Trump tweet proves mental illness

[CaptainCourtesy]

I know of no person who is attempting to state that there is anything OFFICIAL about the expressed opinions of mental health professionals regarding Trump.

Good. So you then agree that those opinions of Trump's mental health by those mental health professionals have no weight at all when it comes to any kind of actual diagnosis.

 

[haymarket]

Good. So you then agree that those opinions of Trump's mental health by those mental health professionals have no weight at all when it comes to any kind of actual diagnosis.

If you are defining the term ACTUAL DIAGNOSIS as an OFFICIAL DIAGNOSIS - then I agree. However, that does not mean that the opinion of thousands of mental health professionals based on their observances of Trump cannot be helpful in understanding the man and is actions. They serve as a warning to the nation and we should pay attention to that warning.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

If you are defining the term ACTUAL DIAGNOSIS as an OFFICIAL DIAGNOSIS - then I agree.

Good. We agree on this.

However, that does not mean that the opinion of thousands of mental health professionals based on their observances of Trump cannot be helpful in understanding the man and is actions. They serve as a warning to the nation and we should pay attention to that warning.

I don't agree. It's dangerous and unethical to do so. It takes a position of authority and uses it inappropriately. If a mental health professional says that someone is mentally ill, even though they have never actually done a professional clinical interview, their words will carry weight because of their position, even though their words are not based on any actual facts. It's an inappropriate use of position.

 

[holbritter]

Actually Comey said that Trump directed him to stop the investigation of Flynn .... he did not do that .... and was fired because of it.

I hope during the next 10 pages I read someone corrected you on this, but just in case: Comey did NOT say that. I listened to the whole testimony and Comey never said those words. Yes, words matter.

 

[haymarket]

Good. We agree on this.



I don't agree. It's dangerous and unethical to do so. It takes a position of authority and uses it inappropriately. If a mental health professional says that someone is mentally ill, even though they have never actually done a professional clinical interview, their words will carry weight because of their position, even though their words are not based on any actual facts. It's an inappropriate use of position.

As a general rule applied across the board - I would tend to agree with you and I think you have provided solid reasoning there. It can be dangerous to make long distance and detached diagnoses to people one knows little about.

I would disagree with your contention that their words "are not based on any actual facts".

I do think in the case of rare individuals who have a public record like Trump does, the amount of information one can assess from that long distance detached position is far more extensive and voluminous that one could probably get in a fifty minute session one to one in person. After all Trump has been the subject of many books, and has written books of his own revealing much about himself. He has given countless personal interviews revealing much about himself. He has given countless speeches revealing much about himself. The man has a four decade or more very public record in which he reveals a great deal of personal information about the person he is.

Those are lots of facts - many coming from the horses mouth. A trained mental health professional can observe these and gain insight to who Trump is.

I further think that it is a sense of patriotism that is motivating many of the thousands who have signed the petition and they do NOT want Trump to be committed or anything like that but do want the nation to look at this issue and hopefully super some discussion about it.

As you know, the President is the most powerful person on the planet and he is in a position to do great good or the opposite to our nation and its people and in fact the world at large. If a president is suffering from mental disabilities, the people need to know that.

I could be wrong, but I think that is the motivation here in these professionals intentionally ignoring or opposing the Goldwater Rule and making this a public issue.

I cannot disagree with those like yourself who opt to criticize them. That is valid and I believe they themselves know it and that is the chance they took in making this public knowing the Goldwater Rule would be invoked against their actions. But I think - for many of them - it speaks to their higher sense of patriotism and love of country that they would place themselves in that position in the first place.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

As a general rule applied across the board - I would tend to agree with you and I think you have provided solid reasoning there. It can be dangerous to make long distance and detached diagnoses to people one knows little about.

I would disagree with your contention that their words "are not based on any actual facts".

I do think in the case of rare individuals who have a public record like Trump does, the amount of information one can assess from that long distance detached position is far more extensive and voluminous that one could probably get in a fifty minute session one to one in person. After all Trump has been the subject of many books, and has written books of his own revealing much about himself. He has given countless personal interviews revealing much about himself. He has given countless speeches revealing much about himself. The man has a four decade or more very public record in which he reveals a great deal of personal information about the person he is.

