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

[theprestige]

Yyyyes but being pros they have more knowledge and expertise on the subject matter and, usually, we give more weight to their opinions... unless you think expert opinion isn't worth more than layman opinions.

Experts have to earn trust the same as everyone else. And at the end of the day, their opinions have to be scrutable to the lay audiences they are trying to address.

Opinions from experts in a poorly regulated, unsupervised profession probably shouldn't be trusted just because they're experts. You don't necessarily want the opinions of Blackwater veterans, on the topic of destroying the village versus saving the village.

Likewise, opinions from experts who break from their profession's regulations or standards probably also shouldn't be trusted just because they're experts. The whole point of regulating and standardizing a profession is to make it more trustworthy. When a professional presents their "expert" opinion, you know it's reliable because it's consistent with the framework of reliability established by their profession. This is the fundamental problem the Yale group faces: They want all the advantages that accrue to a profession that has established its trustworthiness, but also all the advantages of departing from their profession's framework of trustworthiness.

 

[Steve]

Experts have to earn trust the same as everyone else. And at the end of the day, their opinions have to be scrutable to the lay audiences they are trying to address.

Opinions from experts in a poorly regulated, unsupervised profession probably shouldn't be trusted just because they're experts. You don't necessarily want the opinions of Blackwater veterans, on the topic of destroying the village versus saving the village.

Likewise, opinions from experts who break from their profession's regulations or standards probably also shouldn't be trusted just because they're experts. The whole point of regulating and standardizing a profession is to make it more trustworthy. When a professional presents their "expert" opinion, you know it's reliable because it's consistent with the framework of reliability established by their profession. This is the fundamental problem the Yale group faces: They want all the advantages that accrue to a profession that has established its trustworthiness, but also all the advantages of departing from their profession's framework of trustworthiness.

In the particular case of the experts who are the topic of this thread:

There is no evidence that they have contravened the clinical standards of their profession in a way that would bring their assessment of Donald Trump’s mental health into question. Their expert opinion on Donald Trump’s mental heath was arrived at using the standards of their profession. It is reliable. Their opinions are scrutable to the lay audience they are addressing.

They are not practicing in a poorly regulated or unsupervised profession.

There is no evidence that they want “advantages”. In what way does their published opinion provide them with advantages?

The argument is that they should not publicize their opinions of Trump’s mental health due to a regulation of an organization that they may or may not belong to. This has nothing to do with the validity of their argument.

 

[xjx388]

In the particular case of the experts who are the topic of this thread:



There is no evidence that they have contravened the clinical standards of their profession in a way that would bring their assessment of Donald Trump’s mental health into question. Their expert opinion on Donald Trump’s mental heath was arrived at using the standards of their profession. It is reliable. Their opinions are scrutable to the lay audience they are addressing.

You are quite clearly off base here. There is no standard of practice for distant diagnosis. There is no methodology that has been peer reviewed and adopted by the profession.

What they are doing has exactly one, somewhat equivalent, precedent: Barry Goldwater. An ethical rule was created to prevent a similar debacle. In the 50+ years since then, there has not been any research whatsoever on the reliability of clinical impressions formed from public domain information.

The argument is that they should not publicize their opinions of Trump’s mental health due to a regulation of an organization that they may or may not belong to. This has nothing to do with the validity of their argument.

Putting aside ethics, what evidence do you have that the Yale Group used the standards of their profession to arrive at a valid and reliable expert opinion?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Experts have to earn trust the same as everyone else. And at the end of the day, their opinions have to be scrutable to the lay audiences they are trying to address.

That's a catch 22 in this case. The professionals who publicly reported their duty to warn couldn't have done that if you and xjx had your way. How are they supposed to address a lay audience if they can't speak up?

"We'd like to warn you about Trump but we can't"?

Opinions from experts in a poorly regulated, unsupervised profession probably shouldn't be trusted just because they're experts. You don't necessarily want the opinions of Blackwater veterans, on the topic of destroying the village versus saving the village.

Likewise, opinions from experts who break from their profession's regulations or standards probably also shouldn't be trusted just because they're experts. The whole point of regulating and standardizing a profession is to make it more trustworthy. When a professional presents their "expert" opinion, you know it's reliable because it's consistent with the framework of reliability established by their profession. This is the fundamental problem the Yale group faces: They want all the advantages that accrue to a profession that has established its trustworthiness, but also all the advantages of departing from their profession's framework of trustworthiness.

