The Brits done it! Not.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2017, 02:15 PM
RE: The Brits done it! Not.
(19-03-2017 01:43 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(19-03-2017 01:06 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  While this might or might not be accurate, it would couched in the idea of character and not diagnosing him personally. It's ok to use a personality trait or example, e.g. Napoleon Complex.

There is a difference between using a public figure to highlight their apparent public flaws and actually diagnosing them, medically.

Quote:“He’s so classic that I’m archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there’s no better example of his characteristics,” said clinical psychologist George Simon, who conducts lectures and seminars on manipulative behavior. “Otherwise, I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He’s like a dream come true.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/d...therapists

Do read the article. There is no doubt at all. Thing is, never before has a president laid himself so bare - his tweets actually record his disordered thought perfectly.

You can continue to bark up this tree as much as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that absolutely no one can know for sure unless they're first qualified and second, in the room with him observing him for a long period of time, which would mean more than 15 minutes of television sound bites and reading his twitter feed.

That is the point I'm making. He might very well be all everyone thinks he is, or it might be a carefully crafted persona that he took on years ago that people expect to find from him. I have my own ideas about him but whatever...

I've actually known a couple people that were malignant narcissists in a personal way, and I've got say the diagnosis isn't simple as reading some information about it. There are nuances to how they behave privately as well as their public facade. I've also known a few people who outwardly displayed every single characteristic in DSM, yet weren't because their private life was completely different.

Again, I'm not saying that he isn't exactly as he seems, but what I am saying that there's no way for anyone to actually know either -- but that particular brand of preaching of the choir does sell and will get other's on TV.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
19-03-2017, 02:37 PM
RE: The Brits done it! Not.
(19-03-2017 02:15 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(19-03-2017 01:43 PM)Dom Wrote:  http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/d...therapists

Do read the article. There is no doubt at all. Thing is, never before has a president laid himself so bare - his tweets actually record his disordered thought perfectly.

You can continue to bark up this tree as much as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that absolutely no one can know for sure unless they're first qualified and second, in the room with him observing him for a long period of time, which would mean more than 15 minutes of television sound bites and reading his twitter feed.

That is the point I'm making. He might very well be all everyone thinks he is, or it might be a carefully crafted persona that he took on years ago that people expect to find from him. I have my own ideas about him but whatever...

I've actually known a couple people that were malignant narcissists in a personal way, and I've got say the diagnosis isn't simple as reading some information about it. There are nuances to how they behave privately as well as their public facade. I've also known a few people who outwardly displayed every single characteristic in DSM, yet weren't because their private life was completely different.

Again, I'm not saying that he isn't exactly as he seems, but what I am saying that there's no way for anyone to actually know either -- but that particular brand of preaching of the choir does sell and will get other's on TV.

I had 24 years of close exposure to a malignant narcissist, both behavior at home and in public. I then had intermittent personal contact and constant contact with people in his household for another 30 years. I spent the better part of 5 years studying the disorder and attending groups of people who were currently involved with one and trying to get away unscathed.

They devolve over time - the crafted "front", a very charismatic and charming personality, starts wearing off with age and the real person comes out frequently and unabashed. Exaggerated facial expressions come to the forefront. Lies become more careless. It rarely ends well.

I actually have empathy for people with this disorder, despite the havoc they wreak in other people's lives. While I am still raw (after all these years!!!) and don't want to get too deeply into specifics lest I trigger myself, I have come around to the realization that they just cannot help themselves.

Like the many mental health pros who have come forth with the diagnosis despite there being the possibility of their being sued and losing their profession, I can't sit here and see a malignant narcissist sitting there with a finger on the trigger than can ruin the entire world. I have to say something. They have to say something. Somebody has to educate people about it.

But alas, it gets brushed away as partisan. I can only do what I can do to point it out to as many people as I can.

You don't see me taking many strong positions here, nor do you see me defending things this vigorously. Just take away that I am totally sure that I am right here. Totally.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
19-03-2017, 03:47 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2017 03:56 PM by Momsurroundedbyboys.)
RE: The Brits done it! Not.
(19-03-2017 02:37 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(19-03-2017 02:15 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  You can continue to bark up this tree as much as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that absolutely no one can know for sure unless they're first qualified and second, in the room with him observing him for a long period of time, which would mean more than 15 minutes of television sound bites and reading his twitter feed.

That is the point I'm making. He might very well be all everyone thinks he is, or it might be a carefully crafted persona that he took on years ago that people expect to find from him. I have my own ideas about him but whatever...

I've actually known a couple people that were malignant narcissists in a personal way, and I've got say the diagnosis isn't simple as reading some information about it. There are nuances to how they behave privately as well as their public facade. I've also known a few people who outwardly displayed every single characteristic in DSM, yet weren't because their private life was completely different.