Those are lots of facts - many coming from the horses mouth. A trained mental health professional can observe these and gain insight to who Trump is.

I further think that it is a sense of patriotism that is motivating many of the thousands who have signed the petition and they do NOT want Trump to be committed or anything like that but do want the nation to look at this issue and hopefully super some discussion about it.

As you know, the President is the most powerful person on the planet and he is in a position to do great good or the opposite to our nation and its people and in fact the world at large. If a president is suffering from mental disabilities, the people need to know that.

I could be wrong, but I think that is the motivation here in these professionals intentionally ignoring or opposing the Goldwater Rule and making this a public issue.

I cannot disagree with those like yourself who opt to criticize them. That is valid and I believe they themselves know it and that is the chance they took in making this public knowing the Goldwater Rule would be invoked against their actions. But I think - for many of them - it speaks to their higher sense of patriotism and love of country that they would place themselves in that position in the first place.

I have no issue with people criticizing Trump for whatever reason, patriotism or other. My issue is when someone who is a mental health professional uses that position to make a mental health criticism, they are using their authoritative position, unethically. It would be like a doctor saying a baseball player should retire because the fact that his running speed has been declining is an indication of ALS. Saying something like that, because the person saying it has some authority and expertise on the issue, has a larger affect on the perceptions of others, negatively affecting the reputation and value of the ballplayer. It would be different if a layman said it because he has no perceived area of expertise in the area. These people are using their area of expertise in an unethically authoritative way. That's what is really irritating to me.

Is Trump mentally ill? I have no idea, and what he writes or says gives us information, but it is very different than a clinical interview. I have had many clients that come to me with their parents telling me what their diagnosis is based on their observations. I've had them tell me that psychologist friends of them have told them what their child's diagnosis is. When I conduct the interview, quite often, the diagnosis is completely different. There is only one real way to determine Trump's mental status. Standard clinical interview. Anything else is just pure conjecture, regardless of the qualification of the person making them.

 

[haymarket]

I have no issue with people criticizing Trump for whatever reason, patriotism or other. My issue is when someone who is a mental health professional uses that position to make a mental health criticism, they are using their authoritative position, unethically. It would be like a doctor saying a baseball player should retire because the fact that his running speed has been declining is an indication of ALS. Saying something like that, because the person saying it has some authority and expertise on the issue, has a larger affect on the perceptions of others, negatively affecting the reputation and value of the ballplayer. It would be different if a layman said it because he has no perceived area of expertise in the area. These people are using their area of expertise in an unethically authoritative way. That's what is really irritating to me.

Is Trump mentally ill? I have no idea, and what he writes or says gives us information, but it is very different than a clinical interview. I have had many clients that come to me with their parents telling me what their diagnosis is based on their observations. I've had them tell me that psychologist friends of them have told them what their child's diagnosis is. When I conduct the interview, quite often, the diagnosis is completely different. There is only one real way to determine Trump's mental status. Standard clinical interview. Anything else is just pure conjecture, regardless of the qualification of the person making them.

Let me ask you this: some very big names in the field have signed that petition and have written articles about Trumps mental state and the danger it poses to the nation. Many of the things you discuss in your post are probably well known to them. I have little doubt they understand the perils of what they are doing and why it can be considered unethical. But despite that they proceed and are willing to take the heat for their actions. They are even willing to go against something like the goldwater rule which was placed there to prevent such things in the first place.

But they do it anyways. And most of these people are not irresponsible outside of this action.

So don't you think they are motivated by a higher cause here?

And what about the DUTY TO WARN that is also part of their ethics? That is what they state in their petition that they are doing.

 

[ocean515]

Both found NOT GUILTY of.

:shock:

Maybe on your planet, but not on the one the rest of civilization calls Earth.

 

[ocean515]

Yes he was a man that lied about his love life because it is rude to kiss and tell. Talk about a witch hunt.

Learn to read.

 

[ocean515]

Which, since it was about him cheating on his wife which had nothing to do with US policy, US government, or his role as President, was completely irrelevant to that role and his job. For example, if you lie to your boss about cheating on your wife, that has zero to do with your ability to do your job.

