The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: bigheadfred on February 11, 2017, 02:13:55 am
-
Full title: The psychiatrist who wrote the guide to personality disorders says diagnosing Trump is “bullshit”
Allen Frances is a psychiatrist who wrote the rules for diagnosing personality disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The DSM is the No. 1 tool mental health professionals have for making diagnoses.
Frances, a professor emeritus at Duke, doesn’t mince words about what he thinks of mental health professionals who are now using the DSM to diagnose President Donald Trump with a mental disorder.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/10/14551890/trump-mental-health-narcissistic-personality?_ga=1.167401406.1871071072.1486767640
@Victoria33 thought you might be interested.
-
It’s only a disorder when it causes extreme distress, suffering, and impairment.”
Trump’s willingness to lie and endless self-promotion are traits that have, so far, worked out largely to his advantage. He’s president of the United States, after all.
But people who have a true narcissistic personality disorder, Frances explains, experience a crash of some sort, even if they can’t see it for themselves.
That's his excuse?
That because everyone around him enables it, that makes it OK?
Just because someone refuses to acknowledge something, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
:facepalm2:
-
That's his excuse?
That because everyone around him enables it, that makes it OK?
Just because someone refuses to acknowledge something, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
:facepalm2:
This is the state of modern conservatism.
-
@bigheadfred
@mystery-ak
@Freya
@Oceander
@txradioguy
@CatherineofAragon
@Quix
@Suppressed
"Full title: The psychiatrist who wrote the guide to personality disorders says diagnosing Trump is “bullshit”
Allen Frances is a psychiatrist who wrote the rules for diagnosing personality disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The DSM is the No. 1 tool mental health professionals have for making diagnoses."
Let's get the truth out here:
The title makes it sound like Allen Frances wrote every DMS manual ever written. That is ridiculous and not true. Neither did he write the "rules for diagnosing personality disorders". Hundreds of psychiatrists did that. He was only the "chair" of the DSM-IV Task Force - that is only one DSM diagnostic manual book. Frances says he wrote the definition for Narcissistic Personality Disorder so he probably did for the DSM-IV. As "chair' of the group, his people would have held meetings with the psychiatrists and complied the material and sent it to the publisher.
Here is who Frances is:
Allen Frances, M.D., was the chair of the DSM-IV Task Force and of the department of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. Before this position, he was a professor at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Frances wrote a book, “Against Out Of Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, DSM-V..” You see, we don't use his DSM-IV any more, it is out of date. The new one is the DSM-V, and Frances doesn't like it so he wrote a book against it. (Can you say sour grapes?)
David J. Kupfer, M.D, is the chair of the DSM-V Task Force; Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. This is the new manual used today, the DSM-V, which Frances is complaining about.
Here is a description of the DSM-V:
"The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM–V, is the product of more than 10 years of effort by hundreds of international experts in all aspects of mental health. Their dedication and hard work have yielded an authoritative volume that defines and classifies mental disorders in order to improve diagnoses, treatment, and research."
Now, as to a diagnosis, when someone "should" get a diagnosis, Frances is correct:
"But they ignore the further requirement that is crucial in defining all mental disorders—the behaviors also must cause clinically significant distress or impairment."
That is rule one a psychological examiner learns. If a person is running his/her life without significant distress that affects his/her life, he/she should have no diagnosis. I recall an example used in my training, and the question was this: If a burglar is a successful burglar and living well, feeling fine, should he/she be tested and get a diagnosis? Now we come to another consideration - if the person is operating successfully for him/her self, BUT HARMING OTHERS, an intervention is required, in this case, the police to stop the behavior. It is possible, the burglar could realize, with counseling, his/her behavior must change but the behavior must stop.
Psychologist Gartner says, “The thing about people with personality disorders … they don’t have distress related to their disorder; they cause distress in other people,” he says. “They’re in complete denial about the nature of their illness or even having an illness.” But “as someone who has been an expert and a teacher of severe personality disorders in 35 years, this is the worst case I have seen in my career,” he says."
I want to add what Psychologist Miller said:
“You always want collateral information,” Miller says. “If I was seeing a patient for anything, I would want to talk to their spouse or children, if possible. ... You might get more nuanced information.”
Gartner is correct and so is Miller. Gartner would be more correct if he incorporated Miller's advice. When I made an evaluation, the first thing to happen was an interview with the patient, whether an adult or a child (in a child's case, always talked to the parents, too.) I wanted information about this person since birth. Was the birth normal? From there, I got every bit of information possible about the behavior of this patient from birth until now. Only after that, did the testing begin.
That is why I researched Trump's background/behavior from the time he was born until now. Gartner should have done that. I agree with Gartner, Trump's personality disorder is the worst I have come across. But, you see, I believe the two psychologists and Frances are all missing a cause for his behavior; there is more wrong than Narcissistic Personality Disorder, so perhaps Frances stopped with his specialty, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, when he should have considered other causes that might be present also. I think there is a reason why Trump must promote himself all the time, which looks like Narcissistic Personality Disorder. But added to that, he must be perfect all the time and be the "best" all the time, and attack anyone almost forever if there is the slightest disagreement. His childhood behavior suggests a learning disorder and I have tested many hundreds of students for learning disorders, I recognize the behavior. If one attaches a learning disorder, which fosters feelings of inadequacy, to a Narcissistic Personality, you get an aggressive person who will not stop until everyone in the world declares him the best. His deception of everyone would be complete then - only he would know he was not the best. Due to these likely disorders, and sleeping only 3-4 hours a night, I think the strain of the 24 hr. a day job, trying to prove he is the best to cover his inadequacy, and constantly attacking others to keep proving it, will cause a mental breakdown or a heart attack or a stroke.
The above is my opinion responding to the article presented here.
-
@Victoria33,
I highly respect your training, experience and research.
Nevertheless, I think you are overblown about Trump.
I think the degree of malady you insist is deep within him would have destroyed much capacity to succeed at many points in his life.
Then there's Thomas Szaz (sp?) . . . who thinks the whole profession is a fraudulent scam.
I disagree but he makes some good points . . . and it can operate too often exactly as a fraudulent scam.
If you are right, then, I'd expect Trump to disintegrate within a couple years as you've mentioned.
I'm skeptical the oligarchy setting him up and orchestrating the world stage will allow him to go that long unfettered without being destroyed or removed one way or another. I hope I'm wrong.
Whatever his flaws of whatever degree . . . I still love the way he's upsetting the status quo. That's long overdue.
I just think THAT TOO must be part of the globalist script to in some convoluted way end up with the puck moved significantly down the ice toward their total global government control goal.
I think you also seem to fail to give due credit for his capacity to adjust his stances based on advice and/or feedback.
The degree of disorder you describe doesn't tend to incorporate much of a capacity to modify behavior or stances based on anything--particularly advice or feedback.
-
@Quix
You are wrong, no reason to discuss it.
-
@Quix
You are wrong, no reason to discuss it.
I've been wrong before. I survived.
-
@Quix
You are wrong, no reason to discuss it.
I've been wrong before. I survived.
Is this a discussion between Froid and Young as to who is the bestest mule Skinner?
-
Is this a discussion between Froid and Young as to who is the bestest mule Skinner?
@bigheadfred
@Quix
Yes, fred. He, Froid is wrong; I, Young, am right. We have discussed this before (more than once), and I was too tired to write it again.
-
@bigheadfred
@Quix
Yes, fred. He, Froid is wrong; I, Young, am right. We have discussed this before (more than once), and I was too tired to write it again.
Whoa mule! So we go from who is the Big Fat Skinner to beating a dead horse.
-
Please refresh my memory @Victoria33 --- Were your years in the psychiatric arena as a professional or a patient?
Thanks.
-
Please refresh my memory @Victoria33 --- Were your years in the psychiatric arena as a professional or a patient?
Thanks.
:silly:
-
The above is my opinion responding to the article presented here.
@Victoria33
I am not a shrink - But I can smell a shyster a mile away. And Trump is a con man from the word go - similar to Bill Clinton, in that regard. I will disagree with you lightly wrt his self-destruction. He operates in a world of self-created chaos - He does it on purpose to get his way. The pressure will never get to him, because pressure and destruction are always shunted off of him directly, on to dang near anything around him. There is always a scapegoat under construction in his organizational process, specifically designed to take the brunt of the blame, being sacrificed to preserve Trump himself...
He'll walk away untouched. It is everything around him that will be destroyed. Watch and see.
-
@Victoria33
I am not a shrink - But I can smell a shyster a mile away. And Trump is a con man from the word go - similar to Bill Clinton, in that regard. I will disagree with you lightly wrt his self-destruction. He operates in a world of self-created chaos - He does it on purpose to get his way. The pressure will never get to him, because pressure and destruction are always shunted off of him directly, on to dang near anything around him. There is always a scapegoat under construction in his organizational process, specifically designed to take the brunt of the blame, being sacrificed to preserve Trump himself...
He'll walk away untouched. It is everything around him that will be destroyed. Watch and see.
Another obama sounds like.
-
@Victoria33,
I highly respect your training, experience and research.
Nevertheless, I think you are overblown about Trump.
I think the degree of malady you insist is deep within him would have destroyed much capacity to succeed at many points in his life.
Then there's Thomas Szaz (sp?) . . . who thinks the whole profession is a fraudulent scam.
I disagree but he makes some good points . . . and it can operate too often exactly as a fraudulent scam.
If you are right, then, I'd expect Trump to disintegrate within a couple years as you've mentioned.
I'm skeptical the oligarchy setting him up and orchestrating the world stage will allow him to go that long unfettered without being destroyed or removed one way or another. I hope I'm wrong.
Whatever his flaws of whatever degree . . . I still love the way he's upsetting the status quo. That's long overdue.
I just think THAT TOO must be part of the globalist script to in some convoluted way end up with the puck moved significantly down the ice toward their total global government control goal.
I think you also seem to fail to give due credit for his capacity to adjust his stances based on advice and/or feedback.
The degree of disorder you describe doesn't tend to incorporate much of a capacity to modify behavior or stances based on anything--particularly advice or feedback.
Completely agree @Quix! These people - @Victoria33 - that keep repeating these over-the-top pronouncements like - " I agree with Gartner, Trump's personality disorder is the worst I have come across." - are laughably ridiculous and make the poster look overwrought and overblown.
Is she saying Trump is worse than someone like, say - Charles Manson? It is beyond ridiculous, and why anyone gives this kind of hyperbole any credibility at all is hilarious!!! What a joke!
:mauslaff: :mauslaff: :mauslaff:
-
Another obama sounds like.
Nah, more a Bill Clinton to me - Obama was a true believer type... Dyed in the wool communist. Trump and Clinton don't really give a sh*t about much of anything beyond themselves. Clinton was more about fame, Trump, more about power... But the means to the end is similar, although Clinton would be less likely to cause chaos directly. He's a softer sell. But either one is proficient at dancing folks down the garden path... Misdirection. When the right hand is waving, watch out for the left hand.
For instance, everyone is all happy about the pipelines - Yay team! Jobs, cheap oil, etc... but overlay those pipelines with the NAU superhighway proposed nearly a decade ago, and you may begin to see the endpoint of his intent.
-
@Victoria33
He operates in a world of self-created chaos - He does it on purpose to get his way. The pressure will never get to him, because pressure and destruction are always shunted off of him directly, on to dang near anything around him. There is always a scapegoat under construction in his organizational process, specifically designed to take the brunt of the blame, being sacrificed to preserve Trump himself...
He'll walk away untouched. It is everything around him that will be destroyed. Watch and see.
@roamer_1
@mystery-ak
It is "why" he does it that is under question - he has done this all his life, from early in life, as a child, it is pervasive.
You are totally correct that, "It is everything around him that will be destroyed." That is the problem, it is our country that is "everything around him" now.
-
Are yall having a good time bashing Republican President Trump? You should invite you DU buddies over to join in the fun.
-
Is it "why" he does it that is under question - he has done this all his life, from early in life, as a child, it is pervasive.
@Victoria33
Nah, the 'why' is self evident. He has obviously been able to get his way by way of petulance. It works for him. It's how he plays people, because it has worked in his favor over and again, since his youth, and he is long practiced at his style.
You are totally correct that, "It is everything around him that will be destroyed." That is the problem, it is our country that is "everything around him" now.
That doesn't mean that you are wrong about self-destruction - If he slips he will fall, and if he falls he will be consumed. The problem with a long con is overt exposure - the longer the con, the higher the risk, and the more complete the failure. But he has been playing this game a very long time - I doubt he will slip significantly. And I agree with you wrt our country being 'everything around him'. But there's not a dang thing to do about it.
Pray hard.
-
Are yall having a good time bashing Republican President Trump? You should invite you DU buddies over to join in the fun.
It goes beyond simple bashing - more like unbridled speculative drivel posing as undeniable "fact", based on a neurotic need for peer acceptance. Pure fiction presented as fact!
-
It goes beyond simple bashing - more like unbridled speculative drivel posing as undeniable "fact", based on a neurotic need for peer acceptance. Pure fiction presented as fact!
:silly: :silly: :silly:
It is the group that admires the emperor's new clothes. It is group-think that allows him to strut about amidst great applause and admiration. Such is 'peer acceptance'. Such is 'pure fiction presented as fact'.
In the mean time, the leopard does not change his spots. What Trump is has not changed simply by putting 'president' in front of his name.
-
Are yall having a good time bashing Republican President Trump? You should invite you DU buddies over to join in the fun.
I guess they would have to get their names and contact info from you.
-
@Victoria33
I am not a shrink - But I can smell a shyster a mile away. And Trump is a con man from the word go - similar to Bill Clinton, in that regard. I will disagree with you lightly wrt his self-destruction. He operates in a world of self-created chaos - He does it on purpose to get his way. The pressure will never get to him, because pressure and destruction are always shunted off of him directly, on to dang near anything around him. There is always a scapegoat under construction in his organizational process, specifically designed to take the brunt of the blame, being sacrificed to preserve Trump himself...
He'll walk away untouched. It is everything around him that will be destroyed. Watch and see.
An interesting perspective.
I do believe he loves the challenges of making things happen that he believes in.
I believe he can be fierce in trashing those in his way or whom he deems unfitting, incompetent etc. like he did on his TV show.
Don't know if he's as bad a shyster as Dillbo. I don't think so. I think Dillbo is several orders of magnitude worse.
And, it doesn't fit the picture his kids and home workers describe.
He is an interesting character--good and bad.
-
He is an interesting character--good and bad.
I would disagree. He is a rather shallow and obnoxious man, and wholly lacking in character.
-
Completely agree @Quix! These people - @Victoria33 - that keep repeating these over-the-top pronouncements like - " I agree with Gartner, Trump's personality disorder is the worst I have come across." - are laughably ridiculous and make the poster look overwrought and overblown.
Is she saying Trump is worse than someone like, say - Charles Manson? It is beyond ridiculous, and why anyone gives this kind of hyperbole any credibility at all is hilarious!!! What a joke!
Thanks for your kind words and affirmations.
I understand your feelings.
However, @Victoria33,
has been a very top-flight (I'd guess top 3-5%) mental health professional with considerable training and experience in assessment, treatment etc. but particularly assessment, evaluation. I don't take disagreeing with her lightly.
Yet, we all have our biases and blind spots. She likely thinks I'm blind to the true facts about Trump because of mine.
I, too, have tended to be highly accurate over my mental health career as a psychologist/professor. My professors in my PhD program routinely affirmed that my 'intuition' was markedly above average in accuracy etc. We had a supervision men's group headed by my Dissertation Chairman. He noted that I tended to get further in 3 weeks with clients than he usually did in 6 months.
But none of us are perfect. We all err, make mistakes, miss cues, over-assume etc.
Trump is a complex character in lots of respects. And, his life leaves a lot of factoids easy to be concerned about and even alarmed at.
I just still see him as a blow-hard with significant attachment disorder still grasping for a more robust and intense level of approval than he got from his dad. However, he obviously got a strong measure of approval about some things.
The body language woman noted that he was very confident. He had to get that largely from his dad.
I suspect that what he missed from his Dad is the loving affectionate affirmation and approval just for being the dad's son, without performance issues. That's what I've noted he's dished out to his own kids--tons of affectionate love and approval as the highest or near highest priorities in Trump's life. He's fiercely pro-family.
You'd have thought he'd have done better with the previous wives given such a pro-family value. But, at least they all supported him in his run for the Presidency. That's some achievement in itself.
And, none of his kids smoke or drink (at least not to excess--I doubt at all)--another set of values he's fierce about. But it's not always easy to transmit that value to one's kids. Evidently he was bonded to them enough to succeed at that transmission. He doesn't smoke or drink. That's quite a disciplined stance in his realm. His alcoholic brother resulted in that.
I think he personally really thinks he can make the country better. He's done a lot of other high-powered negotiating business deals and building projects. This is the next level of challenge for him. I think he thrives on that challenge.
I think Billdo thrived on seduction and self-aggrandizing as well as pushing the USA more toward Marxism.
Trump can be grossly self-aggrandizing but I don't think it comes out of quite the same motivation as Billdo's.
Just imho, anyway.
Time will tell whether Victoria33 is more right or less right than my assessments of Trump.
He's a complex enough character and it's a complex enough situation I could imagine it going either way.
-
I don't look at it as bashing trump but more as holding his feet to the fire. Cause god knows if I held his head close to the flame when his hairspray ignited I would have to file an environmental impact statement.
Now if he came out wearing something nice from his daughter's clothing as a showy support of a failing American business and not just support of her bottommmm--line I could cut him some slack--mostly necessarily in the hip region.
(http://i65.tinypic.com/2m6vr5e.jpg)
-
I would disagree. He is a rather shallow and obnoxious man, and wholly lacking in character.
I think you're treating him much more as a cartoon character than a real human, in that assessment.
Certainly he can be obnoxious. He can be shallow. I don't see him lacking in character though there's significant chunks of his character I'd like to see markedly different.
In the interviews with his kids . . . their body language affirmed that they were telling the raw candid truth as they had experienced it with their dad. They did not describe the sort of person you describe.
-
I think Reagan was the mentally healthiest President we've had since Ike.
All the rest had serious mental issues, imho.
-
I think you're treating him much more as a cartoon character than a real human, in that assessment.
A caricature much of his own making.
Certainly he can be obnoxious. He can be shallow. I don't see him lacking in character though there's significant chunks of his character I'd like to see markedly different.
And petty, and vindictive, and a reflexive liar, and self-aggrandizing... It goes on and on. I cannot find an ounce of character in the man, by any measurement thereof. Not an ounce.
In the interviews with his kids . . . their body language affirmed that they were telling the raw candid truth as they had experienced it with their dad. They did not describe the sort of person you describe.
I don't find his kids particularly remarkable either. I will reserve my opinion on them, and whether any character in them is attributable to their father, albeit that if they are of a remarkable character, I dare say I would be finding that influence elsewhere.
-
I appreciate your rational assessment of Trump's mental status @Quix - I would tend to agree with most of it.
I still say that @Victoria33 is diagnosing by emotion and extreme bias. The pronouncements she makes are so over the top and with nothing to back them up!
-
I appreciate your rational assessment of Trump's mental status @Quix - I would tend to agree with most of it.
I still say that @Victoria33 is diagnosing by emotion and extreme bias. The pronouncements she makes are so over the top and with nothing to back them up!
In a country beset by extreme and distressing inequality, America’s premier hustler sold the electorate a wagonload of beguiling and deceptive tales about what’s gone wrong, who’s to blame, and how he’ll make things better. He persuaded not through rational argument, analysis, and truth-telling, but rather by manipulating our imperfect reasoning and our unreasoning emotions. Although this playbook has been around for a long time, Americans have never witnessed this level of mastery before. Trump’s unanticipated success dramatically illustrates the importance of understanding the “mind games” that allowed him to win, despite breaking almost every rule of evidence, logic, and propriety.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiXmorzqYvSAhXIzlQKHdMfCnAQFghHMAc&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.psychologytoday.com%2Fblog%2Fdangerous-ideas%2F201612%2Fthe-mind-games-donald-trump&usg=AFQjCNEII9-m6QhprW6-6Xihaa9UZxcx1g&sig2=hsnqJXWWfx1mWxFpjfHMiw
-
Why real-world governments don’t have the consent of the governed – and why it matters
A government that rules without consent isn’t necessarily a bad government. In the terminology of the current front-runner for the Republican nomination for our most powerful political office, it might even turn out to be super-classy and hugely terrific. But it should be viewed with greater suspicion and kept on a tighter leash than a government that genuinely derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=17&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwin9qKCrIvSAhVMzVQKHRlkBmIQFghtMBA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fvolokh-conspiracy%2Fwp%2F2016%2F01%2F27%2Fwhy-real-world-governments-dont-have-the-consent-of-the-governed-and-why-it-matters%2F&usg=AFQjCNEEKeSe8d1_T-iqS1wnRB6wZkgKKw&sig2=uM5A07-TJwVXkGsutfXGOQ
-
A caricature much of his own making.
And petty, and vindictive, and a reflexive liar, and self-aggrandizing... It goes on and on. I cannot find an ounce of character in the man, by any measurement thereof. Not an ounce.
I don't find his kids particularly remarkable either. I will reserve my opinion on them, and whether any character in them is attributable to their father, albeit that if they are of a remarkable character, I dare say I would be finding that influence elsewhere.
You might watch the youtube interviews with his kids. I think there are 3 or 4 of them.
-
I appreciate your rational assessment of Trump's mental status @Quix - I would tend to agree with most of it.
I still say that @Victoria33 is diagnosing by emotion and extreme bias. The pronouncements she makes are so over the top and with nothing to back them up!
I much appreciate your kind words.
I'm not so clear about where Dear @Victoria33 is getting her fierce assessments from of Trump. I'm sure she could cite chapter and verse from his life history--which she has studied far more than I.
I do think she may well be over-weighting some of the "evidence" in a direction that confirms some of her other constructions on reality, for whatever reasons.
I have found her general professional perspectives and skills to be normally top flight, however.
-
@Quix
Psychologist Gartner was speaking only of a Narcissistic Disorder when he said: But “as someone who has been an expert and a teacher of severe personality disorders in 35 years, this is the worst case I have seen in my career."
I agreed with that but also think Trump has a learning disability based on his behavior in his past life and now. He said in an interview he got news from the TV rather than reading about it and that is a clue as well as he had his company people give him one sheet of written paper and then tell him what it said and that is what he is now doing as president - one sheet of written paper and the person telling him what it says. He has also said he didn't know he put Bannon on the National Security Committee because he didn't know what the executive order said when he signed it.
-
@Victoria33
I am not a shrink - But I can smell a shyster a mile away. And Trump is a con man from the word go - similar to Bill Clinton, in that regard. I will disagree with you lightly wrt his self-destruction. He operates in a world of self-created chaos - He does it on purpose to get his way. The pressure will never get to him, because pressure and destruction are always shunted off of him directly, on to dang near anything around him. There is always a scapegoat under construction in his organizational process, specifically designed to take the brunt of the blame, being sacrificed to preserve Trump himself...
He'll walk away untouched. It is everything around him that will be destroyed. Watch and see.
:thumbsup:
-
@Victoria33
I am not a shrink - But I can smell a shyster a mile away. And Trump is a con man from the word go - similar to Bill Clinton, in that regard. I will disagree with you lightly wrt his self-destruction. He operates in a world of self-created chaos - He does it on purpose to get his way. The pressure will never get to him, because pressure and destruction are always shunted off of him directly, on to dang near anything around him. There is always a scapegoat under construction in his organizational process, specifically designed to take the brunt of the blame, being sacrificed to preserve Trump himself...
He'll walk away untouched. It is everything around him that will be destroyed. Watch and see.
I've thought about this since he won: I don't know if this is all just a big act. I guess people that know him say he's different in person. Trump is a big reality TV guy and he has done things like WWF. I don't know if this is Trump's act or what.
Trump acts on Twitter like he would fight the immigration EO defeat all the way to the bitter end, then he just ups and drops it. Makes me wonder if there's another side to Trump.
What's weirder the guy who's a mentally ill megalomaniac or the guy who wants people to think he is?
If there is a more serious side to Trump, I wish he could be that person all day every day, at least for as long as he's President.
I can't imagine this much conflict and acrimony, not to mention the anger with this guy, is good for a 70 year old's health.
-
You might watch the youtube interviews with his kids. I think there are 3 or 4 of them.
I don't think I would find it decisive. His family are props (like w/ any politician), and while I am sure you'll think it reflexive, body language can be coached.
I will prefer to rely upon his record... which is not in his favor. Nuff said.
-
@Quix
Psychologist Gartner was speaking only of a Narcissistic Disorder when he said: But “as someone who has been an expert and a teacher of severe personality disorders in 35 years, this is the worst case I have seen in my career."
I agreed with that but also think Trump has a learning disability based on his behavior in his past life and now. He said in an interview he got news from the TV rather than reading about it and that is a clue as well as he had his company people give him one sheet of written paper and then tell him what it said and that is what he is now doing as president - one sheet of written paper and the person telling him what it says. He has also said he didn't know he put Bannon on the National Security Committee because he didn't know what the executive order said when he signed it.
That's pretty concerning, alright. He really needs to get some serious training and hard work done to overcome the dyslexia. It's causing him and thereby the country far too much risk, hazard, trouble, imho.
I still think Trump's narcissism is significantly less than Nixon's, Carter's, Dillbo's, Shrillery's, and certainly OThuga's. And, I think that the last 3 in that list were far more virulent, nasty, mean, vindictive, bone-marrow arrogant, tyrannical . . . than Trump's.
I find Trump's narcissism more . . . shallow . . . bravado . . . banty-rooster stuff.
-
I've thought about this since he won: I don't know if this is all just a big act. I guess people that know him say he's different in person. Trump is a big reality TV guy and he has done things like WWF. I don't know if this is Trump's act or what.
Trump acts on Twitter like he would fight the immigration EO defeat all the way to the bitter end, then he just ups and drops it. Makes me wonder if there's another side to Trump.
What's weirder the guy who's a mentally ill megalomaniac or the guy who wants people to think he is?
If there is a more serious side to Trump, I wish he could be that person all day every day, at least for as long as he's President.
I can't imagine this much conflict and acrimony, not to mention the anger with this guy, is good for a 70 year old's health.
Imo, trump has spent so much of his life perfecting his stick, his con, that to try and change that now would be more harmful to his health than keeping it up. The Jerry Garcia Syndrome.
-
I've thought about this since he won: I don't know if this is all just a big act. I guess people that know him say he's different in person. Trump is a big reality TV guy and he has done things like WWF. I don't know if this is Trump's act or what.
That there are two personas is really all you need to know, with the exception that there may be more personas beyond the two... Then one must try to suss out which of the two (or more) personas is true, if any of them.... Typically con. Absolutely typical. And he will shed whichever skin he is currently wearing the moment it becomes profitable.
None of it matters. it's all just object-oriented show. There isn't a solid agenda because there isn't a principled thing he's standing on.. It's all emotion. and that's the clue. Better wear your tin patch.
-
That's pretty concerning, alright. He really needs to get some serious training and hard work done to overcome the dyslexia. It's causing him and thereby the country far too much risk, hazard, trouble, imho.
I still think Trump's narcissism is significantly less than Nixon's, Carter's, Dillbo's, Shrillery's, and certainly OThuga's. And, I think that the last 3 in that list were far more virulent, nasty, mean, vindictive, bone-marrow arrogant, tyrannical . . . than Trump's.
I find Trump's narcissism more . . . shallow . . . bravado . . . banty-rooster stuff.
@Quix
@roamer_1
@Suppressed
Quix, I think you still don't understand what I am saying. I'm fairly sure he has a learning disability based on his father's words about his behavior when he was a very small child until he shipped him off to military school to try to change his behavior - that is what the father said. Then, I saw the verbal disability at work during his campaign speeches, knew he had a fourth grade vocabulary and that wouldn't happen without a learning disability present.
He knows he is defective (learning disability), and he attacks others constantly to prove he is not defective, make them smaller than he is (just like he physically attacked his music teacher when he was in the fifth grade; after that, he moved from physical attacking to verbal attacking). His attacking consumes him, he MUST do it. He will do it to world leaders because he MUST to keep proving he is the best, not defective. The problem is, he can never prove he is the best - he will keep trying until his life ends. As a private person, no one would care what he does. However, being president puts the country at risk.
-
He knows he is defective (learning disability), and he attacks others constantly to prove he is not defective, make them smaller than he is (just like he physically attacked his music teacher when he was in the fifth grade; after that, he moved from physical attacking to verbal attacking). His attacking consumes him, he MUST do it. He will do it to world leaders because he MUST to keep proving he is the best, not defective. The problem is, he can never prove he is the best - he will keep trying until his life ends. As a private person, no one would care what he does. However, being president puts the country at risk.
@Victoria33
I don't know the 'what' of it, but I can see that spirit of what you're saying in him. In spades.
@Quix
-
@Quix
@roamer_1
@Suppressed
Quix, I think you still don't understand what I am saying. I'm fairly sure he has a learning disability based on his father's words about his behavior when he was a very small child until he shipped him off to military school to try to change his behavior - that is what the father said. Then, I saw the verbal disability at work during his campaign speeches, knew he had a fourth grade vocabulary and that wouldn't happen without a learning disability present.
He knows he is defective (learning disability), and he attacks others constantly to prove he is not defective, make them smaller than he is (just like he physically attacked his music teacher when he was in the fifth grade; after that, he moved from physical attacking to verbal attacking). His attacking consumes him, he MUST do it. He will do it to world leaders because he MUST to keep proving he is the best, not defective. The problem is, he can never prove he is the best - he will keep trying until his life ends. As a private person, no one would care what he does. However, being president puts the country at risk.
Thanks for the elaboration. I understand, now, that his learning disability is broader than 'mere' dyslexia.
The attacking stuff is certainly an important issue.
Thanks.
-
@Victoria33
I am not a shrink - But I can smell a shyster a mile away. And Trump is a con man from the word go - similar to Bill Clinton, in that regard. I will disagree with you lightly wrt his self-destruction. He operates in a world of self-created chaos - He does it on purpose to get his way. The pressure will never get to him, because pressure and destruction are always shunted off of him directly, on to dang near anything around him. There is always a scapegoat under construction in his organizational process, specifically designed to take the brunt of the blame, being sacrificed to preserve Trump himself...
He'll walk away untouched. It is everything around him that will be destroyed. Watch and see.
There was a moment during the primaries when I said "Oh my God I know exactly who this man is". I worked as a legal assistant for a real estate law firm. ALL of our clients were Trump in one form or another. Some of them actually much more successful as real estate developers than Trump. They did not feel the need for self-promotion that Trump does. Some of them were very like Trump. I wouldn't trust the "very like Trump" with my lunch, much less my country. I can write pages on that, but I won't. I watched the careers and lives of "the very like Trump men" and I see things much as Victoria33 does.
-
That's pretty concerning, alright. He really needs to get some serious training and hard work done to overcome the dyslexia. It's causing him and thereby the country far too much risk, hazard, trouble, imho.
I still think Trump's narcissism is significantly less than Nixon's, Carter's, Dillbo's, Shrillery's, and certainly OThuga's. And, I think that the last 3 in that list were far more virulent, nasty, mean, vindictive, bone-marrow arrogant, tyrannical . . . than Trump's.
I find Trump's narcissism more . . . shallow . . . bravado . . . banty-rooster stuff.
I tend to agree with you, Quix.
-
@Quix
@roamer_1
@Suppressed
Quix, I think you still don't understand what I am saying. I'm fairly sure he has a learning disability
No one gives a damn what you are "fairly sure of" @Victoria33 If you are going to spread your opinion as clinical gospel like a virus on this forum, provide a link that supports your "fair surety" -- or STHU about it.
I think this is a reasonable request @mystery-ak . Do you agree?
-
I tend to agree with you, Quix.
Thanks for your kind agreement.
I've just seen him surprise even the critics repeatedly . . . have observed him alter what seemed like strong, emotionally held stands. Yet, he compromised or laid aside such priorities. Maybe he's learned something negotiating over the years. Maybe he's somewhat mellowed with age.
-
No one gives a damn what you are "fairly sure of" @Victoria33 If you are going to spread your opinion as clinical gospel like a virus on this forum, provide a link that supports your "fair surety" -- or STHU about it.
I think this is a reasonable request @mystery-ak . Do you agree?
Oh, I wouldn't go down that road.
I find @Victoria33 of extremely high integrity and authentic good motivations.
It's fine with me if her emotions are invested in her priorities.
It's OK with me if she's fiercely wary, alarmed etc. re Trump. She's still rational, mutually respectful etc. and I think she deserves similar treatment.
Besides, I learned a long time ago, it's wise to consider the perspectives of those who strongly disagree with you. You might just learn something critical for your life &/or situation.
-
Oh, I wouldn't go down that road.
I find @Victoria33 of extremely high integrity and authentic good motivations.
It's fine with me if her emotions are invested in her priorities.
It's OK with me if she's fiercely wary, alarmed etc. re Trump. She's still rational, mutually respectful etc. and I think she deserves similar treatment.
Besides, I learned a long time ago, it's wise to consider the perspectives of those who strongly disagree with you. You might just learn something critical for your life &/or situation.
I have to say.... I think you handled that lame attempt to stifle free speech from one of the usual suspects really, really well, Quix. You're a born diplomat. Kudos.
-
No one gives a damn what you are "fairly sure of" @Victoria33 If you are going to spread your opinion as clinical gospel like a virus on this forum, provide a link that supports your "fair surety" -- or STHU about it.
I think this is a reasonable request @mystery-ak . Do you agree?
Victoria is entitled to her opinion of Pres Trump...if she was talking about a member here I would take action.
-
I have to say.... I think you handled that lame attempt to stifle free speech from one of the usual suspects really, really well, Quix. You're a born diplomat. Kudos.
What precious sweetness. THANKS THANKS.
I had to laugh . . . at your kind words compared to my lifetime of typically rushing in where angels fear to tread; being a bull in a china shop; being far too overbearing in far too many situations for too many decades.
However, even at 70, I'm trying hard to become more Christlike and to more than my decades of effort--to truly do unto others as I"d prefer done unto me.
Besides, I really like Victoria33!
And, she may be more right about Trump than I am. I just doubt it. LOL.
I'll long remember your kind words. I've virtually never been called diplomatic! LOL.
MAYBE I'm learning something in my old age.
PTL.
-
FWIW, I specifically pinged @Victoria33 to this thread when I posted it because I value her knowledge and insight on the matter. As well as the insights of the other people posting.
As I have said I consider information to be neither good or bad. Doesn't matter the source. It it how you process information that counts.
-
Also FWIW I PMed the OWNER of this site before I posted this, thus the edited title.
-
@Quix
@roamer_1
@Suppressed
Quix, I think you still don't understand what I am saying. I'm fairly sure he has a learning disability based on his father's words about his behavior when he was a very small child until he shipped him off to military school to try to change his behavior - that is what the father said. Then, I saw the verbal disability at work during his campaign speeches, knew he had a fourth grade vocabulary and that wouldn't happen without a learning disability present.
He knows he is defective (learning disability), and he attacks others constantly to prove he is not defective, make them smaller than he is (just like he physically attacked his music teacher when he was in the fifth grade; after that, he moved from physical attacking to verbal attacking). His attacking consumes him, he MUST do it. He will do it to world leaders because he MUST to keep proving he is the best, not defective. The problem is, he can never prove he is the best - he will keep trying until his life ends. As a private person, no one would care what he does. However, being president puts the country at risk.
What professional qualification do you now, or did you ever hold in the field in question?
MD
PhD
MS
BS
RN
Other
...you get the jist
-
What professional qualification do you now, or did you ever hold in the field in question?
MD
PhD
MS
BS
RN
Other
...you get the jist
I'm sure @Victoria33 will speak better for herself.
I understand she has a PhD. I don't know specifically in what.
My own is in Clinical Psych.
-
What professional qualification do you now, or did you ever hold in the field in question?
MD
PhD
MS
BS
RN
Other
...you get the jist
In the interests of fairness (I happen to know @Victoria33 's qualifications, both paper and practical), since you wish to dispute her opinion - what qualifications do you have in this field?
-
What professional qualification do you now, or did you ever hold in the field in question?
As our resident proctologist, Have you ever considered looking for your head in its most likely place?
-
In the interests of fairness (I happen to know @Victoria33 's qualifications, both paper and practical), since you wish to dispute her opinion - what qualifications do you have in this field?
I don't care what her qualifications are - she is way off base in her diagnosis! Besides - I see PhD's all over the tv set spewing their garbage - some of the most arrogant and wrong-headed ivory tower inhabitants you will ever meet.
Pffft!!!!
-
As our resident proctologist, Have you ever considered looking for your head in its most likely place?
Weird. I was outside smoking a cigarette just now and had the thought "We need a Proctologist" on this thread. I came in to reply as such and here one is.
-
I don't care what her qualifications are - she is way off base in her diagnosis! Besides - I see PhD's all over the tv set spewing their garbage - some of the most arrogant and wrong-headed ivory tower inhabitants you will ever meet.
Pffft!!!!
Ok. Your turn. Your studied analysis. If this involves ass-kissing please venture upthread.
-
In the interests of fairness (I happen to know @Victoria33 's qualifications, both paper and practical), since you wish to dispute her opinion - what qualifications do you have in this field?
I claimed no expertise. My request was reasonable. It was multiple choice.
-
Ok. Your turn. Your studied analysis. If this involves ass-kissing please venture upthread.
I don't need to do a studied analysis - all I need is to watch him win, again and again. All I need to do is watch him be accused of "really screwing up THIS time" - and watch him win, again and again. I don't need no highfalutin edjumacation to see that! I never heard he was dyslexic until here - and if he IS - big deal! He made it to be president.....I wish I was as "mentally challenged" as some of these ****** (self-edited) people accuse him of being! Seriously!
And besides, I've read that JFK was dyslexic - you would think you would be impressed by someone that would have that challenge to overcome and would go on to be President of the United States.
I think Trump needs all of the support he can get right now - he is fighting so many fronts! He is trying to do what he promised to do - and some people here just want to keep using Left-wing crap and loopty-loop "diagnosis" on how crazy he is. They are no different than what I hear on the liberal lyin' media.
-
I don't need to do a studied analysis - all I need is to watch him win, again and again. All I need to do is watch him be accused of "really screwing up THIS time" - and watch him win, again and again. I don't need no highfalutin edjumacation to see that! I never heard he was dyslexic until here - and if he IS - big deal! He made it to be president.....I wish I was as "mentally challenged" as some of these ****** (self-edited) people accuse him of being! Seriously!
And besides, I've read that JFK was dyslexic - you would think you would be impressed by someone that would have that challenge to overcome and would go on to be President of the United States.
I think Trump needs all of the support he can get right now - he is fighting so many fronts! He is trying to do what he promised to do - and some people here just want to keep using Left-wing crap and loopty-loop "diagnosis" on how crazy he is. They are no different than what I hear on the liberal lyin' media.
I have heard that JFK was on multiple meds, perhaps including narcotic pain meds. Opioids as we now call them. Mind altering.
Trump takes no drugs, no nicotine (which is a stimulant) no alcohol.
-
I don't need to do a studied analysis - all I need is to watch him win, again and again. All I need to do is watch him be accused of "really screwing up THIS time" - and watch him win, again and again.
Is that all that matters? Winning?
If that's all that matters, go watch a Patriots game.
And may God have mercy on anyone who thinks like that.
-
In the interest of fairness, I've heard psychologists say you can't evaluate someone you are not personally meeting with, off of tv appearances, I thought there was even a thread here on that.
Let's hear what Dr. Trump has to say:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--WOwqofle--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/pw5vaiorxhfg8si8jt0q.jpg)
In the interests of fairness (I happen to know @Victoria33 's qualifications, both paper and practical), since you wish to dispute her opinion - what qualifications do you have in this field?
@EC @Victoria33
The same Victoria33 that claimed Trump was a trojan horse for Clinton, the same Victoria33 making what sounded like a blanket claim that people in the UK saw Trump as a laughing stock just today?
-
I claimed no expertise. My request was reasonable. It was multiple choice.
@truth_seeker
With all due respect to everyone, I'd say someone who has made a point to trash Trump often as even today, with signatures calls their own judgement on the matter into question.
If this was someone who appeared rather unbiased, maybe the scenario would be different.
-
ENOUGH!.....Victoria is entitled to her opinion and is free to discuss it here.
No one is entitled to disparage another member and/or question their credentials..I don't think anyone here wants to start that precedent!
-
In the interest of fairness, I've heard psychologists say you can't evaluate someone you are not personally meeting with, off of tv appearances, I thought there was even a thread here on that.
Let's hear what Dr. Trump has to say:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--WOwqofle--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/pw5vaiorxhfg8si8jt0q.jpg)
@EC @Victoria33
The same Victoria33 that claimed Trump was a trojan horse for Clinton, the same Victoria33 making what sounded like a blanket claim that people in the UK saw Trump as a laughing stock just today?
:hands: :hands: :hands:
-
@truth_seeker
With all due respect to everyone, I'd say someone who has made a point to trash Trump often as even today, with signatures calls their own judgement on the matter into question.
If this was someone who appeared rather unbiased, maybe the scenario would be different.
My opinion is Trump is attempting to do the many/most things real conservatives have asked for, for years and years.
His detractors here, seem to be the ones with mental issues.
(Since we can have our opinions about mental issues, without having qualification for same.)
-
I understand that many people get quite emotional discussing much of anything related to Trump--particularly his fit, sanity etc. for the job of President.
The complexities, imho, are far too great for much of anyone--professional, or not--to be dogmatic, rigid, harsh, arrogant, smug, &/or accusatory of other perspectives, or posters.
NONE of us have ALL the objective facts.
NONE of us are 100% free of bias, flawed perceptions etc.
imho, there is NO need to hazard or trouble the collegial atmosphere that is the hallmark of TBR. We are all sufficiently bright and sufficiently educated in the English language to be able to communicate our perspectives without resorting to assaultiveness toward other members/posters.
1. Verbally assaulting other posters does NOT help one's argument.
2. It merely leaves one looking more like a low class jerk than a thoughtful contributor.
3. Humility demonstrating that none of us 'knows it all' is a much better tone and stance for all of us.
4. There is no need to corrupt, trash this thread. That's bothersome to all of us and particularly @mystery-ak and the MODS.
5. Civility is worth it. If we can't post in a civil, mutually respectful way and tone, perhaps it's time to step away from the keyboard and walk the dog; kiss the spouse; hug the kids; go out for pizza etc.
imho.
-
ENOUGH!.....Victoria is entitled to her opinion and is free to discuss it here.
No one is entitled to disparage another member and/or question their credentials..I don't think anyone here wants to start that precedent!
THANK YOU.
-
Here is how I look at it. I'll keep it in this century.
George Bush was one of the worst presidents this country has ever had. He did great harm. Followed by obama who led this country into the realm of insanity. Not to the brink of it. Into insanity itself. By proof I point to the extreme polarization of Americans, examples of which can be found on this thread.
This country needs a healing hand. It needs a leader it can trust. Donald trump has done nothing to garner my trust. Becoming POTUS doesn't automatically make him trustworthy. His erratic behavior(s) lessen the chance of him gaining my trust. His manner is cause for my concern. I do understand that many of his actions are going to flat piss people off. But I have the great expectation of him producing results in a more astute manner than acting like a spoiled rich two-year old run amuck in a candy store.
-
Here is how I look at it. I'll keep it in this century.
George Bush was one of the worst presidents this country has ever had. He did great harm. Followed by obama who led this country into the realm of insanity. Not to the brink of it. Into insanity itself. By proof I point to the extreme polarization of Americans, examples of which can be found on this thread.
This country needs a healing hand. It needs a leader it can trust. Donald trump has done nothing to garner my trust. Becoming POTUS doesn't automatically make him trustworthy. His erratic behavior(s) lessen the chance of him gaining my trust. His manner is cause for my concern. I do understand that many of his actions are going to flat piss people off. But I have the great expectation of him producing results in a more astute manner than acting like a spoiled rich two-year old rum amuck in a candy store.
Are you old enough to have lived through the 60s-70s Vietnam era?
Tell me about the healing hand then? I say it didn't come until Reagan, years later.....when the country was way tired of leftist bs.
-
Are you old enough to have lived through the 60s-70s Vietnam era?
Tell me about the healing hand then? I say it didn't come until Reagan, years later.....when the country was way tired of leftist bs.
I was 14 when that ended. Old enough to remember quite a bit of it. I would say that the country wasn't tired only of the leftist bs, but of the damage done to the trust destroyed by Nixon. Ford was merely a stand-in and Carter far too weak to have anything but a more deleterious effect. Reagan did a good job. And yes as that healing hand.
Zip forward to the present and I have the hope that somehow President Trump can aim towards that healing hand. But more as a surgeon cutting away the cancer than a backroom abortionist.
-
I understand that many people get quite emotional discussing much of anything related to Trump--particularly his fit, sanity etc. for the job of President.
The complexities, imho, are far too great for much of anyone--professional, or not--to be dogmatic, rigid, harsh, arrogant, smug, &/or accusatory of other perspectives, or posters.
NONE of us have ALL the objective facts.
NONE of us are 100% free of bias, flawed perceptions etc.
imho, there is NO need to hazard or trouble the collegial atmosphere that is the hallmark of TBR. We are all sufficiently bright and sufficiently educated in the English language to be able to communicate our perspectives without resorting to assaultiveness toward other members/posters.
1. Verbally assaulting other posters does NOT help one's argument.
2. It merely leaves one looking more like a low class jerk than a thoughtful contributor.
3. Humility demonstrating that none of us 'knows it all' is a much better tone and stance for all of us.
4. There is no need to corrupt, trash this thread. That's bothersome to all of us and particularly and the MODS.
5. Civility is worth it. If we can't post in a civil, mutually respectful way and tone, perhaps it's time to step away from the keyboard and walk the dog; kiss the spouse; hug the kids; go out for pizza etc.
imho.
:facepalm2: Are you paid by the word?
-
:facepalm2: Are you paid by the word?
Not at all.
Though I may have been verbose in the womb.
And, I tend to like more info and detail than less so I tend to write as I'd like folks to write for me.
LOL.
-
Not at all.
Though I may have been verbose in the womb.
And, I tend to like more info and detail than less so I tend to write as I'd like folks to write for me.
LOL.
You're missing out on what could be a lucrative career path for you. :laugh:
-
You're missing out on what could be a lucrative career path for you. :laugh:
And then there's my haiku writing. One extreme to the other.
-
@Right_in_Virginia, you comment on Quix's wordiness, but you have managed to insult at least 1/2 of the posters on this thread and with zero or minimal comment about the content. I'd say that's a talent too. One which you might want to look at correcting.
-
@Right_in_Virginia, you comment on Quix's wordiness, but you have managed to insult at least 1/2 of the posters on this thread and with zero or minimal comment about the content. I'd say that's a talent too. One which you might want to look at correcting.
This exchange was not insulting @Sanguine Read it, it shouldn't take you long. It was rather lighthearted on both sides.
What I find insulting is that you feel you have the right to judge me and accuse me of insulting 1/2 the posters on this thread.
In all candor, Sanguine, I'd be more inclined to accept your criticism as genuine and give it respect if just once you stood in opposition to the myriad of insults that come MY way. Until and unless you do this, your opinions are nothing more than politically motivated personal attacks and I'd appreciate it if you'd keep your comments about me to yourself.
Thanks ever so.
-
This exchange was not insulting @Sanguine Read it, it shouldn't take you long. It was rather lighthearted on both sides.
What I find insulting is that you feel you have the right to judge me and accuse me of insulting 1/2 the posters on this thread.
In all candor, Sanguine, I'd be more inclined to accept your criticism as genuine and give it respect if just once you stood in opposition to the myriad of insults that come MY way. Until and unless you do this, your opinions are nothing more than politically motivated personal attacks and I'd appreciate it if you'd keep your comments about me to yourself.
Thanks ever so.
Completely agree! :beer:
-
This exchange was not insulting @Sanguine Read it, it shouldn't take you long. It was rather lighthearted on both sides.
What I find insulting is that you feel you have the right to judge me and accuse me of insulting 1/2 the posters on this thread.
In all candor, Sanguine, I'd be more inclined to accept your criticism as genuine and give it respect if just once you stood in opposition to the myriad of insults that come MY way. Until and unless you do this, your opinions are nothing more than politically motivated personal attacks and I'd appreciate it if you'd keep your comments about me to yourself.
Thanks ever so.
"Thanks ever so" for what?
I appreciate your taking the time to answer my question though. As to your main point, I think you would get a much better reception were you to drop the incessant snark. Like the "thanks ever so". What is that supposed to accomplish other than to immediately irritate the recipient?
Few people like to be attacked, but if you're the one doing the attacking, you have to understand that others will hit back. And, that it's hard to have sympathy for a constant attacker.
I seldom respond to your posts because the constant negativity is tiresome and I would usually rather ignore it than engage.
-
Another fascinating discussion ended by snark.
Apparently disruption of intellect and free speech is the sole purpose of a handful (or less) of posters here, since nothing relating to the discussion was added by this thread's primary disruptor.
@Victoria33 , @Quix - thanks for the thoughtful discussion about a very serious subject. Victoria, I think the evidence of a learning disability is clear considering the linguistic deficiencies of the President. As for the narcissism - whether clinical or not, that is self evident as well.
While there have been previous Presidents with serious personality issues (Nixon, Clinton and Obama come to mind), for the most part they were hidden. Trump is the only one to place his disabilities on his sleeve for all to see.
-
"Thanks ever so" for what? I appreciate your taking the time to answer my question though. As to your main point, I think you would get a much better reception were you to drop the incessant snark. Like the "thanks ever so". What is that supposed to accomplish other than to immediately irritate the recipient? I seldom respond to your posts because the constant negativity is tiresome and I would usually rather ignore it than engage.
@Sanguine
@musiclady
You explained that very well. I don't respond to attack posts and those that end with a "snark" comment such as "thanks ever so"; those snarky end comments are uncouth, and try to keep the conflict going. Those that do that are on my "Ignore" list.
-
Another fascinating discussion ended by snark.
Apparently disruption of intellect and free speech is the sole purpose of a handful (or less) of posters here, since nothing relating to the discussion was added by this thread's primary disruptor.
@Victoria33 , @Quix - thanks for the thoughtful discussion about a very serious subject. Victoria, I think the evidence of a learning disability is clear considering the linguistic deficiencies of the President. As for the narcissism - whether clinical or not, that is self evident as well.
While there have been previous Presidents with serious personality issues (Nixon, Clinton and Obama come to mind), for the most part they were hidden. Trump is the only one to place his disabilities on his sleeve for all to see.
Thanks for another highly credentialed diagnosis! :broc:
-
Thanks for another highly credentialed diagnosis! :broc:
And, see, that sort of thing keeps the snark going. Perhaps some here would be happier on a snark forum. Politics seem to be of secondary interest.
-
I've probably deposed 50 psychiatrists/psychologists in my day, and consulted with probably an equal number. Doesn't make me a psychologist, but it does mean I know what a defensible diagnosis requires. And that's including diagnoses with the DSM-III, III-R, IV, and V.
There is a huge modern tendency to describe personality traits as disorders -- essentially lowering the standards for what actually constitutes a disorder. Mostly, it's done by lay people, or non-psychiatrists/psychologists, though pop psychiatrists/psychologists will do the same thing on occasion. Anyway, every single one of the 100 or so I've deposed/consulted with has said that a personal interview is mandatory if you want to have a reliable, defensible diagnosis. There are simply too many variables that cannot be determined otherwise.
-
I've probably deposed 50 psychiatrists/psychologists in my day, and consulted with probably an equal number. Doesn't make me a psychologist, but it does mean I know what a defensible diagnosis requires. And that's including diagnoses with the DSM-III, III-R, IV, and V.
There is a huge modern tendency to describe personality traits as disorders -- essentially lowering the standards for what actually constitutes a disorder. Mostly, it's done by lay people, or non-psychiatrists/psychologists, though pop psychiatrists/psychologists will do the same thing on occasion. Anyway, every single one of the 100 or so I've deposed/consulted with has said that a personal interview is mandatory if you want to have a reliable, defensible diagnosis. There are simply too many variables that cannot be determined otherwise.
Thanks for the info MBM!
-
As Bob Dylan said:
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Perhaps we are not qualified to diagnose Trump with a specific disorder but his VERY public behavior is enough to tell that something is abnormal with him.
-
@Right_in_Virginia, you comment on Quix's wordiness, but you have managed to insult at least 1/2 of the posters on this thread and with zero or minimal comment about the content. I'd say that's a talent too. One which you might want to look at correcting.
Perhaps some are paid by the snark?
{slaps fingers--lightly}
-
Another fascinating discussion ended by snark.
Apparently disruption of intellect and free speech is the sole purpose of a handful (or less) of posters here, since nothing relating to the discussion was added by this thread's primary disruptor.
@Victoria33 , @Quix - thanks for the thoughtful discussion about a very serious subject. Victoria, I think the evidence of a learning disability is clear considering the linguistic deficiencies of the President. As for the narcissism - whether clinical or not, that is self evident as well.
While there have been previous Presidents with serious personality issues (Nixon, Clinton and Obama come to mind), for the most part they were hidden. Trump is the only one to place his disabilities on his sleeve for all to see.
Thanks for your kind words.
Most of y'all are a delight to dialogue with . . . partly because genuine dialogue is possible and seemingly preferred.
-
Thanks for your kind words.
Most of y'all are a delight to dialogue with . . . partly because genuine dialogue is possible and seemingly preferred.
:thumbsup:
-
And, see, that sort of thing keeps the snark going. Perhaps some here would be happier on a snark forum. Politics seem to be of secondary interest.
I sometimes wonder if politics ever even enters their minds. There are several who never seem to participate in any actual discussion of issues, but do nothing but throw spitwads at the serious posters on this forum.
Oh well, I guess there's an entertaining aspect to what they do..... :shrug:
-
"Thanks ever so" for what?
For respecting my request @Sanguine
-
For respecting my request @Sanguine
So, does that mean you're going to respect mine?
-
Thanks for your kind words.
Most of y'all are a delight to dialogue with . . . partly because genuine dialogue is possible and seemingly preferred.
Most of us do prefer intelligent dialogue........ even with people with whom we disagree....... or perhaps especially with people who have opposing opinions. (There's not a single person on any forum whose views on everything coincide with my own).
I spend a lot of time on TBR lurking on threads where people on both sides know a heck of a lot more than I do about a given subject, and love how much I learn by just reading learned opinions.
At any rate, @Quix, I really do appreciate your perspective on things, and think of you as a friend.
-
As Bob Dylan said:
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Perhaps we are not qualified to diagnose Trump with a specific disorder but his VERY public behavior is enough to tell that something is abnormal with him.
The idea that we have to have an advanced degree in psychology to observe obvious inappropriate behavior is ludicrous.
I wonder if these folks tried to silence analysis of Barack Obama, who displayed many of the same personality issues. (Rhetorical question. They did not).
Were we not supposed to comment that Obama was a narcissist when he whined that no one in the press should comment on the size of his ears?
Some things ARE obvious, and OF COURSE, we have the right to comment on what is going on.
The sad thing is these few actually think that they are accomplishing something with their snark. They're only hurting their cause when they try to silence all opposition to their views.
@jmyrlefuller
-
And, see, that sort of thing keeps the snark going. Perhaps some here would be happier on a snark forum. Politics seem to be of secondary interest.
Just curious @Sanguine In your humble opinion, would you call anything @musiclady posts "snark" --- or posted to sow discord?
I ask only to better understand your motivations---and to see if you and I have any common ground.
Thank you again.
-
Just curious @Sanguine In your humble opinion, would you call anything @musiclady posts "snark" --- or posted to sow discord?
I ask only to better understand your motivations---and to see if you and I have any common ground.
Thank you again.
Yes, sometimes she does. I do too, though I try hard to avoid it.
-
Yes, sometimes she does. I do too, though I try hard to avoid it.
Appreciate your honesty.
Hoping for a new beginning with you @Sanguine :beer:
-
The idea that we have to have an advanced degree in psychology to observe obvious inappropriate behavior is ludicrous.
No, but there is a huge difference between "inappropriate behavior" and a clinical diagnosis. The latter, by definition, requires someone with actual training in making clinical diagnoses. If someone wants to say "I think he's a narcissist", that's fine -- it's a colloquial term so you don't need any training. But if you want to say "he's got "narcissistic personality disorder", then yeah, you'd better be academically qualified to make that determination.
-
I've probably deposed 50 psychiatrists/psychologists in my day, and consulted with probably an equal number. Doesn't make me a psychologist, but it does mean I know what a defensible diagnosis requires. And that's including diagnoses with the DSM-III, III-R, IV, and V.
There is a huge modern tendency to describe personality traits as disorders -- essentially lowering the standards for what actually constitutes a disorder. Mostly, it's done by lay people, or non-psychiatrists/psychologists, though pop psychiatrists/psychologists will do the same thing on occasion. Anyway, every single one of the 100 or so I've deposed/consulted with has said that a personal interview is mandatory if you want to have a reliable, defensible diagnosis. There are simply too many variables that cannot be determined otherwise.
Great points, imho. Thanks.
I certainly agree that there are tooooo many variables to be dogmatic about such a conjectured diagnosis without a face to face set of interviews and a test battery.
On the whole, I don't mind reasonable and mostly respectful diagnostic conjectures of public figures. The public figures hold themselves out as paragon examples to lead us . . . and, imho, . . . deserve some serious scrutiny.
Though I think the scrutiny needs to happen initially at the local levels when they start out on the political path.
Some, no doubt, get worse the more power they garner.
Certainly themes in a life, a personality are likely readily observable in public figures. And, those can be compared to diagnostic criteria. HOWEVER, THAT is a very flawed way to arrive at a conjectured diagnosis, imho.
It may be worth doing in the interest of informing the public, protecting the public from abject crazy/demonized behaviors and potentials on the part of public leaders. But it needs to be seen as and related to as a very flawed way to go about it.
I've often reflected on my Dissertation Chairman's comment about the MMPI. The MMPI--the granddaddy of all paper/pencil diagnostic instruments has many dozens--100's probably--of sub-scales. There's even an MMPI sub-scale to predict the success of back surgery--that turns out to be fairly accurate.
However, my Chairman could demonstrate that BASICALLY, the MMPI measures one thing--CRAZINESS. Period.
Diagnostic labels are shorthand. They enable professionals, insurance companies and courts to discuss problematic behavior with less words--without using a description of the behavior vs a label continually.
And, when shorthand labels are used, nuance, details etc. are lost along the way. Sometimes the details are hugely significant and sometimes, not so much.
I happen to think that the nuance details regarding Trump and his history and life are likely more important than @Victoria33 seems to think they are. That's no huge biggy. Professionals often disagree. If something is critical, one usually gathers together a panel of experts known for objectivity to pour over the evidence and try and arrive at a consensus.
I think what sometimes annoys me about media pontificating professionals about politicos is that they largely seem to be at least AS influenced by political biases as they are diagnostic variables. Yet, they try and make it sound like 100% of their perspective is strictly professional diagnostic criteria. I'm not saying @Victoria33 does that but many do.
Imho, 95% or more of the upper level politicos in our current culture are narcissists to megalomaniacs to psychopaths. Maybe that's an exaggeration. Maybe not. Certainly the bulk of them are pathological liars with Shrillery and Dillbo chief among them on that score.
And another important issue that tends to get lost in such pontifications is the very critical issue of DEGREE of malady. And that virtually always ranges from a little to at or near maximum. Soros, Klintoons, OThuga, Boxer, SKerry, et al take the cake. SKerry may not be clinically near the top in terms of abject craziness but he is sure out of touch with reality to a huge degree. Some of the others are psychopathic/sociopathic to a horrible degree, imho.
Anyway . . . I love discussions like this with folks who value civility.
I love and enjoy Victoria33 for a variety of reasons. She's an enormously experienced and well trained Christian professional. She tends to be thorough--even exhaustive in her research. She's brilliant. She's kind. She chooses her words probably much more carefully than I do. She's sensitive and perceptive. I value her opinions and feelings about such a lot--even when we disagree.
I prefer to have a sense of humor about snarky stuff until it gets personal about personhood, sanity etc. But actually, it would be better to be just left out of discussions totally.
imho.
-
As Bob Dylan said:
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Perhaps we are not qualified to diagnose Trump with a specific disorder but his VERY public behavior is enough to tell that something is abnormal with him.
That's completely fair.
I've been around enough of this stuff to know that it isn't quite as exact a "science" as some might like to claim. To a certain extent, it's simply training in applying specific labels to stuff the rest of us know is pretty messed up.
-
Appreciate your honesty.
Hoping for a new beginning with you @Sanguine :beer:
That would be great. Just keep in mind, that once one has dug a hole, it takes some real effort to get back to ground level.
I'm pinging ML, because it would be great if she could join in. @musiclady. (And, I realized that I had talked about her in my last comment, but not pinged her.)
-
That would be great. Just keep in mind, that once one has dug a hole, it takes some real effort to get back to ground level.
Good point ^-^ We'll both take it step by step.
Enjoy your day @Sanguine
-
Good point ^-^ We'll both take it step by step.
Enjoy your day @Sanguine
And, you too.
-
AGREED.
Thanks for your kind words.
I think of you as a friend, too.
God's best to you and those you love.
Most of us do prefer intelligent dialogue........ even with people with whom we disagree....... or perhaps especially with people who have opposing opinions. (There's not a single person on any forum whose views on everything coincide with my own).
I spend a lot of time on TBR lurking on threads where people on both sides know a heck of a lot more than I do about a given subject, and love how much I learn by just reading learned opinions.
At any rate, @Quix, I really do appreciate your perspective on things, and think of you as a friend.
-
No, but there is a huge difference between "inappropriate behavior" and a clinical diagnosis. The latter, by definition, requires someone with actual training in making clinical diagnoses. If someone wants to say "I think he's a narcissist", that's fine -- it's a colloquial term so you don't need any training. But if you want to say "he's got "narcissistic personality disorder", then yeah, you'd better be academically qualified to make that determination.
And do you know that those saying that do not have appropriate training?
Are you in agreement with silencing everyone who says that, even without knowing their educational backgrounds?
-
Yes, sometimes she does. I do too, though I try hard to avoid it.
There's a fundamental difference between making an occasional snarky comment (especially after being provoked) and doing nothing BUT sniping at people. The vast majority of us say things we shouldn't say on occasion. There are only a handful who throw darts at any criticism of Trump.
The problem here is that there are some who try to silence all commentary about Trump that doesn't favor him, and who come on any thread where people are saying things that they don't like and attack, sometimes WAY below the belt.
Those few are on my permanent IGNORE list. They have a long, long record of ugly behavior toward a large number of people.
There are plenty of people with whom I disagree who can discuss things as adults discuss things.
Life is much better if I ignore the people who just can't seem to do that.
Edited to ping @Sanguine - and to say that I have no problem with your making a comment in response to a question without letting me know. (You're one of the adults. ^-^ )
-
No, but there is a huge difference between "inappropriate behavior" and a clinical diagnosis. The latter, by definition, requires someone with actual training in making clinical diagnoses. If someone wants to say "I think he's a narcissist", that's fine -- it's a colloquial term so you don't need any training. But if you want to say "he's got "narcissistic personality disorder", then yeah, you'd better be academically qualified to make that determination.
My B.A. program Personality and Adjustment prof played this for our class more than 45 years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyOl0-qbDSU
In it Dr Banks (former head of New York Mental Hospital) notes that he was often asked what the insane did that normal people don't do?
His reply:
'Not a blessed thing. It's only a matter of degree.'
I think the audio is worth listening to. Half of it is jokes but some good generic mental health & relationships content along the way.
Probably the more critical issue that @Victoria33 has raised is the conjecture of how hazardous Trump's purported mental problems are to the Nation and planet.
Personally, I think at his worst, Trump is a LOT more benign than OThuga and the Klintoons were in their sleep.
But, time will tell.
I do believe that Ivanka's hubby and the rest of Trump's kids as well as Melania are not wimps. I don't think they'd stand silently by and watch Trump decompensate in dangerous ways and degrees without insuring that proper actions were taken accordingly.
And, I just don't believe that Trump is that liable to decompensating. He's endured far too much stress far too often in his life. He almost seems to thrive on such challenges.
-
Dr. Phil wouldn't diagnose Trump;
http://conservative101.com/joy-behar-begs-dr-phil-to-diagnose-trump-he-ends-up-diagnosing-her-instead-with-brutal-zinger/
-
That's completely fair.
I've been around enough of this stuff to know that it isn't quite as exact a "science" as some might like to claim. To a certain extent, it's simply training in applying specific labels to stuff the rest of us know is pretty messed up.
imho, THAT is a super important issue.
We all see though the mirror darkly, in at least a bit of a fog.
People are incredibly complex.
Predicting decompensation, violence etc. is just incredibly difficult to do with any reliable accuracy at all--particularly in terms of timing and degree.
Actually, I'd predict that Shrillery would go stark raving mad very violently and vengefully berzerk 1,000 times to Trump doing it once--and at a far higher intensity. LOL.
-
Dr. Phil wouldn't diagnose Trump;
http://conservative101.com/joy-behar-begs-dr-phil-to-diagnose-trump-he-ends-up-diagnosing-her-instead-with-brutal-zinger/
She clearly exhibited many of those signs.
-
Dr. Phil wouldn't diagnose Trump;
http://conservative101.com/joy-behar-begs-dr-phil-to-diagnose-trump-he-ends-up-diagnosing-her-instead-with-brutal-zinger/
Of course he wouldn't. He gave up his licence to practice in 2006. And, despite my opinion of his show, he's a pretty ethical guy.
-
Depends on the definition of snark. I would not be the Moronic Ass Clown I am today without it.
-
Depends on the definition of snark. I would not be the Moronic Ass Clown I am today without it.
Yeah, well!!!
Some snarks are obviously more equal than others.
LOL.
-
Depends on the definition of snark. I would not be the Moronic Ass Clown I am today without it.
Nope, Fred, sorry but you don't qualify. Snark is perceived as containing an element of malice.
-
And do you know that those saying that do not have appropriate training?
You're mixing two different issues. The first issue is that regardless of training, even a qualified professional cannot give a defensible, reliable clinical diagnosis unless they have personally examined/interviewed the individual.
The second issue is the difference between an informal, colloquial opinion such as "he's a narcissist", and a clinical diagnosis of "He's got narcissisitic personality disorder." A lay person can give the former, but not the latter. A qualified professional can give either, but can only give the latter at an acceptable professional standard of liability if they've actually examined the person in question. So again, even "appropriate training" isn't enough to give a reliable clinical diagnosis unless you've examined them. And I've been told that by 100 or whatever actual doctors, either psychiatrists or psychologists, including quite a few who've been involved with the DSM's.
As for the rest, I'm not sure what you mean by "silence". People are free to say what they wish, and others are free to disagree. Has someone actually been silenced here?
-
You're mixing two different issues. The first issue is that regardless of training, even a qualified professional cannot give a defensible, reliable clinical diagnosis unless they have personally examined/interviewed the individual.
Yet any half-decent con can read a mark and play him in less than 10 seconds...
-
Yet any half-decent con can read a mark and play him in less than 10 seconds...
No question, but I would hope that an official diagnosis would be a bit more detailed and thoughtful.
And cons are much more adept at identifying other cons - if we could all do it, they wouldn't stay in business.
-
You're mixing two different issues. The first issue is that regardless of training, even a qualified professional cannot give a defensible, reliable clinical diagnosis unless they have personally examined/interviewed the individual.
The second issue is the difference between an informal, colloquial opinion such as "he's a narcissist", and a clinical diagnosis of "He's got narcissisitic personality disorder." A lay person can give the former, but not the latter. A qualified professional can give either, but can only give the latter at an acceptable professional standard of liability if they've actually examined the person in question. So again, even "appropriate training" isn't enough to give a reliable clinical diagnosis unless you've examined them. And I've been told that by 100 or whatever actual doctors, either psychiatrists or psychologists, including quite a few who've been involved with the DSM's.
As for the rest, I'm not sure what you mean by "silence". People are free to say what they wish, and others are free to disagree. Has someone actually been silenced here?
I obviously have no disagreement with your assessment of who is qualified to say what and when, but I'm not quite sure what your underlying point is.
There are highly qualified people on this board giving highly professional opinions about the serious issues that Donald Trump has. They have a right to speak. I respect educated opinions on both sides of the "narcissist" discussion, whether they have seen the patient or not. They have valuable insights into mental illness that the rest of us don't have.
And if you haven't seen the effort to silence people who don't support Trump, I would suggest you pay more attention.
I don't think I have to name names (nor will I) to make the obvious point that some people are so enamored with Donald Trump that they want those of us who find him a less-than-admirable human being to just shut up and go away.
Never fear, though. We're not that spineless, and they won't ever succeed. :patriot:
-
No question, but I would hope that an official diagnosis would be a bit more detailed and thoughtful.
Nah - Now you're getting into the long con (read: 'The Sting'). My point is that it is an argument toward authority, which is seldom a good defense. Shoot, my dog is an excellent judge of character - If he don't like someone, they ain't going to be welcome here. Women often have that innate sense too. There's something to it.
And cons are much more adept at identifying other cons - if we could all do it, they wouldn't stay in business.
Well, no... it's the rubes that keep the cons in the dough.
-
My PhD program was significantly involved in development /drafts of the DSM III or IV . . . I forget. LOL.
"Labeling" was a big discussion off and on in our school. Then there were the tricky 'differential diagnoses' questions. I don't really miss splitting hairs like that.
You're mixing two different issues. The first issue is that regardless of training, even a qualified professional cannot give a defensible, reliable clinical diagnosis unless they have personally examined/interviewed the individual.
The second issue is the difference between an informal, colloquial opinion such as "he's a narcissist", and a clinical diagnosis of "He's got narcissisitic personality disorder." A lay person can give the former, but not the latter. A qualified professional can give either, but can only give the latter at an acceptable professional standard of liability if they've actually examined the person in question. So again, even "appropriate training" isn't enough to give a reliable clinical diagnosis unless you've examined them. And I've been told that by 100 or whatever actual doctors, either psychiatrists or psychologists, including quite a few who've been involved with the DSM's.
As for the rest, I'm not sure what you mean by "silence". People are free to say what they wish, and others are free to disagree. Has someone actually been silenced here?
-
Nah - Now you're getting into the long con (read: 'The Sting'). My point is that it is an argument toward authority, which is seldom a good defense. Shoot, my dog is an excellent judge of character - If he don't like someone, they ain't going to be welcome here. Women often have that innate sense too. There's something to it.
Well, no... it's the rubes that keep the cons in the dough.
LOL - if all women had that sense they wouldn't go for the "bad guy"!
And, either you read my last sentence backwards or I wrote it backwards. I meant that if all of us could detect cons, they (cons) would be out of business.
And, there are some bad apples in the mental health professions, probably more than should be, but arriving at a diagnosis requires documentation and reason.
-
And, there are some bad apples in the mental health professions, probably more than should be, but arriving at a diagnosis requires documentation and reason.
I should just shut up and bow out. With the exception of @Quix , who is a friend of mine, I have had less than satisfactory service from the professional community. The only thing in the field I have respect for is the book 'Man's Search for Meaning' by Viktor Frankel.
I am just way better off taking my advice on some old cow-puncher's porch, or in some old duffer's mechanic shop. Personally, I find the level of help to be of a much higher value. And I say that with a sister who is a fully papered psychologist.
-
I should just shut up and bow out. With the exception of @Quix , who is a friend of mine, I have had less than satisfactory service from the professional community. The only thing in the field I have respect for is the book 'Man's Search for Meaning' by Viktor Frankel.
I am just way better off taking my advice on some old cow-puncher's porch, or in some old duffer's mechanic shop. Personally, I find the level of help to be of a much higher value. And I say that with a sister who is a fully papered psychologist.
I'd probably agree with you and join you most of the time, in most cases re most professionals I've known vs most porcher's wisdom on life types.
However, my training and internships were in Southern California . . . well populated with fruits and nuts . . . particularly in the mental health field.
Thankfully, my Dissertation Chairman was a Mormon Bishop who was both brilliant and practical . . . and down to earth, most of the time. LOL.
And Man's Search for Meaning is a top flight book well worth folks' time
-
I should just shut up and bow out. With the exception of @Quix , who is a friend of mine, I have had less than satisfactory service from the professional community. The only thing in the field I have respect for is the book 'Man's Search for Meaning' by Viktor Frankel.
I am just way better off taking my advice on some old cow-puncher's porch, or in some old duffer's mechanic shop. Personally, I find the level of help to be of a much higher value. And I say that with a sister who is a fully papered psychologist.
Frankl is a good reference!
-
There's a fundamental difference between making an occasional snarky comment (especially after being provoked) and doing nothing BUT sniping at people. The vast majority of us say things we shouldn't say on occasion. There are only a handful who throw darts at any criticism of Trump.
The problem here is that there are some who try to silence all commentary about Trump that doesn't favor him, and who come on any thread where people are saying things that they don't like and attack, sometimes WAY below the belt.
Those few are on my permanent IGNORE list. They have a long, long record of ugly behavior toward a large number of people.
There are plenty of people with whom I disagree who can discuss things as adults discuss things.
Life is much better if I ignore the people who just can't seem to do that.
Edited to ping @Sanguine - and to say that I have no problem with your making a comment in response to a question without letting me know. (You're one of the adults. ^-^ )
@musiclady
I agree that we should all do our best to keep the forum as civil as possible, but I think everyone loses his or her temper, to one degree or another, at times. The difference here is that most members really do try, and things usually gets back on track.
I found a private message in my box accusing me of being a hateful liar and a fake Christian who is dedicated to bringing down Trump's presidency, along with a promise to fight me every step of the way. As it was a private matter, I let the sender have both barrels. I didn't feel obligated to restraint in that setting, nor inclined to humor the lunacy.
-
I found a private message in my box accusing me of being a hateful liar and a fake Christian who is dedicated to bringing down Trump's presidency, along with a promise to fight me every step of the way. As it was a private matter, I let the sender have both barrels. I didn't feel obligated to restraint in that setting, nor inclined to humor the lunacy.
Wow..I am sorry to hear that...
-
@musiclady
I agree that we should all do our best to keep the forum as civil as possible, but I think everyone loses his or her temper, to one degree or another, at times. The difference here is that most members really do try, and things usually gets back on track.
I found a private message in my box accusing me of being a hateful liar and a fake Christian who is dedicated to bringing down Trump's presidency, along with a promise to fight me every step of the way. As it was a private matter, I let the sender have both barrels. I didn't feel obligated to restraint in that setting, nor inclined to humor the lunacy.
They're just emulating their hero trump, you know, the good Christian who grabs me by the bleep.
-
@musiclady
I agree that we should all do our best to keep the forum as civil as possible, but I think everyone loses his or her temper, to one degree or another, at times. The difference here is that most members really do try, and things usually gets back on track.
I found a private message in my box accusing me of being a hateful liar and a fake Christian who is dedicated to bringing down Trump's presidency, along with a promise to fight me every step of the way. As it was a private matter, I let the sender have both barrels. I didn't feel obligated to restraint in that setting, nor inclined to humor the lunacy.
You're clearly dealing with a disturbed coward, and had every right to respond with "both barrels."
I am fortunate to have never received one of those vile e-mails from whoever sends them to people who dare to differ with their sacred opinions and feelings, but I know that many have been the victims of personal attacks via PMs.
I guess we just have to accept the fact that in any open forum that while most of us are sane and decent, there are a handful who have a screw or two loose.
If you get any actual threats, however (and someone has done that in the past) make sure you report whoever sent the PM to the Mods.
This is a great forum, and the vast majority of us here don't want anything or any one to bring it down.
@CatherineofAragon
-
I should just shut up and bow out. With the exception of @Quix , who is a friend of mine, I have had less than satisfactory service from the professional community. The only thing in the field I have respect for is the book 'Man's Search for Meaning' by Viktor Frankel.
I am just way better off taking my advice on some old cow-puncher's porch, or in some old duffer's mechanic shop. Personally, I find the level of help to be of a much higher value. And I say that with a sister who is a fully papered psychologist.
Every person I ever knew in the psychology/psychiatry field needed/had one themselves. Bar none.
-
@musiclady
I found a private message in my box accusing me of being a hateful liar and a fake Christian who is dedicated to bringing down Trump's presidency, along with a promise to fight me every step of the way. As it was a private matter, I let the sender have both barrels. I didn't feel obligated to restraint in that setting, nor inclined to humor the lunacy.
NO FUN!
One of the things I've learned painfully well over my 70 years with several decades as a psychologist is
--Virtually everyone is convinced they are a better psychologist than I am--particularly if we are discussing their opinions about someone.
.
And, while I haven't read any studies on it and haven't kept my own statistics--my IMPRESSION IS that the greater the degree of Attachment Disorder results in a greater tendency to believe that the individual (A) can perform a snap assessment of another person (B) and be absolutely 100% correct regardless of how many psychologists would disagree.
.
And, the older I've gotten, the more I've realized that people really are, on average, very complex. Everyone is--in this or that area, if not generally.
.
For most of my adult life, I've had a quirky capacity to look at a pic--particularly 2-3 pics--of a person, where I can see their eyes and face clearly--I can usually give a personality summary equal to or better than that of some of my colleagues after reviewing a whole test battery. The recipients of such inputs have typically said I've been 80% to 100% accurate.
.
Nevertheless, of course, I've often been wrong in my life about many things. And, even after many years of knowing and/or working with someone, I have had to increasingly accept the fact that I never will exhaustively understand to the nth detail, any one other individual.
.
Many colleagues and professors and supervisors have commented on my ability to quickly and fairly accurately size someone up in quite a list of ways from very minimal contact.
.
Yet, I'm still aghast at how many laymen and women are convinced that after minimal interactions on a website, they are convinced that they can pin others they interact with to the wall in a list of ways. They are convinced that they have accurately summarized the other individual. While, usually, they've probably merely displayed their own personality features, blinders, flaws & biases.
.
I'm sorry you were bruised by such a dump.
.
Perhaps you could consider that the person spewing such bile at you has a desperate need to condense the complexities of daily life into very stereotypical labels in order to feel better about themselves and/or about the future.
.
Sometimes such folks can be helped to broaden their view of and constructions on reality.
.
Often, they cannot--at least seemingly--cannot.
.
Nevertheless, one doesn't need to aid and abet such a narrow understanding of reality; nor to be trashed needlessly by it.
.
We can all do and say foolish things. But some seem to make a career of it. No need to enable them by applause or winking at such harshness.
.
imho.
-
Your last post @Quix shows me why I was never a doctoral candidate. I'm far too simple minded @CatherineofAragon.
Perhaps you could consider that the person spewing such bile at you is simply driven by fear and go from there.
-
Your last post @Quix shows me why I was never a doctoral candidate. I'm far too simple minded @CatherineofAragon.
Perhaps you could consider that the person spewing such bile at you is simply driven by fear and go from there.
True. True.
Fears drive a lot of craziness.
-
I understand there have been nasty, insulting pms going back and forth.
I can't do anything about that, but I can shut off all pms if necessary.