Straight Dope Message Board

[Sicks Ate]

Originally Posted by running coach

Clothahump is a former cop. I brought up that point in another thread and got no response.

Reeeeeeeaaaally.

[Ravenman]

There’s a reason why I used the car accident as the basis of the question. If it were four people witnessing Trump sexually assualting a woman, they would all obviously be lying.

[El_Kabong]

NM

[enipla]

I don't care if trump is insane/unstable/or has dementia/Alzheimer's. Nurture or Nature? Doesn't' matter. That's all pretty much beside the point.

We do know that he is an asshole of the highest level (I don't need a degree in psychology to recognize a simple minded bully). He cares about one thing - Donald Trump.

When you get a flat tire on a deserted highway, do you look for the nail in the tire? Or do you proceed to fix it? After it is fixed/replaced, you can then evaluate your choice of tires. Sitting around dying of thirst wondering how you got the flat tire is not the optimal thing to do.

[guizot]

Originally Posted by enipla

When you get a flat tire on a deserted highway, do you look for the nail in the tire? Or do you proceed to fix it?

You stand there and do nothing because the Code of Ethics of auto mechanics says they can't diagnose a car until they see it in person.

[John Mace]

It shouldn't take more than 30 minutes, maybe an hour, to change out a flat tire on your car, unless you haven't a clue how to do it. You're not going to die of thirst spending a few minutes looking for the nail.

[D'Anconia]

Originally Posted by running coach

You claimed it was a sub-forum.
I never said a thing about "I saw it on the internet". That was Grrr!

One needn't read everything quite so literally.

Of course, it's not a sub-forum. However, it has the same rules:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=818214

and mostly the same moderators.

So it's a fail for a poster to state, in Elections, "I don't have to provide a cite, this isn't Great Debates." For all intensive purposes (that's a joke, for those that are literal minded), it is.

And now a question for you personally, running coach. Do you believe that "I saw it on the internet" is a legitimate cite, in any forum?

[running coach]

Originally Posted by D'Anconia

One needn't read everything quite so literally.

Of course, it's not a sub-forum. However, it has the same rules:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=818214

and mostly the same moderators.

So it's a fail for a poster to state, in Elections, "I don't have to provide a cite, this isn't Great Debates." For all intensive purposes (that's a joke, for those that are literal minded), it is.

And now a question for you personally, running coach. Do you believe that "I saw it on the internet" is a legitimate cite, in any forum?

Why not? You do.
Your argument is with Grrr!, not me. Besides, since when do you accept opinions? You always demand facts even when someone has an opinion.

[D'Anconia]

Originally Posted by running coach

Why not? You do.

Where and when?

[zombywoof]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Because some nations are pretty much shitholes, sad to say.

Of course some nations are far worse off than others - the problem is Trump's apparent belief that being born in one of those nations makes one an inherently inferior person.

[Johnny Ace]

Ultimately it makes no difference whether it's a debate or not (which, obviously, it is, as are many discussions in many of these forums). If someone has the balls to try to claim unsupported assertions as automatically valid points, I have the good sense to assign them no credibility whatsoever. (Btw, what they're doing is trying to assign the rules of a court of law, in which the stakes are significantly higher than winning a point or trophy, to debate, to their advantage. To answer the kid who importuned Shoeless Joe, it just ain't so.)

[bobot]

Originally Posted by zombywoof

Of course some nations are far worse off than others - the problem is Trump's apparent belief that being born in one of those nations makes one an inherently inferior person.

Quite sad that this even has to be spelled out.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by zombywoof

Of course some nations are far worse off than others - the problem is Trump's apparent belief that being born in one of those nations makes one an inherently inferior person.

That is also a wrong Trump think.

Just because the leadership of a nation is corrupt and incompetent, doesnt mean the resident of that nation are also bad. I mean, based upon that kind of thinking no one would take USA immigrants....

[JRDelirious]

Heck, wanting to, and undertaking the significant hassle required to, leave the s**hole, suggests you are a person with drive and aspirations towards something better. I think we want that kind of people.

[Beckdawrek]

There are shitholes in every country. That doesn't make the whole continent a shithole. Mr.Trump should go see the reservations in Oklahoma. Or the poor areas in any town. Or the main streets of small cities where Wal-Mart has knocked out the local businesses.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Originally Posted by Beckdawrek

There are shitholes in every country. That doesn't make the whole continent a shithole. Mr.Trump should go see the reservations in Oklahoma. Or the poor areas in any town. Or the main streets of small cities where Wal-Mart has knocked out the local businesses.

Obligatory Two Scoops: But we have the BEST shitholes! Really beautiful shitholes!

[zombywoof]

There's no secret to what Trump meant by "shithole" - places where people are generally assumed to be black and poor (Africa, Haiti) as opposed to places where they are white and prosperous (like Norway, thanks to their oil wealth.)

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Johnny Ace

Bullshit. That's am excuse I see all the time from the right side of the aisle. You don't get to just say "No" with any credibility whatsoever without backing it up...
I said this before the last time Shodan tried to get away with it and you backed him up on it. It's flat-out false.

Prove it.

Originally Posted by Johnny Ace

If someone has the balls to try to claim unsupported assertions as automatically valid points, I have the good sense to assign them no credibility whatsoever.

"No".

Regards,
Shodan

[asahi]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

You know the adage about four people on different street corners watching the same accident, and having four different explanations of what happened? After the cop interviews them and writes up what he assesses happened, is what the cop wrote “bullshit?”

Not to defend Clothahump, while I think his characterization of the facts is inaccurate, he's not entirely wrong in pointing out that there are some troubling questions about the book (I assume he's talking about Wolff) that won't go away. Like how he got access, and what kind of access did he really have, and is he really sure that 100% of the people around Trump feel he's too stupid to do the job. It's clear he got much of it right, but as I said on another thread, if he gets 5-10% of wrong, then it calls into question even the things he got right. I reject the modern view among many new-age journalists that it's okay to get most of it right. What's worse about Wolff is that he's not the kind of guy who's necessarily going to admit that some of his facts are wrong; it'll be left to other sources to gradually come to these conclusions over time. Once the initial impact of the book settles, we're going to be left to assess the accuracy of these claims and the concern is that Wolff will become one of the new faces of American journalism - and that's bad.

[Randolph]

Originally Posted by D'Anconia

Where and when?

This is wonderful.

[ThelmaLou]

Originally Posted by asahi

Not to defend Clothahump, while I think his characterization of the facts is inaccurate, he's not entirely wrong in pointing out that there are some troubling questions about the book (I assume he's talking about Wolff) that won't go away. Like how he got access, and what kind of access did he really have, and is he really sure that 100% of the people around Trump feel he's too stupid to do the job. It's clear he got much of it right, but as I said on another thread, if he gets 5-10% of wrong, then it calls into question even the things he got right. I reject the modern view among many new-age journalists that it's okay to get most of it right. What's worse about Wolff is that he's not the kind of guy who's necessarily going to admit that some of his facts are wrong; it'll be left to other sources to gradually come to these conclusions over time. Once the initial impact of the book settles, we're going to be left to assess the accuracy of these claims and the concern is that Wolff will become one of the new faces of American journalism - and that's bad.

I thought that credible Doper who have read it (and others) say that virtually everything in the book is stuff we've been reading in the news for the last year. It's just collected in one place. Why the skepticism and controversy now?

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by ThelmaLou

... Why the skepticism and controversy now?

From Wikipedia:

In a 2004 cover story for The New Republic, Michelle Cottle wrote that Wolff was "uninterested in the working press," preferring to focus on "the power players—the moguls" and was "fixated on culture, style, buzz, and money, money, money." She also noted that "the scenes in his columns aren’t recreated so much as created—springing from Wolff’s imagination rather than from actual knowledge of events." Calling his writing "a whirlwind of flourishes and tangents and asides that often stray so far from the central point that you begin to wonder whether there is a central point."