Which makes Clinton's foolish actions all the worse. To perjure and obstruct justice because you can't control little Willie was pretty stupid.

 

[ocean515]

Trumps tweets are the way he opts to communicate with the people. There is nothing obsessive or numbing in looking what he provides to the nation.

Of course not. The obsessive, numbing, and let me add, delusional, and deranged response to them is what I have commented on.

 

[hanger4]

I am not discounting anything. I am merely observing the reality that an investigation develops based on the evidence that comes before it and a person can NOT be a subjective investigation on one day but that then changes and they are then a subject of investigation as it develops.

The third time Comey told Trump he was not under investigation was March 30, and Comey did tell Congress that Trump wasn’t personally under any sort of FBI investigation throughout the transition or his presidency up until the day he was fired May 9. Therefore if that's changed it been in the last month and you're back to factless assumptions.

 

[SheWolf]

Five minutes ago, Trump just tweeted about the Thursday Comey testimony.



If Trump ever has a sanity hearing, this will be used as evidence to prove he suffered from serious mental delusions.

This is simply beyond belief that the man could look at those events as TOTAL AND COMPLETE VINDICATION.

Trump is truly mentally ill.

Thanks for clearing up my confusion about the tweet, and yes, I totally agree with your comments. Trump is still facing a huge legal issue. Is he not aware of that? That is baffling.

 

[SheWolf]

I have no issue with people criticizing Trump for whatever reason, patriotism or other. My issue is when someone who is a mental health professional uses that position to make a mental health criticism, they are using their authoritative position, unethically. It would be like a doctor saying a baseball player should retire because the fact that his running speed has been declining is an indication of ALS. Saying something like that, because the person saying it has some authority and expertise on the issue, has a larger affect on the perceptions of others, negatively affecting the reputation and value of the ballplayer. It would be different if a layman said it because he has no perceived area of expertise in the area. These people are using their area of expertise in an unethically authoritative way. That's what is really irritating to me.

Is Trump mentally ill? I have no idea, and what he writes or says gives us information, but it is very different than a clinical interview. I have had many clients that come to me with their parents telling me what their diagnosis is based on their observations. I've had them tell me that psychologist friends of them have told them what their child's diagnosis is. When I conduct the interview, quite often, the diagnosis is completely different. There is only one real way to determine Trump's mental status. Standard clinical interview. Anything else is just pure conjecture, regardless of the qualification of the person making them.

I understand what you are saying that is is unethical to diagnose somebody from afar, especially if it's somebody you are not and will not treat. I also understand that family members can misdiagnose or confuse symptoms in their loved ones. But for mental health professionals like yourself, can't you tell or have a strong suspicion about a particular mental health issue by the person's behavior and the way they act? Can you make a prediction or have an inclination before a clinical interview? I am not talking about this for the sake of diagnosing either. It's like if a young person goes to the ER with chest pain, the ER doctor is not going to test him for hepatitis. It seems like you could rule out a lot and have some reasonable hunches before the clinical interview.

 

[Paperview]

:shock:

Maybe on your planet, but not on the one the rest of civilization calls Earth.

OK. In your world the Senate trial never happened, and the votes for NOT GUILTY on both counts were apparitions.

Go with that.

 

[akyron]

The FBI and CIA are also big on evidence.

I hope so. thats why trump is not nor was under investigation.

 

[DA60]

Trump is clearly of AT BEST average intelligence and also clearly has emotional/mentally problems.

His INCREDIBLY short attention span has apparently now become common knowledge.

And his statements are sometimes just ridiculous.


I have long thought he is not emotionally/mentally fit to be POTUS.

 

[ocean515]

OK. In your world the Senate trial never happened, and the votes for NOT GUILTY on both counts were apparitions.

Go with that.

I guess his impeachment in the House for perjury and obstruction of justice never happened. On your planet.

 

[Paperview]

I guess his impeachment in the House for perjury and obstruction of justice never happened. On your planet.

On your planet, it appears some people aren't smart enough to know an impeachment is the political equivalent of an indictment.

What happened at the senate trial?

Oh Yeah: Clinton Acquitted on All Counts.

You can, as they say, look it up.

If you have the tools

on your planet.

