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

[xjx388]

He cannot stop, he cannot help himself. When you understand that you can see all his actions are because he's mentally ill.

In all the Trump threads people in this forum are still saying things like he's doing X for his base.

Sometimes that is true like his pandering to the Evangelicals and hugging the flag. His wall and some of his racism is pandering. I say some because some of it is his own racism.

But the majority of the time Trump is only about Trump. There is no more behind his actions than that.

It's absurd to 'not talk about it as a professional'. It would be disengenious.


You need to reassess your heel digging in here.

Dr Lee is very passionate about her obligation to speak out about Trump. Co-authored with Thomas Singer, MD
Mental Health Experts Urge Revision of the Goldwater Rule - Psychiatrists formally propose revising a highly divisive rule.


BTW, this is not about profiting from the book:

There's more but it will have to wait, I can't keep my eyes open.

Thanks for that.

I guess we will see what the profession as a whole decides to do. I don't have a vote, of course, but if I did, I would be OK with a modification to the Goldwater rule that allowed professionals to speak out if: 1)They made clear that they haven't formally evaluated the subject and their opinion has limitations and 2)They aren't making any diagnosis of mental illness.

ETA: I'd also like to see, along with a modification, a formal investigation of appropriate methodology to use in making such public commentary. What does the evidence show about the reliability of such "remote assessment?"

 

[3point14]

Surely we're well past the point that there's any credibility left in defending the man?

 

[Bob001]

.....
ETA: I'd also like to see, along with a modification, a formal investigation of appropriate methodology to use in making such public commentary. What does the evidence show about the reliability of such "remote assessment?"

You simply refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that the President holds a unique position in our society, and this particular President's life has been thoroughly and extensively documented at least back to his 30s, probably much more so than any other political figure. Whatever rules you think should apply to ordinary people in ordinary circumstances just don't work here, and there is just no evidence about any other situation that would be applicable here.

 

[xjx388]

You simply refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that the President holds a unique position in our society, and this particular President's life has been thoroughly and extensively documented at least back to his 30s, probably much more so than any other political figure. Whatever rules you think should apply to ordinary people in ordinary circumstances just don't work here, and there is just no evidence about any other situation that would be applicable here.

I would say that many here refuse to acknowledge that opinions that are supposed to be rooted in science should follow some scientific methodology.

All I am asking is for exactly that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... ETA: I'd also like to see, along with a modification, a formal investigation of appropriate methodology to use in making such public commentary. What does the evidence show about the reliability of such "remote assessment?"

Surely we're well past the point that there's any credibility left in defending the man?

You simply refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that the President holds a unique position in our society, and this particular President's life has been thoroughly and extensively documented at least back to his 30s, probably much more so than any other political figure. Whatever rules you think should apply to ordinary people in ordinary circumstances just don't work here, and there is just no evidence about any other situation that would be applicable here.

I would say that many here refuse to acknowledge that opinions that are supposed to be rooted in science should follow some scientific methodology.

All I am asking is for exactly that.

We're not the one's with arbitrary limits.

Why do you limit the science to some narrow definition of evidence gathered in a clinic? We aren't talking about methodology of a research project.

Look at what I highlighted on Bob's post.

When I evaluate a patient I look at all the evidence I have. Sometimes that even includes which pathogens are circulating in the community. I might look at the pressure someone is under knowing they just moved here from flooded Dallas.

Why would I dismiss the volumes of material we have on Trump? Oohhh, can't use that, it wasn't gathered in a formal interview.

How about the observations I've made since he was elected? Can I use that? Go back to the beginning of this thread. I said he has a pathological personality disorder and it is affecting his behavior.

Fast forward a bit and I said something to the effect he was never going to act 'Presidential' because he has a pathological personality disorder and it is controlling his behavior.

Fast forward to the present. One can predict his behavior based on the fact he can't help himself. He is incapable of thoughts and actions separate from his pathological personality disorder. He can't help himself. He's 100% predictable based on his pathological personality disorder. Why toss out all that evidence including confirmatory evidence because you have some bizarre idea about scientific methodology, which by the way, is not what one uses to assess a patient?
Diagnostic methodology using scientific evidence based medicine is what one uses to diagnose a patient.

 

[xjx388]

We're not the one's with arbitrary limits.

Medicine has clearly defined limits based on the evidence. Medicine is not making things up as you go along just because you have a piece of paper that says you can practice medicine.

Why do you limit the science to some narrow definition of evidence gathered in a clinic? We aren't talking about methodology of a research project.

Because as a clinician, that's what a medical professional is supposed to do. There is no science about watching someone on TV, reading their tweets, etc and drawing conclusions about their mental state.

Look at what I highlighted on Bob's post.

How do you know all that public information is accurate or reflective of a public figure's true mental state?

When I evaluate a patient I look at all the evidence I have. Sometimes that even includes which pathogens are circulating in the community. I might look at the pressure someone is under knowing they just moved here from flooded Dallas.

Right, because there is science that shows which pathogens are most likely to be involved and how stress can lower the immune system.

Why would I dismiss the volumes of material we have on Trump? Oohhh, can't use that, it wasn't gathered in a formal interview.

Because you can't vet the accuracy and relevance of public domain information. You can't be sure that what he presents to the public on his TV shows, interviews, etc is reflective of his true personality or mental state. A formal interview affords the opportunity to probe deeper using validated tools over time, to get to know the subject and interact with them.

How about the observations I've made since he was elected? Can I use that? Go back to the beginning of this thread. I said he has a pathological personality disorder and it is affecting his behavior.

So what? I said he is a narcissitic ******* and that's affecting his behavior. I fail to see how dressing your opinion in medical terms makes it more helpful than my lay opinioin. Same exact result and predictions.

Fast forward a bit and I said something to the effect he was never going to act 'Presidential' because he has a pathological personality disorder and it is controlling his behavior.

That's not the only possible reason that he will never act Presidential.

Fast forward to the present. One can predict his behavior based on the fact he can't help himself. He is incapable of thoughts and actions separate from his pathological personality disorder. He can't help himself. He's 100% predictable based on his pathological personality disorder. Why toss out all that evidence including confirmatory evidence because you have some bizarre idea about scientific methodology, which by the way, is not what one uses to assess a patient?

You don't have real medical evidence: you have your observations and your interpretation based on only one possible reading that you've arrived at. You outright reject the idea that it's possible he could simply be incompetent and just a bad person.

I think it's shocking and revealing that you would say medical professionals don't use scientific methodology to assess a patient. That is unfathomable to me. If medical diagnosis and assesment is not based on science, then what do you think it is based on?

Diagnostic methodology using scientific evidence based medicine is what one uses to diagnose a patient.

How is that different? Where is the scientific evidence based medicine in remote diagnosis?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well, 1037 pages in and it's still the same arguments made by the same two people. What's the old saw about insanity being repeating the same actions and expecting different results? Donald 'Bananas' Trump may or may not be crazy but we've got mounting evidence for a case for y'all!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, 1037 pages in and it's still the same arguments made by the same two people. What's the old saw about insanity being repeating the same actions and expecting different results? Donald 'Bananas' Trump may or may not be crazy but we've got mounting evidence for a case for y'all!

I know. Just when I thought the discussion had moved an inch forward, the old already addressed ad nauseum argument spews forth again.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

[snipped all answered already dozens of times]

... you have your observations and your interpretation based on only one possible reading that you've arrived at. You outright reject the idea that it's possible he could simply be incompetent and just a bad person.

[snipped more of the same]

OK, let's get to that one inch of meat here.

Maybe you cannot see what is clearly pathological and not merely incompetent behavior because you are not a medical professional.

 

[Bob001]

I would say that many here refuse to acknowledge that opinions that are supposed to be rooted in science should follow some scientific methodology.

All I am asking is for exactly that.

Mental illness is largely diagnosed by assessing the subject's thinking and behavior, not by some medical test. That's why psychologists, who are not medical doctors, are trained and licensed to treat it. Trump's thinking and behavior are more deeply and extensively documented than they could ever be for any ordinary patient. The Yale doctors and others have described in detail the basis for their conclusions. And they have said that their responsibility is to the community and the nation, not to a public official who is not their patient.

And here's what Dr. Lee thinks of the APA:

I rather hold responsible the institutions that propped him up for their short-term profits, and the American Psychiatric Association is chief among them. Given that the insidious effects of mental pathology defined this whole presidency, the Association was in a unique position to prevent vast suffering. Psychiatrists understand not just mental illness but criminal behavior, violence, capacity to serve in an office, and many other things. By aggressively shaping a milieu where mental health professionals would not be able to share their knowledge as a national mental health crisis was unfolding, the Association instead primed the public to become the president’s prey.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/ya...hove-been-sucked-into-the-vortex-of-his-lies/

What don't you get? Does it help you sleep better to believe there's no scientific proof that a raving, raging lunatic occupies the White House?