Again, I'm not saying that he isn't exactly as he seems, but what I am saying that there's no way for anyone to actually know either -- but that particular brand of preaching of the choir does sell and will get other's on TV.

I had 24 years of close exposure to a malignant narcissist, both behavior at home and in public. I then had intermittent personal contact and constant contact with people in his household for another 30 years. I spent the better part of 5 years studying the disorder and attending groups of people who were currently involved with one and trying to get away unscathed.

They devolve over time - the crafted "front", a very charismatic and charming personality, starts wearing off with age and the real person comes out frequently and unabashed. Exaggerated facial expressions come to the forefront. Lies become more careless. It rarely ends well.

I actually have empathy for people with this disorder, despite the havoc they wreak in other people's lives. While I am still raw (after all these years!!!) and don't want to get too deeply into specifics lest I trigger myself, I have come around to the realization that they just cannot help themselves.

Like the many mental health pros who have come forth with the diagnosis despite there being the possibility of their being sued and losing their profession, I can't sit here and see a malignant narcissist sitting there with a finger on the trigger than can ruin the entire world. I have to say something. They have to say something. Somebody has to educate people about it.

But alas, it gets brushed away as partisan. I can only do what I can do to point it out to as many people as I can.

You don't see me taking many strong positions here, nor do you see me defending things this vigorously. Just take away that I am totally sure that I am right here. Totally.

Unless you lived with trump it doesn't matter. I have a degree in psychology and that shit doesn't matter either because I've never been in a room with him. I couldn't see how he behaves without cameras or an audience.

Your only voicing your opinion that echoes the opinion of others, or in other words you've got a nice echo chamber. I don't know if you're "totally right" because I've never sat down with him and it's also quite doubtful I'd ever get the chance to. All I am pointing out is that a qualified mental health diagnosis requires more than watching him on tv. OLB was right to point it out, and to point out the rule in place against clinicians from making such assertions.

In other words, you could also be completely wrong, especially since you tightly focused on this one disorder (from what you've said in the past) and ignored the plethora of other disorders it can mirror.

Edited to add a link on why such talk is unproductive and ill advised..


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2017, 05:25 PM
RE: The Brits done it! Not.
While I respect the point the OpEd you posted is making, Moms, I think they're wrong to suggest that what people are doing is an ad hominem attack against Trump, or "critique by diagnosis", as the author put it.

What people are doing is saying that the things we are critiquing-- the actions/behaviors, ranging from public statements to tweets to policy recommendations to proposed laws to appointments to his known history in the business world-- are themselves so egregious that one begins to wonder if there is not something inherently and fundamentally wrong with the man. One can indeed make a psychological assessment of a person, given numerous public statements and actions and testimonies of those with whom they have interacted, such as we did with Adolf Hitler. The assessment may be less accurate and/or more problematic than a direct diagnosis from examining the person directly, but that does not mean that it's completely off-base, either.

But in the end, the issue is that we're not attacking his policies because we dislike him... nor are we calling him mentally disordered because we don't like his policies. Rather, we are saying that in this particular case, the man shows patterns that are similar to the behaviors we have seen in actual psychos we have known, personally.

I think calling these observations "attacks" or simply partisanship is to miss the point, entirely, and worse, it is to make excuses for what may be a dangerous sort of narcissism-- the "perfect storm" of political power and an "Affluenza" upbringing (by a known White Supremacist father, no less) coupled with his utter sociopathy-- which has the potential to deeply damage this nation, and possibly the world.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
19-03-2017, 05:38 PM
RE: The Brits done it! Not.
I brought it up because I want to raise awareness.

That's all I can do, and all I can expect is that some people will think about it and pay attention.

I think I have succeeded, some people will be paying attention to this.

I am sure his handlers are very aware after his tantrums the other weekend, and they will medicate him, if they haven't already.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2017, 08:24 PM
RE: The Brits done it! Not.
(19-03-2017 05:25 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  While I respect the point the OpEd you posted is making, Moms, I think they're wrong to suggest that what people are doing is an ad hominem attack against Trump, or "critique by diagnosis", as the author put it.

What people are doing is saying that the things we are critiquing-- the actions/behaviors, ranging from public statements to tweets to policy recommendations to proposed laws to appointments to his known history in the business world-- are themselves so egregious that one begins to wonder if there is not something inherently and fundamentally wrong with the man. One can indeed make a psychological assessment of a person, given numerous public statements and actions and testimonies of those with whom they have interacted, such as we did with Adolf Hitler. The assessment may be less accurate and/or more problematic than a direct diagnosis from examining the person directly, but that does not mean that it's completely off-base, either.

But in the end, the issue is that we're not attacking his policies because we dislike him... nor are we calling him mentally disordered because we don't like his policies. Rather, we are saying that in this particular case, the man shows patterns that are similar to the behaviors we have seen in actual psychos we have known, personally.

