|
Post by robeiae on Sept 18, 2017 8:21:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 18, 2017 11:49:39 GMT -5
Well, I'm not sympathetic to Trump in any way, shape or form, but I think that often applies. There's plenty of reason to criticize him and I'm first in line to do so, but it's getting ridiculous. The same could be said about former presidents, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. And it gets worse each time as well. Of course, with Trump, he brings so much of it on himself. Much, much more (I mean, much, much, much to the nth degree more) than the last few Presidents put together.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 18, 2017 13:42:05 GMT -5
It's really stupid and, to me, looks like an obvious and desperate attempt at a cash grab. So, this person went out and found "27 psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health experts" who said that Trump is "dangerously mentally ill." Big deal. There are approximately 30,000 psychiatrists (MD) and a little over 100,000 clinical psychologists (PhD) in the US right now. I have no idea how many non-psychiatrist, non-clinical-psychologist "mental health experts" there are in the US, because I have no idea what she's defining as a "mental health expert" that isn't an MD or PhD. Okay, the first two cited are Zimbardo (of the infamous Stanford Prison Study and who currently claims that America is doomed because boys are addicted to porn and video games) and his business partner (who claims to be a counselor in "the art form" of "the Hawaiian Psychology that is based on forgiveness," whatever the hell that means). Neither of them have any training or expertise in clinical psychology, so their opinions on this are worth about as much as my roommate's dog. Also, not many people in the field really take Zimbardo seriously these days, so he's not really a good example of an "expert" to tout for the book. Never heard of Malkin, so who cares what he says. Gail Sheehy is a journalist, so I'm not really sure how she qualifies as a "mental health expert." So...yeah. Perhaps Trump really is mentally ill. Perhaps he's just a narcissistic asshole who is also a bumbling idiot. Perhaps both. I don't know, but I do have my suspicions. But, my training isn't in clinical, so any pontificating I do is just my opinion and really isn't important to anyone else. Just like the opinions of the washed-ups and nobodies this woman put in her book. Personally, I think it's professionally irresponsible and grossly unethical for clinical any psychologists and/or psychiatrists to be publicly (by way of media) armchair diagnosing anyone, ESPECIALLY when their incentive for doing so is getting paid (like royalties from a published book).
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Sept 18, 2017 20:41:41 GMT -5
I must being missing some implication here, but I don't know what it is. I also don't understand how the "begging the question" fallacy applies.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 19, 2017 6:23:23 GMT -5
She seems too smart to be doing something so stupid, so she's probably the actual crazy one.
Or it's as Opty says: a cash grab.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Sept 19, 2017 11:52:42 GMT -5
It's really stupid and, to me, looks like an obvious and desperate attempt at a cash grab. So, this person went out and found "27 psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health experts" who said that Trump is "dangerously mentally ill." Big deal. There are approximately 30,000 psychiatrists (MD) and a little over 100,000 clinical psychologists (PhD) in the US right now. I have no idea how many non-psychiatrist, non-clinical-psychologist "mental health experts" there are in the US, because I have no idea what she's defining as a "mental health expert" that isn't an MD or PhD. Okay, the first two cited are Zimbardo (of the infamous Stanford Prison Study and who currently claims that America is doomed because boys are addicted to porn and video games) and his business partner (who claims to be a counselor in "the art form" of "the Hawaiian Psychology that is based on forgiveness," whatever the hell that means). Neither of them have any training or expertise in clinical psychology, so their opinions on this are worth about as much as my roommate's dog. Also, not many people in the field really take Zimbardo seriously these days, so he's not really a good example of an "expert" to tout for the book. Never heard of Malkin, so who cares what he says. Gail Sheehy is a journalist, so I'm not really sure how she qualifies as a "mental health expert." So...yeah. Perhaps Trump really is mentally ill. Perhaps he's just a narcissistic asshole who is also a bumbling idiot. Perhaps both. I don't know, but I do have my suspicions. But, my training isn't in clinical, so any pontificating I do is just my opinion and really isn't important to anyone else. Just like the opinions of the washed-ups and nobodies this woman put in her book. Personally, I think it's professionally irresponsible and grossly unethical for clinical psychologists and psychiatrists to be publicly (by way of media) armchair diagnosing anyone, ESPECIALLY when their incentive for doing so is getting paid (like royalties from a published book). First off, by your own admission, your training is not in psychiatry, psychology or mental health which means any pontificating by you is not from an informed one. All it is just your opinion and what an vapid, empty, uninformed, and ridiculous opinion it is. A sneering attempt to smear the opinions of those who are trained in psychiatry, psychology, and mental health as "washed up nobodies." It's far better to be a has-been than a never was. Who the hell are you to