 

[xjx388]

OK, let's get to that one inch of meat here.

Maybe you cannot see what is clearly pathological and not merely incompetent behavior because you are not a medical professional.

I think we can find some common ground here.


Yes. Exactly. Neither can the vast majority of the voting public. So what value will the public get out of diagnostic terms, "dangerously mentally ill," etc? They are in no position to judge the validity of such things. They either accept it on the authority of the "Doctor" title or they accept or reject it on political/personal grounds.

What it has the danger of doing is creating an image of mental illness as "incompetent, stupid, Trump-like." It can cause mistrust of mental health professionals: "Those stupid doctors just want to attack Trump!" And for what, exactly?

 

[Lurch]

I find it truly fascinating how it is that the higher up the rungs of power and responsibility, the less demanding are the qualifications, and the more willing we are to overlook incompetence, if not criminality.

Those who would forgive and support in the White House such a wretch as Trump would not do so were he their child's teacher, for example. As I've said before, we hold a pimple-faced kid flipping burgers to a more rigorous standard, and impose redress for poor performance with all alacrity.

Why not for the most powerful position in the land?

 

[3point14]

I find it truly fascinating how it is that the higher up the rungs of power and responsibility, the less demanding are the qualifications, and the more willing we are to overlook incompetence, if not criminality.

Those who would forgive and support in the White House such a wretch as Trump would not do so were he their child's teacher, for example. As I've said before, we hold a pimple-faced kid flipping burgers to a more rigorous standard, and impose redress for poor performance with all alacrity.

Why not for the most powerful position in the land?

Because the US political system is built on the principle that's impossible to be politically neutral.

 

[dann]

Sure . . . but he's not a doctor. I don't hold him to their standards. I hold him to the standards of an elected official. I find his behavior is dangerous and unethical because he fails to listen to his medical advisors and incorporate their expertise in his thinking. He thinks he's smarter than them and his word is gold. Even so, there is no real ethical code or standard of practice for elected officials. My analysis is just based on what I think our elected officials should do, whereas my analysis of the doctors is based on the standards and ethics of their profession.

At this point, I find it astonishing that after Trump has been in office for 40 months, not one single medical or other advisor has had the guts to say out loud at one of his press briefings that he is pathologically incompetent and should be removed immediately. Is it really consistent with their standards and ethics to let him ramble on? Are they so opportunistic that they can't see how liberating it would be for the country (and to some extent for the rest of the world as well) to have a brave advisor stop brownnosing and say to his face in front of open mics and cameras: "Donny, you have the mental capacity of a not-too-bright, extremely obnoxious five-year-old, and you need to be removed for the common good of everybody else."

I guess the brave heroes that you always see in American movies standing up to lunatic tyrants just don't exist in real life. The USA as a country has always laughed at the crazy things that guys like Kim Jong-Un got away with - and always with the undertone: Thank God, It could never happen here! And yet, not a single expert in any field has dared to oppose him openly at the press briefings, and even the critical journalists remain polite and ask the monster questions as if he were somehow normal and capable of understanding and answering the questions.

Trump dismisses concerns over surge of inquiries about safety of ingesting disinfectant – as it happened (Guardian, April 28)

 

[3point14]

At this point, I find it astonishing that after Trump has been in office for 40 months, not one single medical or other advisor has had the guts to say out loud at one of his press briefings that he is pathologically incompetent and should be removed immediately. Is it really consistent with their standards and ethics to let him ramble on? Are they so opportunistic that they can't see how liberating it would be for the country (and to some extent for the rest of the world as well) to have a brave advisor stop brownnosing and say to his face in front of open mics and cameras: "Donny, you have the mental capacity of a not-too-bright, extremely obnoxious five-year-old, and you need to be removed for the common good of everybody else."

I guess the brave heroes that you always see in American movies standing up to lunatic tyrants just don't exist in real life. The USA as a country has always laughed at the crazy things that guys like Kim Jong-Un got away with - and always with the undertone: Thank God, It could never happen here! And yet, not a single expert in any field has dared to oppose him openly at the press briefings, and even the critical journalists remain polite and ask the monster questions as if he were somehow normal and capable of understanding and answering the questions.

