Bingo. As if winning the election weren’t enough…
Esprix
rjung wrote
Hey great technique: ignore the current facts, add no new facts, and scream “right wing conspiracy”.
elucidator wrote
Hey, another great technique: Clinton didn’t pardon all the criminals, so why are you worrying about the few he did?
If you can’t dazzle 'em…
Michael Milken is one of the best known multi-millionaire ex-cons in America. By contrast, few were familiar with Marc Rich prior to his controversial pardon. Clinton probably thought it would slip under the radar.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly *
Frankly, Diddly Squat, the subtlety of your argument eludes me.
Now we’re on a bit of firmer ground, some hint of relevence. Who knows? We do! Do you imagine for one second that Dan “Watermelon Man” Burton hasn’t feverishly gone over that list looking for something somebody missed?
You finish by talking about how much time needs to be spent studying each pardon application. At least, I think thats what it is. You might be talking about reviewing death sentences in Texas, where criminal justice bears the same resemblance to justice that military music has to music. Too many for me. I pass.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**
Now thats more like it! An actual argument!
May be, Izzy. Possible. Plausible?
If you were under 24/7/365 scrutiny by the kind of people who jerk off at night dreaming of a “smoking gun”, would you depend on that? Bill is a lot of things, not all of them admirable. But stupid?
It is often possible to tell something about the personality of public figures.
We know that Clinton lies easily, is impulsive, seems not to be troubled by pangs of conscience, likes to be the center of attention, is charming and ingratiating, does not understand - often underestimates - the impact of his behavior on others, and violates the usual norms of behavior. His behavior is ego-syntonic, and he is realitvely non-anxious.
There a diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder with narcissistic features or a narcissistic personality with anti-social features is warranted.
It is true that we are usually not in a good position to diagnose public figures, but I have more knowledge about Clinton’s behaviors than I have had about many of my clients.
FYI, I really am a psychologist and actually have taught
psychodiagnostics and been a very credible expert witness.
The use of public documents and public behavior for personality analysis goes back at least to WWII, when Walter Langer wrote an excellent personality profile on
Adolf Hitler which predicted, among other things, his suicide.
Negative ranting and raving on this board does not enhance the credibility of people’s arguments. If you think Clinton has a normal personality make-up, please muster arguments in
favor of your argument.
Are you saying then that Clinton anticipated that his pardon of Rich would provoke the firestorm that it did but simply felt so strongly that Rich deserved a pardon that he had to do it anyway? I thought even supporters of Clinton agreed that he had simply miscalculated on this one. I am merely pointing out that in the case of Milken the likely reaction was even more obvious.
Interesting analysis. I would like your opinion on the following:
many years ago, some drawings and painting of the late Adolf Eichmann came to light. Based on these, a bunch of prominent New York psychiatrists attempted a post mortem analysis of the mind of this notorious killer of thousands. their verdict was essentially the same as yours (for Bill Clinton)-but I rememeber something more …one of the psychiatrists noted that in all of (Eichmann’s) drawings of buildngs, there were no foundations-they read this to mean the “Eichmann lacked moral grounding”, and also noted that the hands he drew were “the hands of people who do terrible things”.
Seemed to me that PHRENOLOGY would have offerd a more scientific assessment of this guy!
And of course, the information you’re using for this remote diagnosis is not only thorough but completely unfiltered and objective.
[quote]
Negative ranting and raving on this board does not enhance the credibility of people’s arguments.
[quote]
Quite so. For more detail, reread the moderators’ statements to you on some of the other threads you’ve started recently that have had to be closed for that reason.
Since, if I were a “professional psychologist”, I’d have the ethics not to claim a diagnosis of a patient I had never had the chance to examine, I don’t believe I’ll take you up on that.
There’s an old saying: “If you get stuck in a hole, quit digging.”
Sorry 'bout dat - the system was so slow I gave up on Preview. We’ve all been there, right? Right?
Elvis,
What does ethics have to do with anything? It would perhaps be unethical if Bill Clinton was actually taking advice from berdollos (or you) without having ever seen him in person. But what could be unethical about spouting an opinion on a message board?
Nothing unethical about THAT, of course, Izzy. We’d all be in trouble if that were the case. But our friend here is claiming a professional diagnosis based on superior knowledge and background, not an armchair judgment like we ordinary mortals churn out all the time. If he’d keep his opinions on the same level, no problem.
