Three Professors of Psychiatry call for "neuropsychiatric evaluation"

[Bob001]

....
You can make up your own mind about the lies of Clinton and Trump. But the statistics being cited are still bull ****.

So your problem is quantitative? You don't wanna say Trump lies "more" than Clinton? Great. Look at each individual citation. Cumulatively, they show Clinton as a scheming politician, and Trump as a raging lunatic. I wish that hadn't been our choice. But I don't have any trouble deciding who would have been better for me to have in the White House.

 

[Ziggurat]

So your problem is quantitative? You don't wanna say Trump lies "more" than Clinton? Great. Look at each individual citation. Cumulatively, they show Clinton as a scheming politician, and Trump as a raging lunatic. I wish that hadn't been our choice. But I don't have any trouble deciding who would have been better for me to have in the White House.

Good for you. I'm sure you voted accordingly.

Other people made different judgment calls, and voted differently as a result. There is no objective criteria to determine which judgment call is correct.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And yet again, you prove you don't understand anything about sampling or statistics. You are innumerate.

Yet again you describe your own world, devoid of facts that don't fit your narrative.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yet again you describe your own world, devoid of facts that don't fit your narrative.

... she said, ignoring the fact that Politifact's sampling method is uncontrolled and susceptible to multiple biases.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... she said, ignoring the fact that Politifact's sampling method is uncontrolled and susceptible to multiple biases.

... he said, ignoring all the evidence of 40 years of the GOP spreading lies about Clinton and everything about her life that is in the public sphere.

Much easier to cherry pick a little straw and act like it negates everything else.

 

[Ziggurat]

... he said, ignoring all the evidence of 40 years of the GOP spreading lies about Clinton and everything about her life that is in the public sphere.

Yeah, I'm ignoring that, because that's off topic and not relevant to the point I'm making, which isn't even about Clinton but about Politifact.

Much easier to cherry pick a little straw and act like it negates everything else.

I never said it negates anything else except this one thing. That's the fact of this discussion that you're ignoring.

You have no counter-argument, so you're desperately trying to change the topic.

 

[Navigator]

Man, this used to be a skeptics site.

 

[Minoosh]

This thread underscores a reason I want Jan. 20 to roll around fairly quickly. It seems the EC vote has rubbed emotions raw; at least that seems like the irritant that encouraged a spate of new threads. Another will be the inauguration. In between these events it seems people calm down and life is somewhat more normal. Also, once Trump is president his words and deeds will be, finally, the words and deeds of a public servant. This might make some difference in the conversation. Now, I know some people don't want things to seem "normal," but I see some value in chilling out and continuing to talk to each other without jeers or aspersions, because I think the American public needs to be on the same page for a while.

In the raw, open-wound phase of the Vietnam War, a 50-word constitutional amendment was approved in record time because that disaster finally resulted in a shared reality for many members of the public. If you were old enough to be killed in a war you were old enough to have a vote. There were holdouts but it took a little over 3 months to arrive at something like consensus. There has been only one amendment passed since then and it took 202 years. So, 1971 (IMO) was a U.S. highlight in national unity. As messed up as things were people seemed on board with one specific policy goal.

What did that unity cost? Fifty thousand young lives. I still see the Vietnam War as one of the biggest disasters in U.S. history, probably the biggest after the Civil War. There is IMO a chance for unity again, which is to realize, gradually if necessary, that Donald J. Trump is too unstable to serve as POTUS. But to come to consensus we have to stop calling each other names, needling each other at every opportunity, blaming each other for a vote that I see as unfortunate but perhaps inevitable, and as perfectly legal. The 1970s were a time of (IMO) healthy disillusionment. I want Americans to be on the same page again. Trump as U.S. president is a danger to himself and definitely a danger to others. We're not at consensus yet but that might come relatively soon. The tradeoff is, we have to accept the general election and Electoral College results as legitimate and quit the incessant finger-pointing that has characterized the past 6 weeks. We will get through this much more intactly if we can move forward from a position of mutual understanding.

