Book: "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump..."

[Evan_Drake]

I would consider 50% of the presidents and final contenders since 1945 to be not quite the full ticket mentally — and that’s not even looking at the ghastly array of Halloween pumpkins who formed the Republican selection in 2016.
Not because only a manic egocentric thinks him or herself to be suitable, but since a Goldwater, a Nixon, a Reagan, a Clinton [ either ], a Bush II, a Trump seem to lack the stabilty of an Eisenhower, a Mondale, a Bush I, an Obama. Regardless of whether any of these were good or nice.

And that also excludes the Perots and the LaRouches…

[Evan_Drake]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

You do understand that psychiatrists, psychologists, and psychoanalysts are three different medical specialties, with differing qualifications and roles in health care despite some overlap, and that rolling them together into one would be about as appropriate as rolling together, say, gastroenterologists, otolaryngologists, and endocrinologists?

You do understand that all three of those were present in that Goldwater Rule wiki ?

[Ravenman]

@asahi

As mentally defective as Trump is, I have to admit that, my personal distaste for the man aside, he still probably can’t quite top Richard Nixon during the worst of his Watergate-induced psychosis.

In fairness to Nixon, that seeming break from reality was what, roughly 5+ years into his term? Trump has had the luxury of being in the honeymoon phase of his presidency so far.

Not all honeymoons are equal, of course.

[madsircool]

Nixon was also drinking way too much at that point. I’ve hypothesized that Trumps late night testing were drunk tweets.

[Evan_Drake]

Sadly, Donald is a lifelong teetotaler.

[John_Mace]

@madsircool

Nixon was also drinking way too much at that point. I’ve hypothesized that Trumps late night testing were drunk tweets.

It’s pretty reliably sourced that Trump doesn’t drink. I think we’re seeing him at his “best”.

[asahi]

@madsircool

Nixon was also drinking way too much at that point. I’ve hypothesized that Trumps late night testing were drunk tweets.

Nixon was apparently loaded on booze toward the end. I’m not sure what else he was on. I also seem to recall reading that JFK was pretty doped up on pain meds for his Addison’s disease. In the nuke age, people are right to be wary of incoming presidents who might have a history of substance abuse.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Evan_Drake

Sadly, Donald is a lifelong teetotaler.

Somehow that’s even scarier. It means he’s never going to sober up.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@thelurkinghorror

What are you talking about? We have an assessment that says he’s the healthiest person ever! Written in a style similar to his own speaking voice.

Actual video footage of Trump’s doctor being escorted to Trump tower to present his assessment of the candidate’s health. (Some NSFW language, obviously.)

[snoe]

Some thoughts:

1. I can see some rationales for the “Goldwater Rule” back in the day. Appeals to authority/expertise were seen as carrying more cultural weight, even if undeserved (“Four out of five doctors who smoke…”). Also, all of the “psych” disciplines had more issues with public acceptance than they do now – politicizing the industry unnecessarily wouldn’t be prudent.

2. Both of those rationales are a lot weaker today.

3. I don’t see a problem with medical experts giving opinions on the mental or physical health of public figures. We should take those opinions with the same amount of salt we do other expert opinions on public figures. If Keith Ablow thinks Obama’s a dangerous narcissist (I made that up as a plausible hypothetical), well, I’ll wait and see what other doctors have to say, but I’ll keep it in mind – and as other expert opinions pile up that agree or disagree, I’ll weight future pronouncements by Dr. Ablow accordingly.

4. In my humble layman’s opinion, Trump ain’t right in the head. Not sure how, but that boy ain’t right. I mean, c’mon.

[Sage_Rat]

So far as I can tell, Trump isn’t crazy. Nor is he “crazy like a fox”. He’s just stupid. And beyond being stupid, he has spent most of his life at the center of an entourage of people that have become experts in influencing and managing him. Given that this has landed him a nice livelihood and all the hot women he could ever want, it seems like he’s long-since given up trying to hold his own opinions, and trusted to the group.

And, I would argue, that creates the potential for him to become a really good President.

President Obama, for example, was a smart guy. But, he was also a partisan/politicized thinker. Party politics and partisan beliefs leave the realm of smart policy and enter the realm of religious doctrine. So while most things that he did were smart, he was always handicapped by his personal beliefs. The spread of ISIS, the Russian success in Ukraine, and Chinese expansion in the South China Sea can all, for example, be directly attributed to Obama’s inherent distaste for warmaking and conflict. (Not to say that a desire for warmaking and conflict are good, just that personal predilections reduced his option set for responding to these issues.)

Trump has no opinions or predilections of his own. One could maybe argue that he leans Conservative, but only because Conservative media is more sensational and uses a lot more fear-mongering. To a person with no brain, that is just better TV.

But if you remove Trump from his TV, then suddenly you have a blank slate.

When you put Trump in a room with experts and ask him to decide on whose opinion to go with, he may not follow the arguments being made - only picking up and then later misremembering a few snippets of data from the conversation that made him happy or sad - but he can read the body language of all of the people in the room to get a straw poll of who everyone else, who did follow the conversation, seemed to think won the argument.

If you let Trump interact with people one-on-one, then you’ll see him make idiot proclamations, because whoever last saw him will have gained temporary control of the United States. But if you block off access and only allow him to see real, non-political, career specialists in the topics genuinely at hand, then Trump selects from whatever all the other non-political, career specialists in the room thought was the best idea. And, given that those will mostly be smart and capable people, their joint approval is a pretty strong indicator that the argument really was the best argument around.

Trump may never have his own ideas, and he may never have any grand visions, and so there may never be any grand direction that he can lead the country in. But in terms of just dealing with the issues that pop up, day-to-day, on their own, he’ll always just select the best and smartest idea that comes before him, if it was presented in a group setting.

Overall, the quality of the Trump Presidency just relies on Trump not getting too bored from having to sit through tedious debates on topics way beyond his ability to understand, and rejecting the restrictions that are being placed on him to ensure that he only sees good data and only interacts with people in group settings.

[thelurkinghorror]

@snoe

2. Both of those rationales are a lot weaker today.

Cite? A Psych 101 is contractually obligated to mention the Milgram experiment. Oftentimes this leads to the discussion “could this happen today?” with some offering that we are much more sophisticated today, so we would resist authority. I’m not so sure. Maybe the authority figures have changed form, but they’re still there.

3. I don’t see a problem with medical experts giving opinions on the mental or physical health of public figures. We should take those opinions with the same amount of salt we do other expert opinions on public figures. If Keith Ablow thinks Obama’s a dangerous narcissist (I made that up as a plausible hypothetical), well, I’ll wait and see what other doctors have to say, but I’ll keep it in mind – and as other expert opinions pile up that agree or disagree, I’ll weight future pronouncements by Dr. Ablow accordingly.

They’re not opinions if they’re speaking ex cathedra. They can of course offer them if asked, but public pronouncements reek of posturing.

[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.

However, no matter who has written an article in the past “diagnosing” GWBush or Obama or Nixon with mental health issues, anyone who hasn’t noticed that Trump is in a category all by himself just hasn’t been paying attention. We talk about his immature, embarrassing, ill-advised, and potentially destructive behavior at length on this board every day. Now, ten months after his election, twenty-seven mental health professionals have contributed to an entire BOOK, in which they say “the emperor has no clothes.” I think this is notable.

As far as diagnosing him or presenting hypothetical diagnoses without meeting him-- who needs to meet him? The man shows the world every single day exactly who he is. He has never held back and becoming President hasn’t changed a thing. He is Out There constantly revealing himself and hiding nothing. He has no “public self” for show with good manners and empathy (which even Nixon had and saved his ranting for his private recordings). Trump is not capable of being anything except what he is. WYSIWYG. He doesn’t know the meaning of an unexpressed thought. And because of Twitter (which past Presidents, mercifully, did not have access to) we get to know every one of those thoughts as soon as he has it, even if it’s during his early morning bathroom break.

Will the book have any effect on… well… anything? No, probably not, except possibly as part of the growing public conversation, which is increasingly discarding euphemisms.

[Sage_Rat]

@ThelmaLou

Now, ten months after his election, twenty-seven mental health professionals have contributed to an entire BOOK, in which they say “the emperor has no clothes.” I think this is notable.

Not really. I’ve done enough research into Climate Change topics that 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).

[John_Mace]

@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.

Emphasis added. What???

However, no matter who has written an article in the past “diagnosing” GWBush or Obama or Nixon with mental health issues, anyone who hasn’t noticed that Trump is in a category all by himself just hasn’t been paying attention. We talk about his immature, embarrassing, ill-advised, and potentially destructive behavior at length on this board every day. Now, ten months after his election, twenty-seven mental health professionals have contributed to an entire BOOK, in which they say “the emperor has no clothes.” I think this is notable.

Most of us here knew he was a “nut” before he even started running. These guys aren’t telling me anything I don’t already know. We elected a reality TV guy who’s no better than a carnival huckster. Yes, he’s a danger to the country. Let’s just hope we survive what I hope will merely be “our national time of shame”.

[Evan_Drake]

@ThelmaLou

Now, ten months after his election, twenty-seven mental health professionals have contributed to an entire BOOK, in which they say “the emperor has no clothes.” I think this is notable.

It is particularly astounding Chomsky has turned on Donald Trump.

And…
In the middle of that advertisement:

Just pure happenstance…
Barron’s digital membership

•                           Outsmart the market with Barron's unrivaled insights
  

Made me laugh.

[John_Mace]

You have to understand that these guys are self-selected, and so can’t be seen as impartial. There really isn’t any “right” way to do this sort of thing (IMO), but if you wanted to at least nudge it more in that direction, you would have selected some number of mental health professionals at random and asked them to put together a report. Frankly, though, I think any “professional” who would publish a diagnosis of someone they have never met isn’t worth the paper his or her degree was printed on.

[Buck_Godot]

@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.

I second John Mace’s utter disbelief at this statement. What message board have you been following? The SDMB reeks with ivory tower intellectualism, and I say that as a highly over educated denizen myself.
As to the OP:

I would recommend that people here on both sides of the argument read the Washington Post cite, which far from giving a ringing endorsement of the books ideas, levels a fair amount of substantive criticism of it. The following in particular made it clear to me that although Trump may have narcissistic qualities it is unlikely that he would be diagnosed as such according to the standard definitions of the disease.

Allen Frances wrote the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder used in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and he doesn’t think Trump qualifies. In “Twilight of American Sanity,” Frances says the diagnosis requires the patient to experience significant distress because of his condition. But throughout his life, Trump “has been generously rewarded for his Trumpism, not impaired by it,” Frances writes. “Trump is a threat to the United States, and to the world, not because he is clinically mad, but because he is very bad.”

[drad_dog]

@John_Mace

You have to understand that these guys are self-selected, and so can’t be seen as impartial. There really isn’t any “right” way to do this sort of thing (IMO), but if you wanted to at least nudge it more in that direction, you would have selected some number of mental health professionals at random and asked them to put together a report. Frankly, though, I think any “professional” who would publish a diagnosis of someone they have never met isn’t worth the paper his or her degree was printed on.

Are you a mental health professional? It’s called behavioral health too, btw.

Professionals make behavioral observations in the mental health field all the time. It’s not brain surgery, or any other kind.

And at some point **behavior **may be dangerous to the public. At that point, whether they have met him or not, they are obligated to speak.

[John_Mace]

@drad_dog

Are you a mental health professional? It’s called behavioral health too, btw.

Professionals make behavioral observations in the mental health field all the time. It’s not brain surgery, or any other kind.

And at some point **behavior **may be dangerous to the public. At that point, whether they have met him or not, they are obligated to speak.

Emphasis added. You have a cite for that assertion?