If you don't have at least some skepticism, you're probably doing it wrong.

[Johnny Ace]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Prove it.

"No".

Regards,
Shodan

Henry Hill to Tommy DeVito: "You're a funny guy!"

Unfortunately that does nothing to salve your lack of credibility.

[Bone]

Originally Posted by Johnny Ace

Unfortunately that does nothing to salve your lack of credibility.

Knock it off. Do not personalize your arguments in this fashion. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.

[/moderating]

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

From Wikipedia:

You quote a paragraph citing a 2004 opinion piece by Michelle Cottle (as it was pasted into Wikipedia).

My confidence in Wolff's work has grown, the more I've seen how heavily--and sometimes solely--dependent on the 2004 opinion piece by Michelle Cottle, have been critical 'take-downs' of Wolff.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

If you don't have at least some skepticism, you're probably doing it wrong.

If I wasn’t fairly certain that your skepticism on this is based on your support for the subject of the book, I wouldn’t be doing the Straight Dope right.

I’m not arguing that the author is 100% accurate in writing everything that he did. I frankly don’t think it is possible. When I read news articles about areas of my expertise, there are virtually always things I don’t believe are accurate.

And what is actually being challenged in terms of accuracy? That Trump is laughed at for his intellect? Jesus H. Christ, that isn’t even news. That Trump is lazy? He’s played more golf as President in one year than I, a golf nut, have managed to string together in four years. That Trump eats like shit? Perhaps you haven’t noticed that Trump is fat and tweets pictures of himself eating crap.

If the White House hadn’t made a big deal of the book, attempting to scare a publisher into not printing it - which is probably the biggest deal of the story that nobody is talking about - I bet you that this book wouldn’t be popular, period.

To say it another way, if you read three months of the Washington Post you get a more damning picture of Trump than you’d get from what has been publicized about the book.

[don't mind me]

Originally Posted by Beckdawrek

There are shitholes in every country. That doesn't make the whole continent a shithole. Mr.Trump should go see the reservations in Oklahoma. Or the poor areas in any town. Or the main streets of small cities where Wal-Mart has knocked out the local businesses.

And seeing as how "shithole countries" get that way by being governed by corrupt tyrants....

[Johnny Ace]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

If I wasn’t fairly certain that your skepticism on this is based on your support for the subject of the book, I wouldn’t be doing the Straight Dope right.

I’m not arguing that the author is 100% accurate in writing everything that he did. I frankly don’t think it is possible. When I read news articles about areas of my expertise, there are virtually always things I don’t believe are accurate.

And what is actually being challenged in terms of accuracy? That Trump is laughed at for his intellect? Jesus H. Christ, that isn’t even news. That Trump is lazy? He’s played more golf as President in one year than I, a golf nut, have managed to string together in four years. That Trump eats like shit? Perhaps you haven’t noticed that Trump is fat and tweets pictures of himself eating crap.

If the White House hadn’t made a big deal of the book, attempting to scare a publisher into not printing it - which is probably the biggest deal of the story that nobody is talking about - I bet you that this book wouldn’t be popular, period.

To say it another way, if you read three months of the Washington Post you get a more damning picture of Trump than you’d get from what has been publicized about the book.

No, it'd be popular anyway. It crystallizes what we all believed and had evidence for before.

[madmonk28]

Originally Posted by don't mind me

And seeing as how "shithole countries" get that way by being governed by corrupt tyrants....

And that Trump supporters tend to live in the shithole parts of the US...

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by madmonk28

And that Trump supporters tend to live in the shithole parts of the US...

Detroit voted for Hillary.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Detroit voted for Hillary.

Detroit's a great city. I never feel unsafe there and I would ten thousand times rather live in Detroit than in any part of the old Confederacy.

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Detroit's a great city. ...

LOL! No it's not.

US News: Detroit Is the Worst Big City to Live In

The Motor City ended up bringing up the rear in terms of economics – a category that drew on local unemployment rates, poverty statistics and debt per median earnings, among other data points. ...

Detroit also ranked second-worst in terms of safety, with violent crime and property crime rates as well as fatalities and law enforcement employees per capita the factors considered. ...

[madmonk28]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Detroit voted for Hillary.

I was thinking more of shitholes like West Virginia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, places that have a in common with the places that Trump calls shitholes. Hey, I'm just being honest like Trump, right?

[HurricaneDitka]

And while we're on the subject of the shithole parts of the US: Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?

Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country? Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California, where nearly one out of five residents is poor. ... California, with 12% of the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation’s welfare recipients.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

And while we're on the subject of the shithole parts of the US: Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?

Meh.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...you-very-much/

California Is Doing Fine, Thank You Very Much

...

Ah. The SPM. There’s an obvious reason that California performs poorly on the SPM, but Jackson instead blames it on his usual tired litany of bugaboos: generous welfare policies, lack of pro-work welfare reform, self-interested bureaucracies that want to keep the welfare rolls high,¹ restrictive land-use regulations, out-of-control environmental rules, high minimum wage, and high-speed rail.

I’m not sure why the LA Times bothers printing this dreck, but let’s take a look at some basic measures of how California is doing. Jackson is careful not to use the standard poverty rate, and it’s pretty obvious why that is:

California ranks 21st. Nothing out of the ordinary there. But what about our lack of welfare reform? Does that mean we have lots of people idling away on the public dime? Not really. We do have an unemployment rate a smidge worse than it should be, but our labor force participation rate is dead average:

California ranks 20th. West Virginia, Mississippi, and New Mexico are way behind us. How about our massive state bureacracy?

California is the fifth lowest. So if absolute poverty is average; labor force participation is average; and the state bureaucracy is under control; then whatever could put California at the top of the SPM poverty ranking?

Oh, right: housing. California has the fourth-highest housing prices in the nation, and the SPM incorporates housing prices in its estimates. Are California’s high housing prices due to restrictive land-use regulation? Sure, that’s some of it.

...

We rank 8th in GDP per capita—and that’s without an oil boom but with a high level of illegal immigration. What’s more, California’s GDP per capita has grown faster than national GDP over the past two decades:

...

God knows California has its problems, and obviously our location and weather allow us to attract high-value workers despite those problems. Nonetheless, the plain fact is that California has high taxes, good services, vigorous environmental regulations, and still has a strong economy. All the cherry picking in the world won’t change that.

[China Guy]

Regarding Wolf's book. While there is heresay and probably source embellishment, it is also not a work of fiction but pretty much covers what we hear from other sources over the past year.

One key question: how the hell was Wolf able to just park his ass in the White House corridor of power Monday thru Friday everyday of the week? This would not be possible in corporate America (maybe for a few days, not for weeks on end and certainly not for months on end). What a goat rodeo the White House must be if this sensationalist journalistic hack gets what amounts to a top level security clearance in the freaking White House.

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by China Guy

Regarding Wolf's book. While there is heresay and probably source embellishment, it is also not a work of fiction but pretty much covers what we hear from other sources over the past year.

One key question: how the hell was Wolf able to just park his ass in the White House corridor of power Monday thru Friday everyday of the week? This would not be possible in corporate America (maybe for a few days, not for weeks on end and certainly not for months on end). What a goat rodeo the White House must be if this sensationalist journalistic hack gets what amounts to a top level security clearance in the freaking White House.

There was a line that stood out from the aforementioned New Republic story:

“His great gift is the appearance of intimate access,” says an editor who has worked with Wolff. “He is adroit at making the reader think that he has spent hours and days with his subject, when in fact he may have spent no time at all.”