Trump dismisses concerns over surge of inquiries about safety of ingesting disinfectant – as it happened (Guardian, April 28)

You're expecting the press to be all "You can't handle the truth!" where, in fact, they're much more "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

 

[dann]

No, I don't really expect much. I'm just pointing out a certain ... I don't know, cognitive dissonance, maybe, in the U.S. self-perception.

 

[jimbob]

Sure . . . but he's not a doctor. I don't hold him to their standards. I hold him to the standards of an elected official. I find his behavior is dangerous and unethical because he fails to listen to his medical advisors and incorporate their expertise in his thinking. He thinks he's smarter than them and his word is gold. Even so, there is no real ethical code or standard of practice for elected officials. My analysis is just based on what I think our elected officials should do, whereas my analysis of the doctors is based on the standards and ethics of their profession.

You seem to be trying to eat your cake and have it.

Yes you criticise Trump, but you also criticise anyone who tries to point out that he's actually and literally losing his mind.

It *really* doesn't take a full on medical examination when he exhibits so many signs.

It might take a proper medical evaluation to determine what in particular is wrong with him, but spotting that *something* is seriously wrong and that he's losing capacity is easy.

It is important to know what is wrong though. In case it is the sort of ghing that leads to irrational violence against himself or others, when he has such military power at his command.

 

[Stacyhs]

Trump: I've done a spectacular job!
Death toll: nearing 62,000 and rising.

Nah, he's mentally very stable.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, I don't really expect much. I'm just pointing out a certain ... I don't know, cognitive dissonance, maybe, in the U.S. self-perception.

He appointed every one of them from his sycophant-group of worshipers.

I am reminded of going to hear John Dean speak. He said being around the POTUS one was sort of star-struck. I was surprised because I would have thought all the people at the top with the POTUS felt at least on par with Nixon.

Trump rewards people who are star-struck, allowing them to be around him. Look at Cohen, he thought he and Trump were best friends, all the while Trump was just using him. And Pence, putting his water bottle on the floor when Trump did. That's nuts and no way is Pence going to rationally decide they really do need Article 25.

Back to the latest example of pathologic narcissism vs stupidity:

Guardian (also reported in multiple news sources):Trump erupts over poll slump and threatens to sue campaign manager

But the blow-up was just the latest in a series of tense moments between Trump and his 2020 re-election team, according to reports from multiple outlets including the Washington Post, the Associated Press and CNN.

“I’m not ******* losing to Joe Biden,” Trump reportedly said on a call with Parscale during a meeting with aides. According to multiple sources who spoke to the AP, the president cursed at Parscale repeatedly.

He's mad and venting, OK, how is that pathological? Very significant denial and fabrication of his own reality.

Trump deflected much of the blame for the disappointing polls, ignoring criticism of his performances at the podium during daily White House coronavirus press briefings, where he has repeatedly attacked the media for questioning delays in the government’s response, pushed misinformation and shown little empathy for victims.

... political advisers briefed Trump on data sourced internally and from the Republican National Committee. The figures showed the president losing ground against Biden in key battleground states. ...

The president allegedly balked at the guidance, insisting viewers “love” them and think he’s “fighting for them”. Trump instead pointed to restricted travel and an inability to host campaign rallies as the source of the slump.

There was more denial plus pathologic projection:

Trump shot back at reports of his growing frustration on Wednesday, telling Reuters he doesn’t “believe the polls”.

“I believe the people of this country are smart. And I don’t think that they will put a man in who’s incompetent,” he said of Biden.

That is not just incompetence, it includes frank denial that he might be responsible for dropping approval in the polls. That mixed with not believing the polls but instead replacing that with his fantasy, people love him, he's doing great. He blames everyone but himself.

This repeating pattern happens over and over again: denial and delusion, projection and always finding a reason he is great, hasn't failed, hasn't slipped up. That whole thing with the disinfectants for treatment was only because of the way the dishonest media lied about him.

Repeatable, predictable, and well beyond incompetence and increasing senility. IOW observable pathological behavior.


As for laypersons not knowing how to interpret the information, bullocks! That differs by the individual, but not because they are laypersons.

 

[dann]

It is important to know what is wrong though. In case it is the sort of ghing that leads to irrational violence against himself or others, when he has such military power at his command.

I wouldn't mind the former as much as the latter.