What bull ****.

And at a minimum you should stop calling an opinion of a professional organization a regulation. It is not a regulation.

The Yale report speaks for itself and will stand the test of time. And they've supported their decision not to follow the Goldwater Rule. Something xjx has failed do in supporting the rebuttal other than to stamp his feet and assert, "but but it's a rule!!!"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...what evidence do you have that the Yale Group used the standards of their profession to arrive at a valid and reliable expert opinion?

OMG, you're back to this nonsense?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In the particular case of the experts who are the topic of this thread:

There is no evidence that they have contravened the clinical standards of their profession in a way that would bring their assessment of Donald Trump’s mental health into question. Their expert opinion on Donald Trump’s mental heath was arrived at using the standards of their profession. It is reliable. Their opinions are scrutable to the lay audience they are addressing.

They are not practicing in a poorly regulated or unsupervised profession.

There is no evidence that they want “advantages”. In what way does their published opinion provide them with advantages?

The argument is that they should not publicize their opinions of Trump’s mental health due to a regulation [an official position] statement of an organization that they may or may not belong to. This has nothing to do with the validity of their argument.

This is an excellent post so forgive me that pedantic correction.

 

[xjx388]

The Yale report speaks for itself and will stand the test of time. And they've supported their decision not to follow the Goldwater Rule. Something xjx has failed do in supporting the rebuttal other than to stamp his feet and assert, "but but it's a rule!!!"

Talk about bull ******

xjx has linked directly to the APA's Ethics Committee opinion several times in this thread. Every point you have raised here has been addressed, not by me; but, by the APA.

 

[Steve]

This is an excellent post so forgive me that pedantic correction.

Thank you. I never mind corrections that are informative and increase accuracy.

 

[xjx388]

OMG, you're back to this nonsense?

You assert it's nonsense but you don't support your assertions.

Can you cite the evidenced-based standard of practice that they are utilizing to make their professional opinion?

Can you rebut this from the ethical opinion of the APA?

Basing professional opinions on a subset of behavior exhibited in the public sphere, even in the digital age where information may be abundant, is insufficient to render professional opinions and is a misapplication of psychiatric practice.

When you can do those two things, you might have a point about "nonsense."

 

[xjx388]

Thank you. I never mind corrections that are informative and increase accuracy.

Oh really? Try this on for size:

In the particular case of the experts who are the topic of this thread:

There is no evidence that they have contravened the clinical standards of their profession in a way that would bring their assessment of Donald Trump’s mental health into question. Their expert opinion on Donald Trump’s mental heath was not arrived at using the standards of their profession. It is reliable a misapplication of psychiatric practice.

Now it's an informative and accurate correction.

 

[Steve]

Oh really? Try this on for size:



Now it's an informative and accurate correction.

Does not fit. Your size is all wrong.

 

[xjx388]

Does not fit. Your size is all wrong.

Cute quip, and I really didn't expect you to thank me.

But it does seem that another correction is in order:

Thank you. I never mind corrections that are informative and increase accuracy. confirm my biases.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Talk about bull ******

xjx has linked directly to the APA's Ethics Committee opinion several times in this thread. Every point you have raised here has been addressed, not by me; but, by the APA.

For the most part that simply repeats the rule itself and that they stand by the position.

There is this which clearly notes there are exceptions to diagnosing without a face to face exam:

. In some circumstances, such as forensic evaluations, psychiatrists may evaluate individuals based on other legal authorization such as a court order. Psychiatrists are ethically prohibited from evaluating individuals without permission or other authorization

Getting a court order doesn't add to the accuracy of the diagnosis. So let's at least dispense with the nonsense Trump might not have pathologic narcissism.

That get's back to duty to warn. Other than reiterating they don't believe that should be an exception, it's still two groups of professionals who have a different opinions from each other.

None of that addresses a POTUS, or Trump, or the danger of this particular diagnosis, and most importantly, Yale et al haven't used any confidential information acquired in the line of duty so nothing is at issue here except the professional opinion.

Since the APA opinion applies to members, an individual professional has the absolute right to use their expertise as they see fit.

In the end all you have is a difference of opinion.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Talk about bull ******

xjx has linked directly to the APA's Ethics Committee opinion several times in this thread. Every point you have raised here has been addressed, not by me; but, by the APA.

Pretty sure everyone who cares in this thread has already seen that opinion.

... not by me ...

There's the rub. I think it's your opinion of that opinion that people have an issue with.

 

[xjx388]

For the most part that simply repeats the rule itself and that they stand by the position.



There is this which clearly notes there are exceptions to diagnosing without a face to face exam:Getting a court order doesn't add to the accuracy of the diagnosis. So let's at least dispense with the nonsense Trump might not have pathologic narcissism.



That get's back to duty to warn. Other than reiterating they don't believe that should be an exception, it's still two groups of professionals who have a different opinions from each other.



None of that addresses a POTUS, or Trump, or the danger of this particular diagnosis, and most importantly, Yale et al haven't used any confidential information acquired in the line of duty so nothing is at issue here except the professional opinion.



Since the APA opinion applies to members, an individual professional has the absolute right to use their expertise as they see fit.



In the end all you have is a difference of opinion.

Ok. Thanks for that.

When a doctor decides not to be a member of a professional association, they are not bound by the ethics code of that organization. I accept that. There’s no sanction such a doctor could face unless they violate a Medical Board rule or a law.

Does this mean that they get to make up their own ethics rules? Is the law and their conscience the only guide? I can’t accept a yes answer to either of those questions.

A doctor either acts ethically or they don’t. There has to be some objective standard by which to judge their actions. This idea of idiosyncratic ethics cannot be it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Does this mean that they get to make up their own ethics rules? ....

You keep arguing this all or none straw man. Personally I would not want a physician who didn't override 'the rules' when in their professional judgement it was called for. Dogmatism in medicine is dangerous.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Does this mean that they get to make up their own ethics rules? Is the law and their conscience the only guide? I can’t accept a yes answer to either of those questions.

Well then don't accept yes because no one in this thread is asking you to. I'd ask why the hell you have such a hard time this with but I think I see your problem.

A doctor either acts ethically or they don’t.

This is not true in the world of reality. Gray areas are all over the place.

There has to be some objective standard by which to judge their actions.

No. And this could probably mean that you have no idea what ethics actually are. Ethics are shared opinions about what people want in each others behavior. There is no objective standard built in to nature nor handed down by God.

This idea of idiosyncratic ethics cannot be it.

I don't see a single person in this thread proposing an idiosyncratic idea of ethics.

 

[xjx388]

You keep arguing this all or none straw man. Personally I would not want a physician who didn't override 'the rules' when in their professional judgement it was called for. Dogmatism in medicine is dangerous.

I agree in the sense that I don't think dogmatism in any endeavor is ever appropriate. I do acknowledge that there are grey areas.

However, even if ethics is not applied dogmatically, there are still ethical guidelines that require consideration and interpretation. You noted that the APA's Ethcs code doesn't apply to nonmembers. Well, ok then: which ethical codes do they use as a guide to their professional judgement?

There has to be some overarching, objective and external set of ethics that apply to the profession as a whole. Reading your words, it almost sounds as if you believe ethics is idiosyncratic, subjective and internal.

 

[xjx388]

Well then don't accept yes because no one in this thread is asking you to. I'd ask why the hell you have such a hard time this with but I think I see your problem.

Look, I get it. You don't agree with me and you think I'm way off base. Fine. Consider me informed as such.

This is not true in the world of reality. Gray areas are all over the place.

Yes, there are gray areas. Still, doctors either act ethically when confronted with a grey area or they don't. We can externally judge whether or not that ethical decision was sound.

No. And this could probably mean that you have no idea what ethics actually are. Ethics are shared opinions about what people want in each others behavior. There is no objective standard built in to nature nor handed down by God.

??? You must be confused; I never mentioned God or nature. The profession is responsible for creating the ethics code. Those "shared opinions" have been formalized into a Code of Ethics. That is the objective standard by which we can judge the actions of professionals.

I don't see a single person in this thread proposing an idiosyncratic idea of ethics.

Well, let's put it this way: If there is no external and objective ethical code; what else could it be but idiosyncratic?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

That is the objective standard by which we can judge the actions of professionals.

No, that is your subjective opinion that we grant it primacy. That does not make it objective. It's hand-waving the subjectivity away.

Well, let's put it this way: If there is no external and objective ethical code; what else could it be but idiosyncratic?

I quite literally just told you. They are shared opinions. Idiosyncratic means individual. Ethic codes are not individual.


This is what makes people want to make the subject about you. You don't appear to be disagreeing on this point, you appear to be failing to even hear it. You put "shared opinion" in scare quotes. Why?