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Originally Posted by China Guy

One key question: how the hell was Wolf able to just park his ass in the White House corridor of power Monday thru Friday everyday of the week? This would not be possible in corporate America (maybe for a few days, not for weeks on end and certainly not for months on end). What a goat rodeo the White House must be if this sensationalist journalistic hack gets what amounts to a top level security clearance in the freaking White House.

Which raises a question I haven't seen much if any discussion of: Who else has been able to mingle and linger in this maladministered White House, unremarked and gathering information, to what ends?

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

And while we're on the subject of the shithole parts of the US: Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?

Doubtful:


https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...-by-state.html
Many of the states with the highest rates of poverty in the USA are located in the country´s deep south, and these include West Virginia, Kentucky, and Louisiana.

By that one measure, CA has the highest rate, but by most other measures it doesn't, not even close.

[madmonk28]

Originally Posted by EddyTeddyFreddy

Which raises a question I haven't seen much if any discussion of: Who else has been able to mingle and linger in this maladministered White House, unremarked and gathering information, to what ends?

Putin

[Paul in Qatar]

Well, this is certainly off the rails.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Spice Weasel

The overarching theme I'm getting is this: The purpose of psychological knowledge for a mental health professional is to treat mental illness. It's the only reason to make a diagnosis. If the goal of these people is not to get help for Donald Trump, it's unethical for them to diagnose and discuss his mental illness, particularly without his consent. If their goals are political, and not medical, they are doing wrong.

I know some people would rather pitch the whole of the mental health profession under the bus in the service of their political ideals, but it isn't right and it's not even best for society in the long run.

And that's scary as hell. No code of ethics should care about one thing only. There should always be some sort of balance, some sort of line where you decide it's better that you do this one lesser evil to avoid a greater evil.

The goal in psychology cannot be "to treat people." There has to be an underlying moral foundation for why, presumably to reduce suffering or to increase happiness or make a better world or something like that. And all of those things have other issues that would need to be considered and balanced

For one thing, is it good for our collective mental health that someone so unstable and erratic is in charge? There was already an uptick in people seeking help for mental health problems when Trump was just running, just from what he was doing then. Now he's even worse, and people seem more angry and more unable to cope than before.

And that's just the most connected thing I could think of, something that I would hope every psychologist would care about. But there is just so, so much more. I actually decline to take the time to write them all out again simply for my own mental health. They've been repeated over and over. Trump is just a genuinely hurtful person who has been rewarded by society, making so many more people think that it's okay to hurt people. (I lost friends over people wishing harm on the protesters, for example.)

It's not about throwing psychology under anything, nor is it about political ideals. How bad Trump is transcends politics. Trump could be the most liberal person I know but his instability would be bad for this country. His fundamental lack of empathy is dangerous.

And given how much sway psychologists had back with Goldwater, I'm nearly certain that, if not for this "rule" they created, they could have stopped this, since they have at least some pull. I hate every person with influence who refused to fight against him.

And I for one find psychology harmed by their lack of action. I think I might just now be able to go to someone, if I could be sure they actually were ethical, and not just agreeing with a rule. Because that's what it is. A rule. They could get in trouble for not abiding by it.

And it's just natural to create reasons why following that rule is the right thing to do, to ease any cognitive dissonance. I wonder how many psychologists would agree if they were free to make up their mind without that pressure.

I genuinely hope it is less than those who made what I believe to be the wrong choice. Just like I thought it was wrong for anyone who oppose abortion to use that as a reason to support Trump.

[HurricaneDitka]

BigT, I hope you get some help if you need it, but I've got to say, Spice appears to clearly hold the ethical position here, and besides that, psychologists pretending to make a diagnosis on cable TV are utterly unconvincing for anyone who's not a hardcore partisan.

[Ravenman]

HD - please take a look at the link below. Do you believe Dr Dekleva did something unethical?

https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/kim-...ology-profile/

[Johnny Ace]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

...psychologists pretending to make a diagnosis on cable TV are utterly unconvincing for anyone who's not a hardcore partisan.

