18 000 psychologists, psychiatrists ... consder Trump mentally unfit to be President!

[jeffblue101]

It's a non-binding rule.

They're not breaking an oath.

It's an ethical standard based upon a doctor's oath not to do intentional harm, to provide the best possible care and proctect an individuals privacy.

 

[annabenedetti]

It's an ethical standard based upon a doctor's oath not to do intentional harm and to provide the best possible care and privacy.

They didn't break an oath.

The Goldwater rule is a non-binding rule.

I get that you don't like what they're saying about Trump, but they do have the right to say it. Whether or not they should is a matter for debate among psychologists and I'm pretty sure that debate is going on. It'll be interesting to see how it works out.

 

[glorydaz]

The President's "mental health" is rapidly becoming the national "elephant in the room!"

The 18 000 figure preceds Trump's vocal attacks on America's "so called" judiciary, the accusation of 3 million fraudulent votes and his recent "meltdown" at Thursday's press conference where he continued his campaign against the "dishonest press" as an enemy of the American people!

Whatever your political persuasion, Trump's behavior is well outside the accepted boundaries of what is considered acceptable for an American president or anyone holding positions of power!

Surely you aren't falling for that. This is the way Bambie's Organizing For Action works. One guy sits there and shouts out a "thought". They all laugh and spread the word, and Soros throws out the money. Everyone from Nancy Pelosi to the woman next door jump on the bandwagon. They chant it over social media like a jungle drum. "Popular Vote", "Recount", "Russia", "Nuclear Code", "Insane", "Scapegoat", "Leaks", and on and on and on. Jungle Drums!!!!

 

[Lon]

The President's "mental health" is rapidly becoming the national "elephant in the room!"

The 18 000 figure preceds Trump's vocal attacks on America's "so called" judiciary, the accusation of 3 million fraudulent votes and his recent "meltdown" at Thursday's press conference where he continued his campaign against the "dishonest press" as an enemy of the American people!

Whatever your political persuasion, Trump's behavior is well outside the accepted boundaries of what is considered acceptable for an American president or anyone holding positions of power!

I didn't vote for him but there are huge problems with diagnosing an illness without sessions. You simply cannot trust a psych evaluation done over the television or internet. It just isn't done this way. It sounds like desperate politicking to me. This simply isn't done but for dubious alternative reasons. It has all the earmarks of "I don't want this guy for president." If that ever succeeded in impeaching a president, we'd better rethink our Constitution.

 

[Danoh]

Wonder what John Gartner and the 18000 psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals would say about Patton and MacArthur?

No you don't :chuckle:

 

[annabenedetti]

I didn't vote for him but there are huge problems with diagnosing an illness without sessions. You simply cannot trust a psych evaluation done over the television or internet. It just isn't done this way.

I don't disagree with that in concept, and I haven't. That doesn't mean that psychologists with tens of thousands of hours of clinical experience can't recognize behaviors when they see them. The issue isn't just whether they can, it's whether they should.

It sounds like desperate politicking to me. This simply isn't done but for dubious alternative reasons. It has all the earmarks of "I don't want this guy for president." If that ever succeeded in impeaching a president, we'd better rethink our Constitution.

It's not going to cause his impeachment. I do think that if this was being said about Hillary, every Hillary-hating conservative would probably be dead silent on this.

 

[Lon]

I don't disagree with that in concept, and I haven't. That doesn't mean that psychologists with tens of thousands of hours of clinical experience can't recognize behaviors when they see them. The issue isn't just whether they can, it's whether they should.

Agreed. Psychology cannot get involved in politics without cheapening the field. It just isn't done or psychology wouldn't mean anything. They have been dangerously close to politics in the past few years. That is not what psychology is all about. Not at all.

It's not going to cause his impeachment. I do think that if this was being said about Hillary, every Hillary-hating conservative would probably be dead silent on this.

It is just an odd thing that it did happen. Psychology is NOT interestecd in deposing presidents. It is interested in mental health. If not, the bias endangers their primary concern. It already is pressured into that dealing with insurance companies. I don't think the field can afford getting any further into politics, else they become a collective of sociologists (also a modern day concern). -Lon

 

[annabenedetti]

Agreed. Psychology cannot get involved in politics without cheapening the field. It just isn't done or psychology wouldn't mean anything. They have been dangerously close to politics in the past few years. That is not what psychology is all about. Not at all.

It is just an odd thing that it did happen. Psychology is NOT interestecd in deposing presidents. It is interested in mental health. If not, the bias endangers their primary concern. It already is pressured into that dealing with insurance companies. I don't think the field can afford getting any further into politics, else they become a collective of sociologists (also a modern day concern). -Lon

It's something they're going to have to work out.

In the meantime, it's a petition. That's all.

Speaking of petitions, there's a petition on whitehouse.gov right now with over a million citizens asking to see Trump's tax returns, and another petition with many more citizens (over 100K) asking him to resign and that's a lot more than the 18,000 signatories on the mental health professionals petition.

 

[Danoh]

I didn't vote for him but there are huge problems with diagnosing an illness without sessions. You simply cannot trust a psych evaluation done over the television or internet. It just isn't done this way. It sounds like desperate politicking to me. This simply isn't done but for dubious alternative reasons. It has all the earmarks of "I don't want this guy for president." If that ever succeeded in impeaching a president, we'd better rethink our Constitution.

Not true.

Forensics, for example, is able to accurately conclude all sorts of things about the perpetrator of a crime simply through the various recurrent patterns a crime scene cannot but be the result of, and thus, leave behind.

As Freud once noted - "every belief contains within itself, the history of its' very origin."

The same is found to be true in many of the various investigative sciences.

As when a Doctor, for example, repeats a long since established as trustworthy set of questions in helping him or her better deternine what is going on within their patient.

And over time, such things result in a repetition in patterns that end up a kind template for both the prediction and or detection of the mental and or physiological state of total strangers, not only strongly exhibiting those same patterns, but more often than not.

In contrast, the average person, not trained in such things, not only remains oblivious to what the eye trained in such detection is able to see, but often practices a recurrent pattern of reading things into a thing that are nothing more than their own self-delusions.

Personally, I am ever fascnated with all this.

Just as fascinated with the fact those on here who profess to hold to Mid-Acts Dispensationslism actually fail to get any of the above.

If there is one thing the actually well-grounded MADist comes to learn over time; it is that non MADs do not get where the MADs are coming from, simply because they fail to notice the recurrent patterns throughout Scripture so obvious to the MADist.

Then again, some supposed MADs obviously end up umaware that the detection of a thing through recurrent patterns as to what it is, is not only the stuff of Genesis thru Revelation, but of all of life.

I suspect those who miss that do, due to the extremism such end up at; that they end up only able to "see" their own view.

Pointing this out to such, of course, only offends them.

The sense of offense itself lost as to what it might actually be pointing to as to patterns of mind, one might do well to re-examine.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

 

[Danoh]

It's something they're going to have to work out.

In the meantime, it's a petition. That's all.

Speaking of petitions, there's a petition on whitehouse.gov right now with over a million citizens asking to see Trump's tax returns, and another petition with many more citizens (over 100K) asking him to resign and that's a lot more than the 18,000 signatories on the mental health professionals petition.

Yeah, but the lemmings have long since drunk the kool-ade.

 

[patrick jane]

They didn't break an oath.

The Goldwater rule is a non-binding rule.

I get that you don't like what they're saying about Trump, but they do have the right to say it. Whether or not they should is a matter for debate among psychologists and I'm pretty sure that debate is going on. It'll be interesting to see how it works out.

Trump is completely normal and sane :chuckle:

 

[jeffblue101]

They didn't break an oath.

The Goldwater rule is a non-binding rule.

I get that you don't like what they're saying about Trump, but they do have the right to say it. Whether or not they should is a matter for debate among psychologists and I'm pretty sure that debate is going on. It'll be interesting to see how it works out.

They didn't break an oath.

The Goldwater rule is a non-binding rule.

I get that you don't like what they're saying about Trump, but they do have the right to say it. Whether or not they should is a matter for debate among psychologists and I'm pretty sure that debate is going on. It'll be interesting to see how it works out.

Repeating yourself mutiplele times doesn't make your statement true, the Goldwater rule is a potentially enforcable ethical standard meant to keep a doctor from violating his oath.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/APA_Ethics_Code

The American Psychological Association (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (for short, the Ethics Code, as referred to by the APA) includes an introduction, preamble, a list of five aspirational principles and a list of ten enforceable standards that psychologists use to guide ethical decisions in practice, research, and education. The principles and standards are written, revised, and enforced by the APA. The code of conduct is applicable to psychologists in a variety of areas across a variety of contexts. In the event of a violation of the code of conduct, the APA may take action ranging from termination of the APA membership to the loss of licensure, depending on the violation. Other professional organizations and licensing boards may adopt and enforce the code.

The debate will go nowhere since it was only meant to attack Trump and the Republican agenda.

 

[Tambora]

No you don't :chuckle:

ha!
I can imagine.
Just what we needed at the time though.