Problem with this is that it is very difficult to be objective about a public figure. When you, as a “trained psychologist” conduct an examination in order to render a professional opinion, you start with a limited amount of information, then amass the material and then make a diagnosis. It would be, I think, generally considered to be unprofessional to attempt to diagnos some one, about whom an opinion had already been formed.
In the case of public figures (especially historical figures), one already has an enormous amount of information at one’s disposal. The results of these ‘studies’ would be far more reliable, if the identity of the public figure would have been withheld.
(aside to **Izzy, berdollos ** was offering his opinion on a message board, and yes, not as an offer to treat the person, but as his professional opinion as to psychiatric conditions exhibited by Clinton. The difference would be - if Sua or Jodi offer up their opinions as to a particular point of law they would be held in more serious regard due to their professional status)
That being said. The Clintons seem to bring out the venom in people. (while many vilified Nixon, I don’t recall any recent Presidents who had to deal with things like the ‘Clinton death squad’ allegations).
And That being said, they certainly seem to bring quite a bit on themselves
I agree with you about these “experts” interpretation of Eichman’s tests; they seem way off.
I have seen his projectives test restults. He seemed depressed (not surprising since he was captured, critical of others and perfectionistic, and status oriented, some degree of hostility. There was no evidence of poor impulse control or psychopathic tendencies. What was so surprising was that such an ordinary person could be so caught up in such an evil venture.
Getting back to Clinton, it takes no psychologist or sleuth to agree that he has been very impulsive (poor impulse control). Also he lies a lot, and easily, also that he is charming and seems to have low anxiety, also that he likes to be the center of attraction, also that he has misjudged his impact on others (as I seem to be doing too!)
These behaviors lead to a diagnostic impression.
Now if you want to tell me that he is not impulsive, does’n’t lie, is very anxious and doesn’t care what others think and is not self-absorbed, I would respectfully disagree. Even though he is not my client, the behaviors above are apparent to me.
But for example is your ‘assessment’ of “lies a lot and easily” a subjective opinion based on news reports or a clinical position based on analysis of all data?
“seems to have low anxiety” is based on what? newsreel footage of him smiling? or access to his medical file including information about sleeplessness etc.
etc etc etc.
You have a right to your opinion. to label it a “diagnostic impression”? IMHO, no.
Interesting, isn’t it that you are in disagreement with the ‘experts’ re: Eichman, where they had access to quite a bit more data than that upon which you rely for your ‘diagnostic impression’.
(note, I am not claiming that Clinton has not lied etc. my claim is that there is insufficient evidence available in the media for any reasonable professional to make a clinical assesment)
Just a thought: does anyone here think a President should have the absolute right to pardon anyone he feels like? Is there anyone out there who thinks this is just a wee bit dangerous? (Perhaps I should start another thread to discuss this aspect?)
If, of course, you can establish that the pattern began before age 15. (I happened to have my Kaplan and Sadock here on my desk.)
If we’re using your degree of diagnostic sensitivity, we could get a diagnosis of ASPD in damn near every politician in Washington. In fact, the features you use to diagnose Clinton–lies easily, is charming, misjudges his impact on others, lacks remorse–could just as easily get the same diagnosis for Ronald Reagan. (Not that they couldn’t both have the same diagnosis–I just see no reason to single out Clinton.)
Personality disorders are diagnosed on a spectrum. You really have to believe the worst claims of Clinton’s detractors before he would stack up to the cases of ASPD I’ve seen.
Narcissistic PD is an even tougher argument. It’s hard to claim that someone’s sense of self-importance is exaggerated if he is the President of the US of Freakin’ A. He is pretty damn important; a heightened sense of his own importance only demonstrates his grasp of reality.
Dr. J (shrink-to-be)
Your points are well-taken. If I were on the stand, I could go over chapter and verse why I have taken the position that I have and other experts could go over their views and the basis for them.
So, if you have a different view, that’s fine. Too bad we don’t have a chance for full length testimony.
Re Eichmann’s test results, the interpretation of his drawings as indicating he does not have a moral grounding, etc. is a type of analysis that has little or no empirical basis.
The evidence for his depression and his perfectionism are based on his actual approach to the test and the structure of his responses and there is plenty of empirical validity for this.
DrJ, Good luck to you for your career development and cotributions to society