so pompously declare what is "professionally irresponsible and grossly unethical" for clinical psychologists and psychiatrists to do? The world is overrun with amateurs whose expertise is limited to being critical of professionals. This is not the first book or article to ponder the mental health of Donald Trump and with all the totally batshit crazy things he says and does, it won't be the last. I have no doubt with a little effort you can find 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts who will say the 27 who contributed to this book are full of crap, Opty. I also have no doubt a little effort is how much you'll put into debunking Lifton, Lee and the others. It's much easier to bend the elbow at the bar and pound drinks and pontificate about subjects you know nothing about. It's intellectually lazier too. She seems too smart to be doing something so stupid, so she's probably the actual crazy one. Or it's as Opty says: a cash grab. Or it's neither and you and Opty are doing your normalization thing where you'll mix in a mild criticism of Trump with a sharp criticism of another one you dislike. Only problem is when you're trying to make normal a guy who brags about grabbing women by the vagina, retweets GIFs of him swinging a golf club and the ball striking Hillary Clinton in the back and knocking her down and threatens to "totally destroy North Korea" and blow 25 million people to hell, it's really hard to make the case Trump is not completely insane. There's a madman in the White House. How you gonna make that seem normal?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Sept 19, 2017 17:36:28 GMT -5
She seems too smart to be doing something so stupid, so she's probably the actual crazy one. I honestly don't understand this. This otherwise intelligent, accomplished person must be crazy because she wrote this book? Why was writing this book "so stupid"? Is it because Trump isn't dangerous? The premise is flawed? Trump is reliable, safe, mentally sound? We should all be A-OK with Trump having the nuclear codes? I mean, if what they've written is unethical and/or harmful to the profession, that's one thing, and I'm on the fence about it, but that's not covered by a blanket "stupid." I kind of look at the Goldwater rule as being less-than-applicable when you're taking about a guy who has 50 or so years of public (and some unintended private) behavior on record, so there's a lot to study. But in addition, he's the POTUS. I actually don't think "duty to warn" is the proper way to express the sentiment, but when people with some authority, knowledge, and experience have opinions about the (arguably) most powerful person on earth, sitting on their hands because of some nebulous rule seems kind of "stupid." If Trump weren't POTUS, I'd say, leave him alone; not your problem and none of your (or the public's) business. But he is the POTUS, and he's ... he's... he's a fucking whackadoodle sometimes. (Layperson; doesn't count, heh.) It could be that the author, et al are being influenced by their own political views and so there's that sort of bias in the book. I kind of doubt it, but it's possible, and that would be annoying to me. (Hey, did any psychologists write a book about, say, George W. Bush?) I would like to know what they have to say, though I probably won't buy the book because I've already got so much to read and Trump isn't my favorite subject. Hopefully I'll be able to grab a synopsis at some point. As an aside, I have doubts the book will convert anyone -- likely more of a preaching to choir deal -- but that doesn't mean the author shouldn't have written it, and doesn't make writing it "stupid." IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 19, 2017 19:48:36 GMT -5
Or it's neither and you and Opty are doing your normalization thing where you'll mix in a mild criticism of Trump with a sharp criticism of another one you dislike. Only problem is when you're trying to make normal a guy who brags about grabbing women by the vagina, retweets GIFs of him swinging a golf club and the ball striking Hillary Clinton in the back and knocking her down and threatens to "totally destroy North Korea" and blow 25 million people to hell, it's really hard to make the case Trump is not completely insane. There's a madman in the White House. How you gonna make that seem normal? I'm not "normalizing" anything and your incessant attempts to paint anyone who tries to look rationally at issues related to politics as some sort of mouth-frothing apologist for Trump/racism/neonazism/whatever, is as annoying as it is laughable. My objections to the book are about the violations of professional APA ethics and the fact that these types of violations can not only tarnish the image of our entire field but negatively affect the health of our society. If a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist wants to give their personal opinion that some public figure is a shitbag and a horrible, misogynist pig, then that's fine. But once that MD/PhD tries to armchair diagnose a public figure, using their professional status to give the illusion of official or authoritative weight to that opinion, and make those statements to the public media, then that is a gross, undeniable ethical violation of both APAs Codes of Ethics. American Psychological Association: American Psychiatric Association:When psych professionals violate these clear ethical guidelines, it is bad and greatly frowned upon in the field. When they do it for money (such as by publishing a book they make royalties off of), it's even more egregious and I find that kind of behavior reprehensible. I can't stand Trump. I think he's an abomination. I voted for Hillary. But this type of public unethical behavior by psych professionals can have sizeable negative repercussions on the field's reputation and also the public trust in our field (which is already kind of shaky sometimes). If I were to hazard a guess, you're all for people doing this because what they're saying agrees with your opinions on Trump. That's understandable. Common enemy and all that. A lot of what they're saying agrees with my opinions too. But, I belong to a professional and academic community that has collectively agreed to abide by clear, written ethical guidelines. Those guidelines are in place to protect both ourselves and the public and were borne from a history of honest/naive mistakes, scientific ignorance, and malicious atrocities. So, when I see other psych professionals blatantly flout or otherwise ignore these important ethical principles, it really bothers me on a professional level, regardless of what my personal political opinions are. In addition, some of the people in that book aren't even in the clinical field. So, not only are they breaking ethical guidelines by speaking about the mental health of a public figure, some of them are breaking ethical guidelines even more by speaking outside of their areas of expertise. My area is cognitive psychology/neuroscience, but even I am bound by those same ethical principles. I can rant on a messageboard all I want, but if the media were to (for some god beknownst reason) ever ask me to publicly comment on or call into question the mental health of a public figure, or if someone were to call me up asking me to contribute to a book which did the same, then I would flatly refuse. Because I strive to be an ethical person and because it's outside of my area of expertise. The people in our field who do otherwise apparently aren't striving for the same. Upholding the ethical standards that a person agrees to when they enter a professional field is -with rare exception - the mature, reasonable, adult thing to do. Because violating those ethics can sometimes make things so much worse. Those people who egregiously violate their ethical codes, especially for money, shouldn't be lauded. It's the people who can stick to their ethical and professional principles, even when everything in them is sick of the upsetting shit they're seeing, that should be commended. Like this guy below:
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 19, 2017 20:15:06 GMT -5
Just to add, I quipped that it seemed like a cash grab because it appears she's only published 3 books. All were essay collections, but the first two seem to be more geared toward use as class textbooks and it doesn't appear that they were big sellers.
Her Trump book diverges quite significantly from the topics/content of her previous two books and, given that her other two likely weren't huge sellers, this one comes off to me as an attempt to capitalize on the daily controversy that is ClusterTrumpTM and the recent rumblings about his mental health.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Sept 20, 2017 12:44:02 GMT -5
Or it's neither and you and Opty are doing your normalization thing where you'll mix in a mild criticism of Trump with a sharp criticism of another one you dislike. Only problem is when you're trying to make normal a guy who brags about grabbing women by the vagina, retweets GIFs of him swinging a golf club and the ball striking Hillary Clinton in the back and knocking her down and threatens to "totally destroy North Korea" and blow 25 million people to hell, it's really hard to make the case Trump is not completely insane. There's a madman in the White House. How you gonna make that seem normal? I'm not "normalizing" anything and your incessant attempts to paint anyone who tries to look rationally at issues related to politics as some sort of mouth-frothing apologist for Trump/racism/neonazism/whatever, is as annoying as it is laughable. Well, that's not really my problem, now is it? If it's annoying to you I point out specific examples by specific posters how they are normalizing Trump's abnormal behavior, then it's just gonna be annoying. If it's annoying to you that I note how you aren't qualified to tell mental health professionals how to do their job, it's just going to be annoying. Because you're not and trying to act as if you are isn't looking rationally at issues and calling out these mental health professionals for wondering if a crazy acting Chief Executive actually is crazy as "washed-up nobodies" isn't remotely "rational." It's a rant. If that's annoying to you, then you're just gonna be annoyed. "Our" entire field, you say? What field is that? The Field of Dreams? You're not a psychologist or a psychiatrist or a mental health expert. Or maybe you are. Did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night? That's a very reasonable position for the APA and the APA to take. But how does it apply to Trump? But of course you would! You're always looking for things that allow you an opportunity to say its egregious and reprehensible behavior. It's good to look down your nose on others doing something you're not doing. But the Goldwater Rule was an outgrowth of a lawsuit and it's fair to ask, does it still apply in the Age of Trump?Times change. Presidents change. Rules have to change to match different times and extraordinary events. Trump has forced mental health professionals to reconsider the Goldwater Rule and whether not speaking out about his state of mind is the actual violation of professional ethics. It's not my place to say and it's not yours either. It's theirs. It's not within the purview of amateurs to tell the professionals how to do their job. There's that "our field" again. I'm all for mental health professionals being concerned about the mental health of a man who says he's going to totally destroy a country and possibly start World War III. That seems to me something worth being concerned about. My professional calling was journalism and I belonged to professional journalistic organization and followed their rules, guidelines and ethical and professional principles. BUT "ethical standards" can be about ass-covering as much as it is about doing no harm. My reading of the Goldwater Rule is it came to pass for both reasons. One noble and the other purely financial. Lawsuits are expensive and they can cost big when you're the loser of one. Let's not pretend this all about maintaining high-minded standards. It's not unethical to write a book and to sell it for money, so I don't understand why you've got a wild hair up your nose about that. Its not only those who stick to their ethical and professional principles who should be commended when their silence about an extreme situation is abetting and enabling it. It's also those who call out the disturbing behavior of a Donald Trump who deserve commendation. Or just don't buy the book. Problem solved.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 21, 2017 14:14:15 GMT -5
She seems too smart to be doing something so stupid, so she's probably the actual crazy one. I honestly don't understand this. This otherwise intelligent, accomplished person must be crazy because she wrote this book? Why was writing this book "so stupid"? Is it because Trump isn't dangerous? The premise is flawed? Trump is reliable, safe, mentally sound? We should all be A-OK with Trump having the nuclear codes? I mean, if what they've written is unethical and/or harmful to the profession, that's one thing, and I'm on the fence about it, but that's not covered by a blanket "stupid." I kind of look at the Goldwater rule as being less-than-applicable when you're taking about a guy who has 50 or so years of public (and some unintended private) behavior on record, so there's a lot to study. But in addition, he's the POTUS. I actually don't think "duty to warn" is the proper way to express the sentiment, but when people with some authority, knowledge, and experience have opinions about the (arguably) most powerful person on earth, sitting on their hands because of some nebulous rule seems kind of "stupid." If Trump weren't POTUS, I'd say, leave him alone; not your problem and none of your (or the public's) business. But he is the POTUS, and he's ... he's... he's a fucking whackadoodle sometimes. (Layperson; doesn't count, heh.) It could be that the author, et al are being influenced by their own political views and so there's that sort of bias in the book. I kind of doubt it, but it's possible, and that would be annoying to me. (Hey, did any psychologists write a book about, say, George W. Bush?) I would like to know what they have to say, though I probably won't buy the book because I've already got so much to read and Trump isn't my favorite subject. Hopefully I'll be able to grab a synopsis at some point. As an aside, I have doubts the book will convert anyone -- likely more of a preaching to choir deal -- but that doesn't mean the author shouldn't have written it, and doesn't make writing it "stupid." IMO. I don't see what's so hard to understand. Granted, the "crazy" is a little tongue-in-cheek, but then I do think unhinged is accurate. She--and the people whose help she enlisted--tossed their professional ethics out the window. And they did it for a book which--as you say--isn't likely to change any minds, whatsoever. Why? Either money or because they're unhinged about Trump...or maybe some of both. For me, that qualifies as stupid, without a doubt. Disagreement is fine, but there's nothing hard to understand, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Sept 21, 2017 19:38:32 GMT -5
I don't see what's so hard to understand. Granted, the "crazy" is a little tongue-in-cheek, but then I do think unhinged is accurate. She--and the people whose help she enlisted--tossed their professional ethics out the window. And they did it for a book which--as you say--isn't likely to change any minds, whatsoever. Why? Either money or because they're unhinged about Trump...or maybe some of both. For me, that qualifies as stupid, without a doubt. Disagreement is fine, but there's nothing hard to understand, imo. It has nothing to do with it being hard to understand. It's that the labels you ascribed didn't make sense. "This was crazy/stupid" is not the same as saying "this was an ethical violation" (in your opinion). You didn't say that. Opty did. You just said crazy/stupid. But as far as I understand now, from what you've said above, you think these people are unhinged for thinking Trump is dangerous. Gotta disagree with you there.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 22, 2017 6:13:39 GMT -5
No, I think they're crazy (unhinged) and stupid for tossing their professional ethics out the window to write this largely pointless book. I'm sorry the thread start wasn't clear to you, but that was the entire point of the article I cited that discussed the "Goldwater rule."
|
|
|
Post by Don on Sept 22, 2017 6:57:22 GMT -5
The assumption of ethical philosophy guiding their actions on the part of people like this is very charitable, rob. It's as generous as assuming that Nancy MacLean had no agenda in writing Democracy in Chains.
Some people wouldn't recognize ethics if it bit their leg off.
Ethics is to politics as water is to fire.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 22, 2017 7:25:31 GMT -5
Well, I guess I just expect the best from people. Because again, the author here has a very impressive resume, imo. It doesn't seem all that political to me, but perhaps I just don't know enough details.
|
|