I think calling these observations "attacks" or simply partisanship is to miss the point, entirely, and worse, it is to make excuses for what may be a dangerous sort of narcissism-- the "perfect storm" of political power and an "Affluenza" upbringing (by a known White Supremacist father, no less) coupled with his utter sociopathy-- which has the potential to deeply damage this nation, and possibly the world.

I understand this. The problem is that when you start with the appeal to authority and speaking as such, it becomes an ethical issue for counselors, mental health professionals and doctors of psychiatry.

(It's also unnecessarily divisive.)

Either the Goldwater Rule should apply to potus or it doesn't apply to anyone. There's no middle ground for this, it's about ethics and you don't get to pick and choose who it applies to.

I wouldn't want to see someone giving expert testimony in a trial about the defendant they didn't actually see, but just watched an interview on tv, and offered opinion of their demeanor based on that and how they behaved on social media.

That type of testimony shouldn't be allowed ever, yet with this day and age, I can easily see it becoming a thing. People are already getting used to the doctor oz types giving medical advice without having any facts.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
20-03-2017, 06:59 AM
RE: The Brits done it! Not.
(19-03-2017 08:24 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(19-03-2017 05:25 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  While I respect the point the OpEd you posted is making, Moms, I think they're wrong to suggest that what people are doing is an ad hominem attack against Trump, or "critique by diagnosis", as the author put it.

What people are doing is saying that the things we are critiquing-- the actions/behaviors, ranging from public statements to tweets to policy recommendations to proposed laws to appointments to his known history in the business world-- are themselves so egregious that one begins to wonder if there is not something inherently and fundamentally wrong with the man. One can indeed make a psychological assessment of a person, given numerous public statements and actions and testimonies of those with whom they have interacted, such as we did with Adolf Hitler. The assessment may be less accurate and/or more problematic than a direct diagnosis from examining the person directly, but that does not mean that it's completely off-base, either.

But in the end, the issue is that we're not attacking his policies because we dislike him... nor are we calling him mentally disordered because we don't like his policies. Rather, we are saying that in this particular case, the man shows patterns that are similar to the behaviors we have seen in actual psychos we have known, personally.

I think calling these observations "attacks" or simply partisanship is to miss the point, entirely, and worse, it is to make excuses for what may be a dangerous sort of narcissism-- the "perfect storm" of political power and an "Affluenza" upbringing (by a known White Supremacist father, no less) coupled with his utter sociopathy-- which has the potential to deeply damage this nation, and possibly the world.

I understand this. The problem is that when you start with the appeal to authority and speaking as such, it becomes an ethical issue for counselors, mental health professionals and doctors of psychiatry.

(It's also unnecessarily divisive.)

Either the Goldwater Rule should apply to potus or it doesn't apply to anyone. There's no middle ground for this, it's about ethics and you don't get to pick and choose who it applies to.

I wouldn't want to see someone giving expert testimony in a trial about the defendant they didn't actually see, but just watched an interview on tv, and offered opinion of their demeanor based on that and how they behaved on social media.

That type of testimony shouldn't be allowed ever, yet with this day and age, I can easily see it becoming a thing. People are already getting used to the doctor oz types giving medical advice without having any facts.

Yabbut, I am not testifying in court.

I am drawing attention to possibly dangerous attributes of the most powerful man in the world, as layman, in some obscure internet forum with a very limited audience.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2017, 07:36 AM
RE: The Brits done it! Not.
My two pennies worth, "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do/say nothing."
Its a famous quote although I don't know who said it originally."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
20-03-2017, 09:31 AM
RE: The Brits done it! Not.
(20-03-2017 06:59 AM)Dom Wrote:  Yabbut, I am not testifying in court.

I am drawing attention to possibly dangerous attributes of the most powerful man in the world, as layman, in some obscure internet forum with a very limited audience.

I don't understand why speculation on this point is frowned on? FFS we have the mans antics on the TV every goddamn day. And somehow we're supposed to believe that he's a normal functioning human being?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2017, 11:06 AM
RE: The Brits done it! Not.
(20-03-2017 09:31 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(20-03-2017 06:59 AM)Dom Wrote:  Yabbut, I am not testifying in court.

I am drawing attention to possibly dangerous attributes of the most powerful man in the world, as layman, in some obscure internet forum with a very limited audience.

I don't understand why speculation on this point is frowned on? FFS we have the mans antics on the TV every goddamn day. And somehow we're supposed to believe that he's a normal functioning human being?

I agree with this, if it quacks swims through water has feathers and a bill, its probably a duck. I wonder if trump would be as magnanimous as to offer his opponents the benefit of the doubt, unlikely because.... Oh that's right he's a malignant narcissist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like adey67's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: