Three Professors of Psychiatry call for "neuropsychiatric evaluation"

For most of my life I've felt that you have to have some kind of psychological defect to want to be president. But since we need a president anyway I figure we just have to make do with the situation as it is. Hell, maybe it's the defect that makes it possible to do the job.

Anyway, we've never needed a psych eval before. Asking for one now is special pleading, as far as I'm concerned.

He's had the same evaluation as every other president: the evaluation of the American people. And a majority of Americans in a majority of states have evaluated him as being fit for office. It's true that a majority of Americans living in a few of the densest urban centers evaluated him as unfit, but I've always felt that you have to have some kind of psychological defect to live in a dense urban center. So there's that.
 
psionl0 said:
Much as you would like it to be (selectively) otherwise, being full of yourself is not a mental illness. * The idea that somebody might have to prove that they are not insane is even more insidious than requiring somebody to prove that they are not guilty of a crime. At least the latter doesn't depend on somebody else's opinion.

* No doubt some "experts" would say it is a sign of insanity.
Click to expand...

We've been over this with specific diagnostic differences including citations of professionals, one of which said Trump's behaviors are so classic he could use clips of Trump to teach medical students about the disease.

Yet you continue to insist Trump's behaviors are just those of a conceited jerk. No, they are not. His behaviors are pathological, and that is not hyperbole.

I suggest you do some reading about narcissistic personality disorder before you continue to assert that of which you don't appear to have the expertise to make your assertions. People who do have the expertise agree he has classic symptoms.
 
Aepervius said:
To do a proper diagnose you need more than observe somebody from a distance. But there are warning signs. And those warning signs are what you underplay. Those warning sign could lead to something or to nothing. The point is that to ignore warning signs when that same person will shape foreign policy, is utterly moronic.
Click to expand...

Just what is it you think one might see that has not been on full display in public for the last year?
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Are you suggesting that calls for formal evaluation based on professional opinion of observed behavior be mocked and dismissed because those opinions aren't based on a formal evaluation?

Seems a bit paradoxical.
Click to expand...
I'm saying it's sophistry. I'm saying they're trying to get around the ethical standards of their profession, in order to make exactly the kind of public pronouncement those standards forbid.

They wrote a letter to Obama, which is meaningless, and then published it in the Huffington Post. Which is meaningful, but not for the purpose of actually getting a formal evaluation.
 
Last edited:
Craig4 said:
Where were these guys during the campaign? It's a bit late now.
Click to expand...

Other professionals weighed in. The voters were snookered, the particular disorder makes for a good con man. Plus Clinton won by almost 3 million more votes than Trump.
 
I agree that a psych evaluation and pre-emptive impeachment (?) is not a solution, but folks who think such questions are arising from the collective butthurt of sore losers are way off the mark.

This is not about the loss of an election (especially the loss of a candidate most of us were "meh" about anyway). It's about handing the reins of the world's foremost superpower to someone (a) not even remotely qualified to take them and (b) who lives in a reality of his own construction.

I'd so love to be proven wrong about this but I've seen nothing to suggest that this can end well. I can't see anything to do about it though but hold on tight and hope for the best.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yes, we know that, it was discussed ad nauseum in previous Trump threads. It doesn't change the facts in this case.
Click to expand...

The facts being that you are willing to discard the result of an election when it doesn't go your way.
 
theprestige said:
There is not a single peer reviewed study that correlates social media activity with mental disorder. There is not a single peer reviewed study that correlates media representations with mental disorder. There's a reason the mental health community has adopted the professional standard of not diagnosing people--no matter how important they might be--without a proper clinical examination.
....
Click to expand...

Not so fast. A "proper clinical examination" consists basically of conversations to obtain information, ask questions and observe responses. But most patients haven't been public figures for 40 years. There are literally hundreds of hours of video -- not random tweets -- that show Trump making outrageous statements that have no basis in fact, contradicting himself within minutes (even within the same sentence), losing the thread of his thoughts, threatening violence against opponents and the media, etc., etc., etc. He has given hours of testimony under oath in connection with his numerous lawsuits. People who have worked closely with him have talked about his habits and behavior. All of this provides plenty of evidence to assess his mental processes.
 
Last edited:
Please, this is all partisan bias. Donald Trump is every bit as sane, rational, and in touch with reality as his friend Kanye West.
 
theprestige said:
Plus Clinton lost by ten states to Trump.
Click to expand...

For the purpose of determining who will be president of all the people, a "state" is an arbitrary group of people living within an imaginary line on the ground. Giving a state extra power in that selection, over and above the power of the individual people living in that state, is simply a way to magnify the power those people have, which is clearly undemocratic. Furthermore, it was deliberately intended to protect the power of the people who run the state, not the people themselves, in order to get them to go along with federalization.
 
WilliamSeger said:
For the purpose of determining who will be president of all the people, a "state" is an arbitrary group of people living within an imaginary line on the ground. Giving a state extra power in that selection, over and above the power of the individual people living in that state, is simply a way to magnify the power those people have, which is clearly undemocratic. Furthermore, it was deliberately intended to protect the power of the people who run the state, not the people themselves, in order to get them to go along with federalization.
Click to expand...

A state isn't any less arbitrary than a nation.
 
BobTheCoward said:
A state isn't any less arbitrary than a nation.
Click to expand...

And that's an even lamer excuse than theprestige's for an undemocratic process to select the president of that nation. In fact, it isn't even an excuse; it's simply sophistry through obfuscation.
 
WilliamSeger said:
And that's an even lamer excuse than theprestige's for an undemocratic process to select the president of that nation. In fact, it isn't even an excuse; it's simply sophistry through obfuscation.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the prestige wrote and I don't care. I'm going after your sophistry that states are arbitrary when discussing national elections as if the.nation isn't arbitrary lines on the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom