a distance is that in this thread, Skeptic Ginger, you yourself seem to fit the criteria for NPD.

I don't think you have NPD, and even if I did, I'm not qualified to make that assessment. I'm simply pointing out that without an actual clinical evaluation using proper methodology... almost anyone can be portrayed as presenting those symptoms. Including you.

 

[xjx388]

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...

From the Hill article, Trump was quoted as saying:

"What a crowd, what a turnout," Trump said to a crowd of several hundred people surrounding a fire station, according to a White House pool report.

The president reportedly spoke from a ladder between two fire trucks.

"Thank you," Trump said to cheers.

This is evidence that he's "constantly," preoccupied with crowd size - so much so that it is "obviously pathological?" C'mon man . . .

The CNN piece is anonymously sourced. Not exactly the best source of information when we are trying to assess a person's behavior to see if they are mentally ill, don't you think? Can we be sure that these anonymous sources are not exaggerating, lying, etc?

The dude's a politician who built his political career on drawing huge crowds to his rallies. I think it's to be expected that he cares a lot about how many people show up.

If this is the type of information we have to rely on to come up with a "dangerously mentally ill" diagnosis, then I think my position has been completely vindicated

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.

"This crap," isn't too far away from politics as usual. Yes, Trump is more narcissistic than most politicians; no one denies that. What is at issue is a professional diagnosis based on this kind of information -it's completely bogus and undermines the credibility of any professional who buys into it.

 

[blutoski]

"This crap," isn't too far away from politics as usual. Yes, Trump is more narcissistic than most politicians; no one denies that. What is at issue is a professional diagnosis based on this kind of information -it's completely bogus and undermines the credibility of any professional who buys into it.

I also think there's a misunderstanding about NPD versus colloquial narcissism.

NPD isn't narcissism on steroids. There's no "if narcissim gets very severe it crosses a threshold and becomes NPD" - that's not how it works.

A key qualifying characteristic of any Cluster B is that the personality traits are causing the patient suffering. I just don't see it in this case. I can't picture him moaning, "If only I was less narcissistic, my life would be so much better, I wish I could change."

A real life example is one of my wife's patients. For some reason, his condition manifests as having to push ahead in lines. Recently, he made the mistake of crossing a fellow liner-upper who was a professional pub bouncer, and the patient got a sock in the stomach that led to surgery for internal bleeding. In terms of magnitude, this guy's practically harmless. But the inability to turn off the impulse to demonstrate his superiority has led to clear self harm and suffering, and combined with enough of the other criteria, he checks out for NPD.

There's NPD patients out there who've lost visitation rights to their children, beat their spouses and ended up in prison, lost an eye because they couldn't stand down and walk away when they've been insulted...

Meanwhile, this dude's a billionaire playboy president. I just don't see the suffering.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I also think there's a misunderstanding about NPD versus colloquial narcissism.

NPD isn't narcissism on steroids. There's no "if narcissim gets very severe it crosses a threshold and becomes NPD" - that's not how it works.

A key qualifying characteristic of any Cluster B is that the personality traits are causing the patient suffering. I just don't see it in this case. I can't picture him moaning, "If only I was less narcissistic, my life would be so much better, I wish I could change."

A real life example is one of my wife's patients. For some reason, his condition manifests as having to push ahead in lines. Recently, he made the mistake of crossing a fellow liner-upper who was a professional pub bouncer, and the patient got a sock in the stomach that led to surgery for internal bleeding. In terms of magnitude, this guy's practically harmless. But the inability to turn off the impulse to demonstrate his superiority has led to clear self harm and suffering, and combined with enough of the other criteria, he checks out for NPD.

There's NPD patients out there who've lost visitation rights to their children, beat their spouses and ended up in prison, lost an eye because they couldn't stand down and walk away when they've been insulted...

Meanwhile, this dude's a billionaire playboy president. I just don't see the suffering.

Good explanation

As an addendum, and for entertainment... There are lots of antisocial people out there. It's only a disorder when they can't control the impulse to murderfy other people!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I also think there's a misunderstanding about NPD versus colloquial narcissism.

NPD isn't narcissism on steroids. There's no "if narcissim gets very severe it crosses a threshold and becomes NPD" - that's not how it works.

A key qualifying characteristic of any Cluster B is that the personality traits are causing the patient suffering. I just don't see it in this case. I can't picture him moaning, "If only I was less narcissistic, my life would be so much better, I wish I could change."... [snip]

Meanwhile, this dude's a billionaire playboy president. I just don't see the suffering.

This is one argument made by one psychiatrist. We've discussed it. It is not a consensus among professionals weighing in that Trump is not suffering or disabled. I think it's pretty clear his personality disorder is interfering with his ability to do his POTUS job.

It's absurd to think people who have money can't possibly be suffering mentally. Suicide incidents among rich, popular, attractive, and talented people easily refute such a conclusion.

