Only speculating, but if I were a lifelong serial braggart and egomaniac who boasted in front of millions on live TV about the size of my manhood, and someone out there had contradictory evidence and an axe to grind…
I think Shodan may be right. After all, he didn’t offer one either.
(If you at home are attempting to read my response as I would say it, “either” is pronounced ee-ther, not I-ther.)
ETA: I now see that I was ninja’d much more succinctly and professionally by Vinyl Turnip.
He also married her before the pussy grabbing confession and attempts to grope that woman when he got off the bus (remember, it all started with the tic tacs)
At some point, he’s going to moon the pope or something.
His supporters will still say that the Argentine bastard had it coming.
In Wolffe’s book as well as other sources, Trump’s key advisors characterized him as an an idiot and worse. Over the past few days, Trump has made more high profile appearances in an attempt to establish his authority. It hasn’t gone well.
The OP can look over that last link and reasonably conclude that Trump’s public jackassery[sup]1[/sup] has gotten worse this week. But that’s plausibly due to the greater number of public events, and not necessarily a stroke or anything internal.
Although there’s been reasonable discussion of his mental faculties as well: contrast interviews of today with those from 20 years ago.
[sup]1[/sup] I’m not sure what else to call it. Gaffe doesn’t really cover it.
There’s also how he’s lately taken to drinking water from bottles with two hands, like a baby holding a bottle. It suggests growing insecurity in his muscular control and eyesight. It’s as if it takes a lot of concentration for him to get the water into his mouth.
Granted, I miss my mouth about six times a week when I’m trying to drink something, but that’s a lifelong affliction. I blame my shitty eyesight and general lack of peripheral vision for not noticing where the cup’s going. If I were president, I would only use a straw and I would still struggle to get the straw where it’s supposed to be.
The point about Trump is that he didn’t seem to have this problem a year ago.
There is a code of ethics that allows for such a thing. I can’t link to it because my statements stem from an interview I saw with the Doctors involved with writing the book: “The Dangerous Case of DT”
In the interview, they spoke at length about the ethics of making such an analysis about a person they have never actually seen in person.
Isn’t today the day that he’s going to have a physical exam that he’s totally going to release all the results from?
Kinda jumping into this thread blind, but…
There is no question among most psychological professionals that this is unethical. It’s Psych 101. You don’t diagnose someone you’ve never met.
I don’t think people fully understand the ramifications of this sort of thing. It’s not just about politics, it’s about how mental illness is handled and perceived in our culture, it’s about the inherent cultural bias of the DSM, it’s about alienating half the country from the psychological profession, and a lot of other things.
But as I’ve stated before, you don’t have to be a psychological professional to judge a rambling madman as batshit crazy. With someone as erratic and irrational as Donald Trump, mental illness is an entirely reasonable conclusion for anyone to make. And this is so painfully obvious I would contend that the burden of proof is on others to provide evidence that he’s psychologically stable.
This is a fact. But it can also be telling. For the APA to take an ethical stance on anything is generally reflective of the fact that they are finally, 30 years later, catching up with majority professional opinion. They are a conservative organization, so if they have any ethical stance at all, it’s usually indicative of professional consensus. Ergo, the guidance against diagnosing unknown persons wouldn’t be in their code of ethics unless a bunch of professionals pushed for it to be there.
Then provide a cite, or retract. I saw it on tv or the internet is NOT a cite.
Who are these people? What are their qualifications? Do they have an agenda?
Unless the pornstar in question had an embarrassingly small penis.
I found a body of polling asking whether Trump is “level headed” or not. I think that’s a fair statement of the question asked by the OP.
Generally, the public’s views of Trump’s level headedness was -30 or so last year. More recently, it is hovering around -40. The polling shows a clear and widening pattern toward negative responses. See question 13 here:
It is important to note that there are Americans who both see Trump as not level headed but also fit to serve as President. There is only three months of reporting on this question, number 18, but the numbers are just bouncing around low 40s for “yes” and mid-50s for “no.”
But as a factual matter, there are actually more Americans who think Trump is mentally stable, but not all of them think it is to the point of disqualifying him from office.
Not possible to get a factual answer to the question? I think not.
This isn’t Great Debates. I don’t care enough about this subject to do extensive research.
All I know is that they are psychologists. Their analysis has been signed off on by many of their peers and psychology associations.
I retract nothing.
Skimming through the code of ethics for the Canadian Psychological Association, I see a number of relevant articles, including the importance of placing patient well-being before the good of society, due process with regard to evaluation, informed consent, consideration of all involved family members, gratuitous self-promotion, respect for individual privacy, and this one in particular:
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.
Scariest thought of all: The most powerful man in the world is Steve Douchey.
As I said in another thread:
I think this is an important thing for armchair psychologists to keep in mind. However, you seem to want to have it both ways. What is psychological stability and how is it measured? And, in a debate, the burden of proof is never on the person who is not making an assertion of fact. Finally, saying someone is “batshit crazy” is a meaningless assertion in the process of reasoned debate. Seems to me we’re bettor off sticking to “frequently contradicts himself”, “makes many factually incorrect assertions” and/or “is easily provoked into making personal attacks against people with whom he has a disagreement”. Things like that.
Isn’t Elections basically a subforum of Great Debates? The same rules apply, don’t they?
And your “psychologists” are behaving unprofessionally.
Mental illness is a serious medical issue. Internet mocking doesn’t help anyone.
No.
There are no sub-forums.
Trump and the GOP are acting unprofessionally and the consequences are far worse than the opinion of a single or even a few psychologists.