 

[Zyphlin]

I know of no person who is attempting to state that there is anything OFFICIAL about the expressed opinions of mental health professionals regarding Trump.

If they are not official diagnosis, then there is ZERO basis to suggest that he is medically unfit for filling the role of the President.

Either they are making an actual official diagnosis, and thus suggesting there is legitimate basis for claiming he is not mentally fit to be President....

OR

They are just spouting their opinion on the matter, and opinion is not a legitimate argument for demanding someone be terminated for a provision that requires them to be mentally fit.

 

[Zyphlin]

So don't you think they are motivated by a higher cause here?

I think they're motivated by their partisanship and their own biases. Being high in your field doesn't negate the ability to being ridiculously partisan. I also would say that the reality of the mentality in this country in regards to Trump, which is that for a large segment of the population anything or any way you act as it relates to Trump is basically viewed as "fair game", likely plays a part in feeling that such an ethical breach would be, by and large, "excused".

Also, I'm sure CC will speak to it more specifically, but claims of doing this off the basis of "duty to warn" is pure sophistry. The entire notion of that is, first and foremost, centered around ones client; of which Trump is not for any of these individuals. Furthermore, Duty to warn is based off legitimate instances where the counselor/therapist can reasonably conclude that the person represents a present threat to himself of an identifiable individual. Since these unethical professionals are NOT making any kind of legitimate professional judgement, as they are not undergoing the correct and legitimate means of evaluation, then they have no "duty to warn" because their opinion is flawed and lacking.

 

[haymarket]

If they are not official diagnosis, then there is ZERO basis to suggest that he is medically unfit for filling the role of the President.

Either they are making an actual official diagnosis, and thus suggesting there is legitimate basis for claiming he is not mentally fit to be President....

OR

They are just spouting their opinion on the matter, and opinion is not a legitimate argument for demanding someone be terminated for a provision that requires them to be mentally fit.

These are brave patriots with professional mental health credentials evaluating Trump based on thousands of hours of public revelations that can tell you more about a person that a possible fifty minute personal session.

 

[haymarket]

I think they're motivated by their partisanship and their own biases. Being high in your field doesn't negate the ability to being ridiculously partisan. I also would say that the reality of the mentality in this country in regards to Trump, which is that for a large segment of the population anything or any way you act as it relates to Trump is basically viewed as "fair game", likely plays a part in feeling that such an ethical breach would be, by and large, "excused".

Also, I'm sure CC will speak to it more specifically, but claims of doing this off the basis of "duty to warn" is pure sophistry. The entire notion of that is, first and foremost, centered around ones client; of which Trump is not for any of these individuals. Furthermore, Duty to warn is based off legitimate instances where the counselor/therapist can reasonably conclude that the person represents a present threat to himself of an identifiable individual. Since these unethical professionals are NOT making any kind of legitimate professional judgement, as they are not undergoing the correct and legitimate means of evaluation, then they have no "duty to warn" because their opinion is flawed and lacking.

DUTY TO WARN is part of the profession - regardless if you approve or not. If it applies to an individual, why would it not apply to more than one individuals if a professional suspects the person could harm them or be a threat.

Its rather silly to say you can help save one person but must ignore far larger numbers.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Let me ask you this: some very big names in the field have signed that petition and have written articles about Trumps mental state and the danger it poses to the nation. Many of the things you discuss in your post are probably well known to them. I have little doubt they understand the perils of what they are doing and why it can be considered unethical. But despite that they proceed and are willing to take the heat for their actions. They are even willing to go against something like the goldwater rule which was placed there to prevent such things in the first place.

But they do it anyways. And most of these people are not irresponsible outside of this action.

So don't you think they are motivated by a higher cause here?

And what about the DUTY TO WARN that is also part of their ethics? That is what they state in their petition that they are doing.

Firstly, whatever their higher cause is matters not to me. It's political and has nothing to do with the standards and ethics of their profession. And, no one can issue a "duty to warn" decree without a clinical interview, so that part really isn't relevant.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Which makes Clinton's foolish actions all the worse. To perjure and obstruct justice because you can't control little Willie was pretty stupid.

Foolish, yes. Anything to do with running the country or cause of impeachment? Laughingly no.