It's interesting you can look at Trump's behavior in public and judge he's not suffering mentally but you can't judge that he is. His insecurity is blatantly obvious in many of his fantasies. Why would he be obsessed with losing the popular vote and how many people attended his inauguration if he were so happy and secure?

Back to his incessant lying and the assertion it's a calculated con. If it were a con as opposed to pathologic behavior, one would not expect every single lie to center around Trump's popularity, success, wealth, and in cases where he loses or is called on said lies, how unfair he's treated. That's not calculated, that's predictable.

You can look at the DSM IV & V criteria for narcissistic personality disorder and Trump's observable behavior meets that criteria. Many qualified professionals have weighed in and stated they see a classic case of NPD.

That you don't see classic NPD, is a minority opinion among the professionals who have publicly weighed in.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just following up on your request, here's the BC College's primer on the [Duty to Report]

So, examples include a mandatory requirement to report, say, child abuse. Need to report all deaths. There's a list of reportable contagious illnesses. Injuries from a motor vehicle accident.

I'll dig a bit more, there are special clauses in the BC Mental Health Act regarding what is mandatory for involuntary status, and reporting to the health district / slash / police.

OK I've looked your citation over. There's nothing in there which addresses disclosing mental illness in a legislator and there's nothing in there which isn't also true or very similar in US confidentiality law.

What is in there is a duty to warn about an impaired health care provider, an impaired driver, especially when public transportation is involved, a number of references to reporting to third party payers and when information is required in a legal case. Child and sexual abuse is addressed, as is communicable disease reporting. And something I'd not mentioned but which is the case here, knife and gunshot wounds are reportable to the police. That's all pretty standard stuff.

HIPPA created some confusion when the police complained that if EMS or other health care providers became aware of a patient's drug or alcohol use, they could not inform the police. But the police have their own procedure for addressing suspected impaired driving. It's not up to us to turn in illegal drug users the same way it's not up to police in sanctuary cities to turn in undocumented immigrants to ICE. There are benefits and drawbacks to such policies.

Bottom line, there was nothing in that cite about reporting mentally ill legislators. Perhaps if you think I missed something you could point to the specific paragraph.

 

[Jodie]

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.

It's a knee-jerk response, "always must see patient in person". It doesn't allow for exceptions, two of which have been discussed in the thread. One is in forensic procedures where someone might profile a suspect or report on a person who refuses an evaluation. And the second one is Trump where the amount of evidence available is more than sufficient to draw a diagnostic conclusion.

A diagnostic conclusion is still simply an opinion until proven. It isn't legally binding if the end result is to declare someone incompetent. That requires an exam, usually more than one by different providers in the form of a hearing to be legally binding.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A diagnostic conclusion is still simply an opinion until proven. It isn't legally binding if the end result is to declare someone incompetent. That requires an exam, usually more than one by different providers in the form of a hearing to be legally binding.

Just to play devil's advocate, do you think one can't be declared incompetent if one refuses an exam?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

From the Hill article, Trump was quoted as saying:This is evidence that he's "constantly," preoccupied with crowd size - so much so that it is "obviously pathological?" C'mon man . . .
<>

"This crap," isn't too far away from politics as usual. Yes, Trump is more narcissistic than most politicians; no one denies that. What is at issue is a professional diagnosis based on this kind of information -it's completely bogus and undermines the credibility of any professional who buys into it.

I was simply providing some links to his seeming obsession with crowds size and imaginary facts, since you seemed to scoff that that this things exist.

We can have different opinions of the severity and root causes, but both those issues seem to clearly, at a minimum, exist.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The risk of diagnosing from a distance is that in this thread, Skeptic Ginger, you yourself seem to fit the criteria for NPD.

I don't think you have NPD, and even if I did, I'm not qualified to make that assessment. I'm simply pointing out that without an actual clinical evaluation using proper methodology... almost anyone can be portrayed as presenting those symptoms. Including you.

I don't think you can make a case for NPD of any poster based on this thread.

I think that's a ludicrous claim.

 

[xjx388]

I was simply providing some links to his seeming obsession with crowds size and imaginary facts, since you seemed to scoff that that this things exist.



We can have different opinions of the severity and root causes, but both those issues seem to clearly, at a minimum, exist.

The only thing I scoff at is the idea that this kind of information is enough to formulate a valid clinical diagnosis. You can call it an obsession all you like, in a non-clinical sense, and we can agree that he sure does bring it up a lot. I am not disputing this simple fact. What I dispute is that this fact is evidence that he is "obviously" mentally ill in a real clincical sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The only thing I scoff at is the idea that this kind of information is enough to formulate a valid clinical diagnosis. ...

Says the person without clinical expertise or experience to the people who do have it.

 

[blutoski]

OK I've looked your citation over. There's nothing in there which addresses disclosing mental illness in a legislator and there's nothing in there which isn't also true or very similar in US confidentiality law.

