# Book: "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump..." **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 25, 2017, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247 "2017-09-25T02:20:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2017, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/41 "2017-09-26T19:27:29Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > I fully expected the book and even the concept to be dissed. This is, after all, the SDMB, and a strong skeptical and anti-intellectual bias runs though it. … To those who questioned this statement of mine, I will clarify what I meant. I didn’t say the SDMB was anti-intellectual. Of course, it isn’t. The SDMB is a hotbed of ideas and many posters are indeed authentic intellectuals who give a lot of thought to their extremely articulate posts. (You know who you are.) I said an anti-intellectual bias runs through the board. I’m using the term “anti-intellectual” as a thing in itself, defined thusly: > [@](#): > > noun > > 1. a person opposed to or hostile toward intellectuals and the modern academic, artistic, social, religious, and other theories associated with them. > 2. a person who believes that intellect and reason are less important than actions and emotions in solving practical problems and understanding reality. This attitude is illustrated here: > [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > … > They’re not opinions if they’re speaking ex cathedra. They can of course offer them if asked, but public pronouncements reek of posturing. and here > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > …I can say, pretty confidently, that finding 27 cranks with a degree isn’t a large challenge. And, delving into the world of psychiatry/psychology, I’d suggest that it is possibly more difficult to find someone who isn’t a crank than the opposite. It’s a field of research that is still in the transition phase from alternative science to science (no offense to those in the profession who are approaching the topic in a rigorously scientific manner). and here > [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > …However, it is interesting to note America needs an **American Psychiatric Association** (APA), an **American Psychological Association** (APA), and an **American Psychoanalytic Association** (APsaA), from that Goldwater link. They should all have their annual meetings in the same hotel, leading to wacky hijinks. > > Along with the\*\* American Association of Psychics & Psychic Mediums\*\*. I welcome the fact that professionals and professional organizations are abandoning timidity WRT to the atrocity occurring in the White House, ceasing to mince words, and using clear language instead of euphemisms. I think this book is comparable to this press release put out by several well-known health care organizations opposing the Graham-Cassidy bill: > [@](#): > > The following statement was jointly released on September 23, 2017 by the American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Hospital Association, Federation of American Hospitals, America’s Health Insurance Plans, and the BlueCross BlueShield Association regarding the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson legislation. > > We represent the nation’s doctors, hospitals, and health plans. Collectively, our organizations include hundreds of thousands individual physicians, thousands of hospitals, and hundreds of health plans that serve tens of millions of American patients, consumers, and employers every day across the United States. > While we sometimes disagree on important issues in health care, we are in total agreement that Americans deserve a stable healthcare market that provides access to high-quality care and affordable coverage for all. > > The Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson bill does not move us closer to that goal. The Senate should reject it. … Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2017, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/42 "2017-09-26T19:41:03Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > I think this book is comparable to this press release put out by several well-known health care organizations opposing the Graham-Cassidy bill: > > Carry on. I think there is a significant difference between a group of people specifically selected to represent the larger body of their fellow professionals and a group that is self-selected and doesn’t represent anything other than themselves. No? You didn’t give a link to that quote, so maybe I’m missing something that I would get by reading the whole thing, but that’s my take. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2017, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/43 "2017-09-26T20:03:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think there is a significant difference between a group of people specifically selected to represent the larger body of their fellow professionals and a group that is self-selected and doesn’t represent anything other than themselves. No? > > You didn’t give a link to that quote, so maybe I’m missing something that I would get by reading the whole thing, but that’s my take. This. I’m also not clear, even with your ( **ThelmaLou** ’s) re-clarification of “anti-intellectual” what you mean by “anti-intellectual” in this case. Could you give a definition? At the moment, it just seems to be “that thing y’all are doing that I don’t appreciate”. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2017, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/44 "2017-09-26T21:28:02Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Emphasis added. You have a cite for that assertion? > **[Duty to warn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_warn)** > > A duty to warn is a concept that arises in the law of torts in a number of circumstances, indicating that a party will be held liable for injuries caused to another, where the party had the opportunity to warn the other of a hazard and failed to do so. > In the United States, two landmark legal cases established therapists' legal obligations to breach confidentiality if they believe a client poses a risk to himself or others. The first was Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976)... ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2017, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/45 "2017-09-26T21:49:34Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I’m also not clear, even with your ( **ThelmaLou** ’s) re-clarification of “anti-intellectual” what you mean by “anti-intellectual” in this case. Could you give a definition? At the moment, it just seems to be “that thing y’all are doing that I don’t appreciate”. I concur. > [@drad\_dog](#): > > [Duty to warn - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_warn) Please quote the specific part of that cite that you think backs up your claim in relation to this book. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2017, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/46 "2017-09-26T23:15:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think there is a significant difference between a group of people specifically selected to represent the larger body of their fellow professionals and a group that is self-selected and doesn’t represent anything other than themselves. No? > > You didn’t give a link to that quote, so maybe I’m missing something that I would get by reading the whole thing, but that’s my take. Sorry. Here’s the [link](https://www.ahip.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Joint-statement-AMA-AAFP-AHA-FAH-AHIP-BCBSA-9.23.17.pdf). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2017, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/47 "2017-09-26T23:26:15Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > Sorry. Here’s the [link](https://www.ahip.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Joint-statement-AMA-AAFP-AHA-FAH-AHIP-BCBSA-9.23.17.pdf). Thanks. I think I was judging it correctly, then. Those folks represent the AMA, among other associations. Do you honestly not see a difference between them and some self-selected group of folks who represent no one but themselves? They are easily dismissed as a tiny minority of health professionals who may or may not reflect the general thinking of those in that profession. That is not to say that they are wrong, but it is to say there isn’t a good way to determine if they are right. Where “right” means what the profession, as a whole, agrees to be a good assessment. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2017, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/48 "2017-09-26T23:33:05Z")
It’s still possible he isn’t mentally ill at all; he’s just a dumb asshole. ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/49 "2017-09-27T00:31:35Z")
Considering that in my country during the 1920s and 30s the psychiatric profession used to commit simple girls who got pregnant for up to 40 years in institutions \*; and that their American brothers considered homosexuality a mental disorder; and that their Soviet brothers put dissidents away for shock treatment, it is difficult to retain much respect for the dignity of psychiatry. - As a child I met one of the ladies, then released in her 70s. She was very docile. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/50 "2017-09-27T01:48:35Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > Considering that in my country during the 1920s and 30s the psychiatric profession used to commit simple girls who got pregnant for up to 40 years in institutions \*; and that their American brothers considered homosexuality a mental disorder; and that their Soviet brothers put dissidents away for shock treatment, it is difficult to retain much respect for the dignity of psychiatry. > > - As a child I met one of the ladies, then released in her 70s. > > She was very docile. So it’s too late to do the right thing. How millennial we are now. ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/51 "2017-09-27T02:15:32Z")
More, that like the Catholic Church, they change their opinions with the tide, and sincerely regret their past persecutions. Until the next time they get the chance to exercise their muscles. And how is dissing poor old Donnie, ‘doing the right thing’ in compensation for 150 years of institutional abuse ? ---
**Author:** ![CairoCarol](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cairocarol/32/3825_2.png) [@CairoCarol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CairoCarol)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/52 "2017-09-27T02:44:41Z")
I think it’s possible to believe that formally diagnosing Trump from a distance is a bad idea, yet at the same time have a sneaking suspicion that the diagnosis is correct and evidence-based. As my own example of such evidence, I’d like to present a complete list of the tweets Trump issued in support of Strange, but while I saw a nice clean collection of them a while ago, I can’t find them now, so you’ll just have to take my word for it: there were something like 5 or 6 tweets in all, and of them, 2 or 3 were self-aggrandizement, not actual support of Strange - along the lines of “Strange is doing better in the polls because I, Trump, have supported him.” That kind of objectively verifiable behavior makes Trump, in the vernacular, an ego-maniac. Can professionals assess the same data set and write up an official diagnosis? Sure they can. I don’t see how it is necessarily helpful to do so, but it’s hard to believe they are totally wrong, and deriding the entire discipline of psychology isn’t an effective rebuttal. ---
**Author:** ![Covfefe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Covfefe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Covfefe)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/53 "2017-09-27T03:20:28Z")
> [@CairoCarol](#): > > As my own example of such evidence, I’d like to present a complete list of the tweets Trump issued in support of Strange, but while I saw a nice clean collection of them a while ago, I can’t find them now, so you’ll just have to take my word for it: there were something like 5 or 6 tweets in all, and of them, 2 or 3 were self-aggrandizement, not actual support of Strange - along the lines of “Strange is doing better in the polls because I, Trump, have supported him.” Try the search feature on [trumptwitterarchive.com](http://trumptwitterarchive.com). ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/54 "2017-09-27T03:35:14Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > More, that like the Catholic Church, they change their opinions with the tide, and sincerely regret their past persecutions. Until the next time they get the chance to exercise their muscles. And that’s different from any other branch of medicine how? ---
**Author:** ![CairoCarol](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cairocarol/32/3825_2.png) [@CairoCarol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CairoCarol)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/55 "2017-09-27T04:17:27Z")
> [@Covfefe](#): > > Try the search feature on [trumptwitterarchive.com](http://trumptwitterarchive.com). I know, but I can’t bring myself to do anything that resembles looking directly at his twitterfeed…I’m such a delicate snowflake that I need a mediating layer (pun unintended, but apt) between me and the Cheeto from Hell. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/56 "2017-09-27T18:06:02Z")
> [@CairoCarol](#): > > … > That kind of objectively verifiable behavior makes Trump, in the vernacular, an ego-maniac. Can professionals assess the same data set and write up an official diagnosis? Sure they can. I don’t see how it is necessarily helpful to do so, but it’s hard to believe they are totally wrong, and deriding the entire discipline of psychology isn’t an effective rebuttal. This is really my whole point, succinctly stated. I’m not sure it’s “helpful” to do so except insofar as (IMHO) it’s better for people to speak their opinions out loud in public as these professionals have done than it is to skulk around in private saying the President is an embarrassment, clueless, uninformed, stupid, and dangerous while still making excuses for him and supporting him in public, as Pubs in Congress have done. P.S. “Deriding the entire discipline of psychology” is an example of anti-intellectualism. However, I’m not interested in beating that dead horse. Take what you like and leave the rest. I wanted to make people aware of the book. Mission accomplished. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/57 "2017-09-27T19:45:10Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > P.S. “Deriding the entire discipline of psychology” is an example of anti-intellectualism. However, I’m not interested in beating that dead horse. Take what you like and leave the rest. I wanted to make people aware of the book. Mission accomplished. No. Psychology is guesswork and is not backed by science like, say, oncology or podiatry. The fact that it can be used in partisan political attacks prove that The field is problematic. And attacking it is not anti-intellectualism. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/58 "2017-09-27T20:15:36Z")
I’m looking forward to a review of Hillary’s latest book here on the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/59 "2017-09-28T01:22:55Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > No. Psychology is guesswork and is not backed by science like, say, oncology or podiatry. The fact that it can be used in partisan political attacks prove that The field is problematic. And attacking it is not anti-intellectualism. There is no person one would sooner have for one’s own psychiatrist than someone who speaks out aloud about an individual’s mental problems unasked. Admiration, or ‘intellectualism’ in the OP’s unique view, of psychiatry seems reminiscent of the times between the 20’s and the 50’s, when a horde of chalatans like Humbert Humbert emerged from Europe to persuade Americans their own discipline, be it stringing tin-cans in a collage or machines to collect spiritual energy, had value — equivalent at least to America’s own lunacies, such as the Funeral Industry. ---
**Author:** ![CairoCarol](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cairocarol/32/3825_2.png) [@CairoCarol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CairoCarol)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247/60 "2017-09-28T05:19:04Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > No. Psychology is guesswork and is not backed by science like, say, oncology or podiatry. The fact that it can be used in partisan political attacks prove that The field is problematic. And attacking it is not anti-intellectualism. Correction: SOME aspects of psychology are guesswork, but plenty of branches rely on experimental rigor and evidence (read any neuropsychology journals lately?). Psychology as a whole may lag behind other “medical” fields, but before you dismiss it as unworthy of further development, remember it wasn’t that long ago that doctors attributed illnesses to imbalances in the four humors. The fact that psychology can be used in partisan political attacks doesn’t prove that the field is “problematic.” Much hard science can be legitimately pressed into service for partisan political attacks; the discussion of climate change is an obvious example. If I attack a politician whose policies I’d like to fight by employing scientific fact in the service of what I believe, that doesn’t make the science any less true or objective. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-the-dangerous-case-of-donald-trump/797247.md?page=4)