 

[Bob001]

....
There is IMO a chance for unity again, which is to realize, gradually if necessary, that Donald J. Trump is too unstable to serve as POTUS.
....

What is this "unity" you speak of? It's entirely possible that Trump will function -- or only be allowed to function -- as a figurehead, and that the government will actually be run by Pence, the SecDef, SecState and his kids. The Republicans have made plain, pretty much since Obama's election, that they have no interest in unity, and Republican interests benefit most from a weak President who will do whatever they want.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is this "unity" you speak of? It's entirely possible that Trump will function -- or only be allowed to function -- as a figurehead, and that the government will actually be run by Pence, the SecDef, SecState and his kids. The Republicans have made plain, pretty much since Obama's election, that they have no interest in unity, and Republican interests benefit most from a weak President who will do whatever they want.

I love all these imaginary scenarios where Trump will be OK. They parallel all the imaginary scenarios people who voted for Trump had before they voted.

All said scenarios aren't taking into account Trump's personality disorder. A person with NPD that is as severe are Trump's is would be incapable of letting someone else run the show or tell him what to do such as stop Tweeting his undiplomatic messages. It's likely Trump is incapable of believing he is wrong or can't really run the country. So when he Tweets really stupid inflammatory things, again, for example, rather than hearing the message it is a bad thing to do, he makes up his own message, 'it's not PC, I'm not PC, that's what makes me great.'

He's also going to remain focused on himself. So when someone irritates him, like the way Bill Clinton is doing now in their little Twitter spat, Trump cannot help but react like a child. Think how it's going to go when leaders in China and Russia decide to make him look stupider and stupider which they surely will do.

It's not going to be Trump the figurehead, it's going to be Trump the incessantly ignorant interferer.

There is also going to be corruption like you've never seen, and Trump will be oblivious to it. If Boeing's CEO pisses him off, Trump may try to cancel contracts. If a country claims they were pressured to change a venue to a Trump facility (as just happened) Trump won't understand how that is corruption.

I foresee an impeachment.

 

[Bob001]

I love all these imaginary scenarios where Trump will be OK. They parallel all the imaginary scenarios people who voted for Trump had before they voted.
.....

No, I don't think Trump will be "okay." I think he will be directed and controlled by the right-wing extremists who want to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, environmental regulations etc., etc. Newt Gingrich has said he sees the Trump administration as an opportunity to turn the clock back to the pre-FDR era. But I don't think Trump will be operating on his own, and I don't think he will do or be allowed to do anything that would get him impeached by a Republican House and Senate.

 

[blutoski]

No, I don't think Trump will be "okay." I think he will be directed and controlled by the right-wing extremists who want to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, environmental regulations etc., etc. Newt Gingrich has said he sees the Trump administration as an opportunity to turn the clock back to the pre-FDR era. But I don't think Trump will be operating on his own, and I don't think he will do or be allowed to do anything that would get him impeached by a Republican House and Senate.

I see it as a possibility - as soon as his family's interests collide with one of Congress' lobbyists. If he starts expanding into Oil investment and uses the Executive to do an end run around Exxon, he's going down. Somebody will 'find' that Tom Arnold tape.

They don't need Trump. They'll have Pence to sign whatever they need, and he isn't lining his pockets. He's a True Believer.

 

[psionl0]

Your problem, not mine.

Huh.

I should be more surprised that you don't care about medical malpractice but you have already demonstrated that you believe that "appeal to authority" is a legitimate form of argument and not a fallacy.

 

[theprestige]

I see it as a possibility - as soon as his family's interests collide with one of Congress' lobbyists. If he starts expanding into Oil investment and uses the Executive to do an end run around Exxon, he's going down. Somebody will 'find' that Tom Arnold tape.

They don't need Trump. They'll have Pence to sign whatever they need, and he isn't lining his pockets. He's a True Believer.

Meh. This is just the Vice President Cheney narrative all over again. The only people buying it now are the ones who bought it then. Find some less stale material.

 

[Wolrab]

Golly, the three shrinks are Obama supporters. Two had their picture taken flanking Obama. Maybe they all skipped class the day confirmation bias and ethics was taught.

 

[Beerina]

By that measure almost every politician that ever was is a compulsive liar.

And?

Top politicians often have the trait of being able to lie convincingly. The job actually filters for people with that skill.

 

[sunmaster14]

I don't care if Trump supporters are convinced or not. I made my case, cited professionals that were in agreement.

This is an educational forum (sometimes). I notice some people here don't understand the difference between a trait and a disorder. Thought it was worth noting.

What is the difference between a trait and a disorder? Is it about a factor of 10 in terms of prevalence? Or is that the latter can be treated with medication and therapy and the former cannot?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

What is the difference between a trait and a disorder?

Traits can be set aside when the situation calls for it. Disorders can't.

The problem with Trump having NPD isn't that he's a narcissist - you don't run for President without a bit of an ego - but that he can't stop being a narcissist.

Consider: he's going to be in the highest office in the land, the most powerful man in the free world, and still the people he picks for his team are unqualified lickspittles out for their own personal enrichment. Even now, at the apex of his or anyone else's career, he'd rather work with someone who'll kiss his ass every single day for giving them their posts than someone who knows what the hell they're doing.

That's why all his businesses have crumbled. That's why we're in for a rough couple of years.

 

[sunmaster14]

Traits can be set aside when the situation calls for it. Disorders can't.

I don't think this properly distinguishes the two. Disabling traits lie on a continuum. Furthermore, they depend on context. As President, Trump's "disorder" might actually prove to be a strength rather than a weakness. I have already been pleasantly surprised by his performance so far.

The problem with Trump having NPD isn't that he's a narcissist - you don't run for President without a bit of an ego - but that he can't stop being a narcissist.

Consider: he's going to be in the highest office in the land, the most powerful man in the free world, and still the people he picks for his team are unqualified lickspittles out for their own personal enrichment. Even now, at the apex of his or anyone else's career, he'd rather work with someone who'll kiss his ass every single day for giving them their posts than someone who knows what the hell they're doing.

That's why all his businesses have crumbled. That's why we're in for a rough couple of years.

I can't think of anyone who fits this description, except perhaps Ben Carson. Although, ironically, I think Carson will prove to be a good match for the job he'll have. Do you have any examples in mind?

 

[WilliamSeger]

What is the difference between a trait and a disorder? Is it about a factor of 10 in terms of prevalence? Or is that the latter can be treated with medication and therapy and the former cannot?

http://psychcentral.com/personality/

Personality disorders form a class of mental disorders that are characterized by long-lasting, rigid patterns of thought and behavior. Because of the inflexibility and pervasiveness of these patterns, they can cause serious problems and issues in a person's life if they are diagnosed with a personality disorder. Personality disorders are categorized by clusters of characteristics that share common themes or elements. While most people recognize traits of themselves in many different personality disorders, a person who qualifies for a personality disorder diagnosis will exhibit most such traits of a disorder.

​

Personality disorders are seen by professionals and researchers as an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the culture of the individual who exhibits it. These patterns are inflexible and pervasive across many situations. The onset of the pattern can be traced back at least to the beginning of adulthood. To be diagnosed as a personality disorder, a behavioral pattern must cause significant distress or impairment in personal, social, and/or occupational situations.

These disorders typically aren't diagnosed until an individual is a young adult, often not until their 20s or even 30s. Most individuals with personality diorders lead pretty normal lives and often only seek psychotherapeutic treatment during times of increased stress or social demands. As previously mentioned, most people can relate to some or all of the personality traits listed The important difference is that it does not affect most people's daily functioning to the same degree it might someone diagnosed with one of these disorders. Personality disorders tend to be an intergral part of a person, and therefore, are difficult to treat or "cure."