What is in there is a duty to warn about an impaired health care provider, an impaired driver, especially when public transportation is involved, a number of references to reporting to third party payers and when information is required in a legal case. Child and sexual abuse is addressed, as is communicable disease reporting. And something I'd not mentioned but which is the case here, knife and gunshot wounds are reportable to the police. That's all pretty standard stuff.

HIPPA created some confusion when the police complained that if EMS or other health care providers became aware of a patient's drug or alcohol use, they could not inform the police. But the police have their own procedure for addressing suspected impaired driving. It's not up to us to turn in illegal drug users the same way it's not up to police in sanctuary cities to turn in undocumented immigrants to ICE. There are benefits and drawbacks to such policies.

Bottom line, there was nothing in that cite about reporting mentally ill legislators. Perhaps if you think I missed something you could point to the specific paragraph.

It's about reporting mentally ill people period. Last time I checked, legislators are people.

(I appreciate there is some debate about that among the more cynical)

so: not sure what you're quibbling about, to be honest.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Says the person without clinical expertise or experience to the people person who also doesn't have it any relevant experience.

That's more accurate.

 

[blutoski]

This is one argument made by one psychiatrist. We've discussed it. It is not a consensus among professionals weighing in that Trump is not suffering or disabled. I think it's pretty clear his personality disorder is interfering with his ability to do his POTUS job.

It's absurd to think people who have money can't possibly be suffering mentally. Suicide incidents among rich, popular, attractive, and talented people easily refute such a conclusion.

No it doesn't. Were they clinically depressed? Terminally ill? Don't commingle diagnoses.

Here's an exercise... differentiate Trump's 'presentment' against APD. My prediction is that he will 'pass' every diagnosis we want, as it's triggering a motivated fishing expedition for confirmation bias evidence chunks.

It's interesting you can look at Trump's behavior in public and judge he's not suffering mentally but you can't judge that he is.

I couldn't parse that sentence, sorry.

His insecurity is blatantly obvious in many of his fantasies. Why would he be obsessed with losing the popular vote and how many people attended his inauguration if he were so happy and secure?

Maybe. Why not? He's a politician. His career literally depends on popularity. I would suspect that every politician is highly obsessed with popular support in all its forms. I would also propose that this is not evidence that they all have NPD.

Back to his incessant lying and the assertion it's a calculated con. If it were a con as opposed to pathologic behavior, one would not expect every single lie to center around Trump's popularity, success, wealth, and in cases where he loses or is called on said lies, how unfair he's treated. That's not calculated, that's predictable.

I'm pretty sure it's false that 'every single lie' centers around those topics. He seems to lie about every topic. (who can forget the weird lie-filled sparring match he had with Rosie O'Donnell?) He's a real estate developer from Manhattan - ******** is his native tongue.

You can look at the DSM IV & V criteria for narcissistic personality disorder and Trump's observable behavior meets that criteria. Many qualified professionals have weighed in and stated they see a classic case of NPD.

Right, and we've read their reasoning, and I find fault in it, specifically about the negative impacts. To which, I would say: this is how we identify that despite being qualified, they're clearly wrong.

That you don't see classic NPD, is a minority opinion among the professionals who have publicly weighed in.

I'm not sure there's a formal tally, do you have a quantitative cite?

Related question: if it turned out the majority of vocal MDs disagreed with the diagnosis, would you change your mind?

 

[blutoski]

I don't think you can make a case for NPD of any poster based on this thread.

I think that's a ludicrous claim.

I think the opposite, and I up the ante by saying that given the challenge of remote diagnosing any member of this forum with any random cluster B, we can be guaranteed to get a hit. The evaluator just needs some motivation and time to read through every post, selecting the juicy bits to present as confirmatory evidence.

This is the reason remote diagnosis is considered malpractice: there's too much filtering when the presentment is captured from curated snippets versus an interactive process.

Here's an easy one: let's start with [OCPD].

In the interest of the list education, I volunteer to go first.

 

[blutoski]

Says the person without clinical expertise or experience to the people who do have it.

Earlier, you were willing to participate in a real dollar challenge with another list member.

I'd like to offer one of my own. Regarding above, would you be willing to write your certifying body an email, asking them if you are qualified to diagnose a potential patient based on their media history and share the results with the forum?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's about reporting mentally ill people period. Last time I checked, legislators are people.

(I appreciate there is some debate about that among the more cynical)

so: not sure what you're quibbling about, to be honest.

Did you look at your citation? It's very specific and nothing addresses mentally ill legislators. Feel free to quote a paragraph you think supports your assertion. I read the whole thing, all of it very similar to US law.

 

[xjx388]

Says the person without clinical expertise or experience to the people who do have it.

Are those "people who do have it," here in this thread somewhere? Maybe I missed their posts . . .