Are you serious? It's as plain as the nose on your face to anyone who's taken Psych 101, let alone spent years of study. You can haggle about ethics all you want, which is merely another attempt at distraction from the basic fact that Trump is blatantly and classically narcissistic and a serial liar, both to a possibly dangerous extent.

[Gyrate]

I would argue that there's nothing wrong with someone offering an opinion on the matter as long as it is clearly understood to be such and not in any way a professional diagnosis, even if the person offering it is an "expert". Anyone purporting to be making an actual medical or psychiatric diagnosis without meeting and examining the patient in an official capacity is wrong to do so.

[Spice Weasel]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

I would argue that there's nothing wrong with someone offering an opinion on the matter as long as it is clearly understood to be such and not in any way a professional diagnosis, even if the person offering it is an "expert". Anyone purporting to be making an actual medical or psychiatric diagnosis without meeting and examining the patient in an official capacity is wrong to do so.

Sounds reasonable. I might be more inclined to consider the merits of attempting to diagnose someone you've never met, if there was any indication at all it would accomplish anything.

Let's pretend for a minute that Trump exhibited textbook symptoms of multiple sclerosis. A group of medical doctors gather together, go on TV, and say, "While we have not examined the patient, we've been watching him in the media, and it is our collective official medical opinion that Trump has MS. It's clearly affecting his ability to do his job effectively and putting the country in danger."

What is the outcome here? Do you imagine anyone caring that doesn't already think he has MS? Do you think people who voted for him will change their minds about his competence? Cuz here's my guess on how this would play out :

Liberals: I knew it! That fucker has to go!

Conservatives: Fucking quacks. The whole medical profession is a sham.

Government: meh

There is no evidence in the history of the election or Trump's presidency that facts or professional consensus have any bearing whatsoever on how people feel about him. We had an entire cadre of GOP foreign defense experts sign a petition declaring him unfit for the presidency, something that has never happened in the history of this country, and it didn't matter. Why on earth would anyone care what some psychologists think?

[Moriarty]

Originally Posted by China Guy

One key question: how the hell was Wolf able to just park his ass in the White House corridor of power Monday thru Friday everyday of the week? This would not be possible in corporate America (maybe for a few days, not for weeks on end and certainly not for months on end). What a goat rodeo the White House must be if this sensationalist journalistic hack gets what amounts to a top level security clearance in the freaking White House.

There's one theory that it was a cover story in the Hollywood Reporter that secured Wolfe this access.

While the story itself was apparently not exceptionally flattering, the cover of the magazine featured an artistic rendering of a picture of Trump wearing mirrored sunglasses - it made him look cool. Ergo, somebody in the West Wing thought this guy was going to do a flattering portrait of all of the "greatness" going on, so he got an up front and close look.

[JackieLikesVariety]

While the story itself was apparently not exceptionally flattering, the cover of the magazine featured an artistic rendering of a picture of Trump wearing mirrored sunglasses - it made him look cool. Ergo, somebody in the West Wing thought this guy was going to do a flattering portrait of all of the "greatness" going on, so he got an up front and close look.

heh - that's what they get for not reading

[Moriarty]

Originally Posted by JackieLikesVariety

heh - that's what they get for not reading

Here is the actual article. It's not horrible, but it's not a love fest either.

Some excerpts...

You can try, but it's hard to resist this admiration for himself. The certainty of it, the enthusiasm for it and the lack of not just doubt, but of any negativity. It's all upbeat and positive. The dark, scary, virulent heart of American politics is having the best time anyone has ever had...

If there's any pattern to his conversation, it's that he's vague on all subjects outside himself, his campaign and the media. Everything else is mere distraction...

"And Brexit? Your position?" I ask.
"Huh?"
"Brexit."
"Hmm."
"The Brits leaving the EU," I prompt, realizing that his lack of familiarity with one of the most pressing issues in Europe is for him no concern nor liability at all...

Donald Trump simply believes he is a unique individual, one whose singular conviction that he is special makes him appealing. And pay no attention to everything else.