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

Fair enough. To synthesize:

The Yale Group: "Donald Trump has a dangerous mental illness..."

Cabbage: "... and that danger could well manifest itself as a disastrous recession resulting from his tariff war..."

The Yale Group: "... and that's why the Cabinet needs to remove Trump from office immediately."

Between you and the Yale Group, we seem to have the risk, the remedy, and the underlying cause. Is there anything above that you don't agree with?


The only issues I can think of that I might take with that:

1) Understand that I don't think the danger is limited to a disastrous recession, and

2) I don't know that the Yale group would agree that the reference to a disastrous recession specifically is why he should be removed from office.
 
It wasn't a free speech question. It was a reasonable idea question.


I don't know what you mean by "reasonable" idea. Yes, I think it's reasonable for Dr Lee to call for his removal. No, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the Cabinet/Congress to follow through on it.
 
Re dangerous:

He has proposed a 26% cut in the EPA budget.

It's one thing if this is just a horrendous policy difference. But it's quite another when the reason he wants this cut is because he has a delusion of grandeur there that magically he created: "We have the cleanest water. It’s crystal clean and I always say I want crystal clean water and air. ... We’re setting records environmentally.”


Agreed.

Speaking as a layman, I would expect one of the major problems for those having NPD is a complete inability to imagine oneself ever making a mistake.
 
Fair enough; but, this thread isn't about "Donald Trump has a 'dangerous mental illness' says Cabbage." Dr. Gilligan was part of the Yale Group and he wasn't talking about "dangerousness" in the context you are.


Honestly, I think you are being far too presumptuous here. You can't speak for Dr Gilligan for the same reason I can't; unlike me, however, that doesn't seem to stop you from trying.

Here's the point - I think we are actually mostly in agreement, except for our view of the proper public role of medical professionals. See, you have a problem with Trump's behavior regardless of whether or not that behavior is due to mental illnesss and regardless whether or not his actions are dangerous in a mental health context. I have same problems with Trump that you do.

Since we agree on that much, what are we gaining by the unethical actions of the Yale Group? I think the answer is clear: Nothing. And if we've gained nothing, then it should be equally clear that the breach of ethics was unwarranted. Just as we'd like to hold POTUS to higher standards of behavior, I think we should hold the medical profession to a higher standard; indeed, that's what medical ethics is all about. Medical professionals have a duty to act ethically when they deliver information to the public. In order to justify a breach of ethics like this, there should be a real, specific danger to the country. In this case, I think it's pretty clear that there isn't such a danger and that these professionals are doing a disservice not only to the public but to patients who have been diagnosed with mental illnesses.


You're being presumptuous again. I don't agree it was unethical. I don't agree we gained nothing. You should probably work harder at speaking for yourself and just give up on speaking for others.

I understand you but I don't agree with you. When a medical professional issues a professional opinion, they should act ethically and according to the standards of practice of the profession. The Yale Group has not.


In this thread I am aware of at least two objections:

1. Trump can't be diagnosed without a one-on-one clinical observation.

2. It is unethical to paint Trump as mentally ill because we don't want to portray mental illness as dangerous.

You certainly fall under category 2. Am I correct in thinking that you do, indeed, believe Trump is mentally ill, but you are simply concerned with ethics violations here? Just curious.
 
The underlying idea is that people with mental illness are not suited to be President. I think that's overbroad and unfair to the vast majority of people with mental illness. We shouldn't be judging people based on a diagonsis; we should be judging people based on their actions and temperment. To say someone is dangerous simply because they've been diagnosed with a mental illness and therefore shouldn't be "a person in his position," is discriminatory.

Indeed, it's not even a standard that anyone has applied in the past (with one notable exception which lead to the Goldwater Rule) nor is it a standard anyone is actually going to apply going forward. One in five people have been diagnosed with a mental illness in the US; the actual prevalence is probably higher due to the stigma attached to it and people not seeking treatment. This means that among the 11 still active Democratic Party POTUS candidates, 2 or 3 of them probably have been diagnosed with a mental illness. Where's Duty to Warn when you need them? ;)

I think it depends on the kind and severity of mental illness a person is diagnosed with. Should a paranoid schizophrenic be POTUS? Or someone with bi-polar disorder? Or major depression? I certainly don't think so.

One in five people may have been diagnosed with a mental disorder, but most of those are not in the 'severe' category. A president who feels compelled to check if the kitchen light is off 4 times before going to bed is certainly not in the same category as one who thinks his Chief of Staff is trying to poison him or who goes manic and starts calling heads of state at all hours of the night rambling on about how he has a great plan to end world hunger by giving Girl Scout cookies away for free.
 
"Mental illness" covers a lot of ground, and includes a lot of attitudes and behaviors that don't interfere with rational thought or functioning. But mental health is a legitimate requirement for many jobs. Law enforcement applicants are usually required to pass a psychological screening, and are subject to monitoring throughout their careers. Psychological screening is a basic part of applying for and keeping a government security clearance. Many employers administer the MMPI or other screening tools. And the officers who control nuclear weapons are subject to the most intense screening and continuous monitoring.

Trump couldn't pass any of it. That might not matter for a NYC real estate hustler or a TV reality star. But that's not where Trump sits today.

Exactly. I don't think Trump could pass a psychological screening test.
 
What do you think "dangerous" means when a mental health professional says someone is dangerous?

I don't know and neither do you. We'd have to ask the professional.


Recall that Dr. James Gilligan is an expert in violence. He works with dangerous criminals and wrote a series of books about violence. At the Yale conference in the OP, he said, regarding Trump: "I know dangerousness when I see it." Do you think he was talking about the kinds of things you mentioned?

As previously said, 'dangerousness' does not always equate to violence. Just because Gilligan is an expert in violence doesn't mean he thinks being a danger is restricted to being violent.

To be sure, the things you listed are bad things to have in a POTUS and I agree with your assessment of Trump. However, I don't see how any of that has any bearing at all on whether or not he is mentally ill. I'm sure you'd agree that it isn't necessary for him to be mentally ill in order for those things to still be true, yes?

Trump checks almost every box under the diagnosis for narcissistic personality disorder which is classified as a mental illness.
 
Exactly. I don't think Trump could pass a psychological screening test.

I don't think he could pass the Marshmallow Test. He'd eat it immediately then accuse the tester of eating it themselves, then demand a thousand more marshmallows at Mexico's expense.
 
Honestly, I think you are being far too presumptuous here. You can't speak for Dr Gilligan for the same reason I can't; unlike me, however, that doesn't seem to stop you from trying.
. I don’t need to speak for him. He has adequately spoken for himself on the record.



You're being presumptuous again. I don't agree it was unethical.
Ah. Then before I presume too much, are you familiar with the American Psychiatric Association? They have an ethical rule nicknamed the Goldwater Rule that prohibits diagnosing or speaking about the mental health of people they haven’t examined. Now do you agree that it’s an ethical breach?


I don't agree we gained nothing. You should probably work harder at speaking for yourself and just give up on speaking for others.
I’m not attempting to speak for you. If you think we’ve gained something, I’d like to know what you think we’ve gained.









In this thread I am aware of at least two objections:



1. Trump can't be diagnosed without a one-on-one clinical observation.



2. It is unethical to paint Trump as mentally ill because we don't want to portray mental illness as dangerous.



You certainly fall under category 2. Am I correct in thinking that you do, indeed, believe Trump is mentally ill, but you are simply concerned with ethics violations here? Just curious.


While I am concerned with medical ethics, it isn’t as simple as that. It’s not the end-all-be-all of my objections. Whether or not Trump is mentally ill is a question that is not for me to answer or ponder. A medical diagnosis does not give a layperson useful information. For one thing, we aren’t treating him; diagnosis itself is useful only for designing a treatment program. For another, we don’t have any real idea what a particular diagnosis implies as to a person’s future behavior or fitness for any particular task. We can all see his behavior and judge it for what it is without knowing anything about his mental state.

Ultimately, my main objection is this:
Medicine is a science that deals with healing people. Standards of practice and ethical codes provide a structure to ensure that scientific core mission. Why should laypeople trust doctors that act this way? And if all doctors acted this way, where would the profession be?
 
I don't know and neither do you. We'd have to ask the professional.
If we don’t know, how do we know if the professional is giving us good information? Surely, an appeal to their authority isn’t sufficient?

As previously said, 'dangerousness' does not always equate to violence. Just because Gilligan is an expert in violence doesn't mean he thinks being a danger is restricted to being violent.
He is specifically talking about violence. He’s been extensively quoted in the thread. Here’s a snippet from his contribution to the book Lee edited:
However, while all psychiatrists, by definition, have studied mental illness, most have not specialized in studying the causes, consequences, prediction, and prevention of violence, considered as a problem in public health and preventive medicine. Nor have most studied the principles on which the assessment of current and future dangerousness is based, regardless of whether or not any particular individual is mentally ill, and regardless of what diagnosis or diagnoses, if any, he may or may not merit according to the criteria outlined in DSM-V.


That is why it is so important and so appropriate for those few of us who have done so, whether by investigating the psychology of Nazi doctors and Japanese terrorists, as Robert Lifton has done, or by studying sexual violence (rape, incest, etc.), as Judith Herman has done, or by examining murderers and rapists in prisons and jails throughout the world (including those who have committed “war crimes”), as I have done, while working with the World Health Organization’s Department of Injuries and Violence Prevention on the epidemiology and prevention of violence -- to warn the potential victims, in the interests of public health, when we have recognized and identified signs and symptoms that indicate that someone is dangerous to the public health.
Obviously, he is talking about violence.

Trump checks almost every box under the diagnosis for narcissistic personality disorder which is classified as a mental illness.

Medicine is not the practice of filling in checkboxes in books. It’s the practice of assessing each patient as an individual whole person, using a variety of tools, to arrive at a plan that will help to effect healing. These professionals have subverted that noble goal into a weapon to attack politicians.
 
...

Trump checks almost every box under the diagnosis for narcissistic personality disorder which is classified as a mental illness.
ftfy :)


Anyone remember the old days when a POTUS candidate that had seen a psych for mild depression was threatened with disqualification by the voters if it got out?
 
This false equivalence/whataboutism (take your pick) belongs in another thread.

It's not whataboutism to examine this administration in the context of previous administrations. It's also not whataboutism to point out special pleading in your arguments. Your claim is that Trump poses a special danger. But economic downturn is not a special danger. It's a commonplace danger that has actually come to pass recently and often. If that's the danger Trump poses, then let it ride, I say.

The whole problem is not that Trump is crazy. The problem is that you want him removed on whatever basis you can manage. "He might cause an economic downturn" isn't working, so you're trying "he might cause an economic downturn because he's crazy". Which also isn't working.

The whole point of the Yale group's "diagnosis" is to try to establish a basis for the special pleading about Trump. Clinton and Bush both presided over economic downturns. Clinton and Bush both contributed to 9/11. Bush prosecuted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - wars that entangle US troops and take lives even today. Obama fomented turmoil and unrest across North Africa and the Middle East. Compared to the kind of suffering, death, and destruction his predecessors have presided over, President Trump looks positively benign. A tariff war with China? The horror!

You keep telling me Trump is especially dangerous. And that's why you don't want to let me compare and contrast him with other recent presidents. Because I might conclude that he's not especially dangerous.
 
Last edited:
ftfy :)


Anyone remember the old days when a POTUS candidate that had seen a psych for mild depression was threatened with disqualification by the voters if it got out?

I do indeed. Do you want a return to those old days or would you like to see some progress on our understanding of mental illness?
 
I do indeed. Do you want a return to those old days or would you like to see some progress on our understanding of mental illness?

How about a nice middle ground where complaining that a president is crazy when he's caught licking the windows isn't seen as an attack on all mental patients?
 
It's not whataboutism to examine this administration in the context of previous administrations. It's also not whataboutism to point out special pleading in your arguments. Your claim is that Trump poses a special danger. But economic downturn is not a special danger. It's a commonplace danger that has actually come to pass recently and often. If that's the danger Trump poses, then let it ride, I say.
Well the closest parallel is Nixon, with his alcohol problems and his dangerously erratic behaviour.

ETA: https://www.businessinsider.com/drunk-richard-nixon-nuke-north-korea-2017-1?r=US&IR=T Although possibly it shows that Kissinger *did* deserve the Nobel Peace Prize after all


The whole problem is not that Trump is crazy. The problem is that you want him removed on whatever basis you can manage. "He might cause an economic downturn" isn't working, so you're trying "he might cause an economic downturn because he's crazy". Which also isn't working.
No, the problem is that Trump is now publicly demonstrating childlike behaviour - except for his highly inappropriate comments about his daughter.

You seem to think that it's fine to have a senile* person in charge of the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet. I'd beg to differ.

The whole point of the Yale group's "diagnosis" is to try to establish a basis for the special pleading about Trump. Clinton and Bush both presided over economic downturns. Clinton and Bush both contributed to 9/11. Bush prosecuted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - wars that entangle US troops and take lives even today. Obama fomented turmoil and unrest across North Africa and the Middle East. Compared to the kind of suffering, death, and destruction his predecessors have presided over, President Trump looks positively benign. A tariff war with China? The horror!

You keep telling me Trump is especially dangerous. And that's why you don't want to let me compare and contrast him with other recent presidents. Because I might conclude that he's not especially dangerous.

Basically this is "Trump is safe" until proven a disaster. That's a stupid approach.

And it isn't just the trade war with China, as you well know.


*I am not a medic, but there's no reasonable explanation for his behaviour that is doesn't involve serious cogitative decline since 2016.
 
Last edited:
If we don’t know, how do we know if the professional is giving us good information? Surely, an appeal to their authority isn’t sufficient?

He is specifically talking about violence. He’s been extensively quoted in the thread. Here’s a snippet from his contribution to the book Lee edited:

Obviously, he is talking about violence.

I will concede that Gilligan was talking about violence. He also gives a good case for his fear that Trump exhibits tendencies toward it just before the quote you provided:

Sometimes a person’s dangerousness is so obvious that one does not need
professional training in either psychiatry or criminology to recognize it. One does not
need to have had fifty years of professional experience in assessing the dangerousness of
violent criminals, to recognize the dangerousness of a president who:

1. Asks what the point of having thermonuclear weapons is if we cannot use
them.
2. Urges our government to use torture or worse against our prisoners of
war.
3. Urged that five innocent African American youths be given the death
penalty for a sexual assault even years after it had been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt to have been committed by someone else.
4. Boasts about his ability to get away with sexually assaulting women
himself because of his celebrity and power.
5. Urges his followers at political rallies to punch protestors in the face
and beat them up so badly that they will have to be taken out on
stretchers.
6. Suggests that his followers could always assassinate his political rival, Hillary
Clinton, if she were elected President, or, at the very least, throw her in prison.
7. Believes that he can always get away with whatever violence he does
commit. He said “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and
I wouldn’t lose voters” (remark made during rally on Jan. 23, 2016).

Medicine is not the practice of filling in checkboxes in books. It’s the practice of assessing each patient as an individual whole person, using a variety of tools, to arrive at a plan that will help to effect healing.

I agree partly. Yes, each patient must be assessed individually, but you are minimizing the use of the DSM as a diagnostic tool. That checklist was created after input from many mental health professionals after years of research.

These professionals have subverted that noble goal into a weapon to attack politicians.

That alleged motivation by the authors is an opinion, not a fact. They are not "attacking politicians". They are concerned with the danger they believe Trump poses.
 
I will concede that Gilligan was talking about violence. He also gives a good case for his fear that Trump exhibits tendencies toward it just before the quote you provided

Remember when fuelair would regularly go off on these graphically violent sado-sexual revenge fantasies? And no amount of remonstration or sanction could convince him to moderate that behavior?

Did you think he really had a dangerous mental illness, and might explode into actual violence at any moment? I don't. And I don't think Trump does, either. Not on the evidence Gilligan cites, anyway.
 
Remember when fuelair would regularly go off on these graphically violent sado-sexual revenge fantasies? And no amount of remonstration or sanction could convince him to moderate that behavior?

Did you think he really had a dangerous mental illness, and might explode into actual violence at any moment? I don't. And I don't think Trump does, either. Not on the evidence Gilligan cites, anyway.

What about Ivana's sworn deposition that he raped her because he didn't like the scalp job done on her recommendation?
 
What about Ivana's sworn deposition that he raped her because he didn't like the scalp job done on her recommendation?

One allegation, thirty years ago, later withdrawn. Serious enough in its own right, but definitely not an escalating trend of violent outbursts by President Trump.

My prediction was that if Trump's 'dangerous mental illness' is supposed to manifest as violent action, then we should see a trend of violent action, probably worsening as his condition worsens, etc.

A single data point from thirty years ago is not that trend. In my opinion, it falsifies the prediction.

(Also, not evidence of a 'dangerous mental illness'.)
 
. I don’t need to speak for him. He has adequately spoken for himself on the record.

Then quote him, don't simply paraphrase him.

Simple!



Ah. Then before I presume too much, are you familiar with the American Psychiatric Association? They have an ethical rule nicknamed the Goldwater Rule that prohibits diagnosing or speaking about the mental health of people they haven’t examined. Now do you agree that it’s an ethical breach?

Yes, I'm familiar with it. No, I don't agree with it.


I’m not attempting to speak for you. If you think we’ve gained something, I’d like to know what you think we’ve gained.


The knowledge that professional psychiatrists think Trump is dangerously mentally ill.




A medical diagnosis does not give a layperson useful information.



What utter rubbish.
 

Back
Top Bottom