 

[Danoh]

We will never know since the same 18000 hypocritical psychologists would never attack a liberal politician especially a female one, in fact they would condemn any diagnosis as being in violation of the Goldwater Rule.

Then again, she is not the one making a fool of herself as so called CIC; your false idol is.

Not to mention that she had years as an expert as a false idol in her own right, but further; in just how far to allow herself to go all out fraud in public.

Your boy can't even get that right.

He is simply to compelled to preen.

Hillary is more like Putin; much more calculating in her public persona.

Trump is more that unbearable bullying brat sitting in the middle of the toy store aisle; surrounded by his ever growing mess and bellyaching how he deserves even more.

Hillary would be in the back of the store somewhere blackmailing the stock boy to open the back door so she can drive off with all the really good toys.

I guess I'm grateful both are not in office - what a Saturday Night Live that would make for.

:chuckle:

 

[Lon]

Not true.

Forensics, for example, is able to accurately conclude all sorts of things about the perpetrator of a crime simply through the various recurrent patterns a crime scene cannot but be the result of, and thus, leave behind.

As Freud once noted - "every belief contains within itself, the history of its' very origin."

The same is found to be true in many of the various investigative sciences.

As when a Doctor, for example, repeats a long since established as trustworthy set of questions in helping him or her better deternine what is going on within their patient.

And over time, such things result in a repetition in patterns that end up a kind template for both the prediction and or detection of the mental and or physiological state of total strangers, not only strongly exhibiting those same patterns, but more often than not.

In contrast, the average person, not trained in such things, not only remains oblivious to what the eye trained in such detection is able to see, but often practices a recurrent pattern of reading things into a thing that are nothing more than their own self-delusions.

Personally, I am ever fascnated with all this.

Just as fascinated with the fact those on here who profess to hold to Mid-Acts Dispensationslism actually fail to get any of the above.

If there is one thing the actually well-grounded MADist comes to learn over time; it is that non MADs do not get where the MADs are coming from, simply because they fail to notice the recurrent patterns throughout Scripture so obvious to the MADist.

Then again, some supposed MADs obviously end up umaware that the detection of a thing through recurrent patterns as to what it is, is not only the stuff of Genesis thru Revelation, but of all of life.

I suspect those who miss that do, due to the extremism such end up at; that they end up only able to "see" their own view.

Pointing this out to such, of course, only offends them.

The sense of offense itself lost as to what it might actually be pointing to as to patterns of mind, one might do well to re-examine.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

I am not MAD but I think I get it. There is some mutuality between Calvinist and MAD conclusions where the gospel is concerned. Disagreement too, but I appreciate when someone embraces scriptures I embrace. Forensics is a different field. The 'need' outweighs the inability to diagnose before the offender is caught and it is necessary to diagnose the problem, even if wrong. You see when they get it right on TV, but the danger of immature diagnosis is always there. Only when it comes to life and death or other gross harm, the risk of faulty diagnosis plays second. TV forensics is a bit like reality TV and the news: It has been worked over by entertainers much of the time.

 

[annabenedetti]

Repeating yourself mutiplele times doesn't make your statement true

I answered as many times as you posted your assertion to me.

the Goldwater rule is a potentially enforcable ethical standard meant to keep a doctor from violating his oath.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/APA_Ethics_Code

I've actually read and studied the Ethics Code. Which part of it are you planning to quote?

The debate will go nowhere since it was only meant to attack Trump and the Republican agenda.

Then why are you so concerned?

 

[jeffblue101]

I don't care how skilled a doctor is I would never seek healthcare from a doctor that treats his patients just by eyeballing them. Extremely skilled doctors can still make mistakes, that why a thorough examination is needed for proper diagnosis.

 

[Danoh]

ha!
I can imagine.
Just what we needed at the time though.

Have you checked. I do seem to recall that Military Strategists have long since thorougly analyzed the heck out of not only what drove those two, but how the foul ups of another one had been possible despite the obvious.

You really ought to read both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu.

Both were searing masters in the art of reading the minds of others; especially of military men and of those in power and those they lead/mislead.

That right there is why Interplanner has ended up so skewed in his thinking - he hasn't a clue as to the various guiding principles behind looking at a thing objectively and instead focuses on what he erroneously concludes should be one's focus - the content of a thing :chuckle:

 

[jeffblue101]

I've actually read and studied the Ethics Code. Which part of it are you planning to quote?

Apparently you glazed over the Goldwater rule in your studies.

Then why are you so concerned?

I'm just amazed at the hypocrisy and double standards of liberal medical professionals that want to take a cheap shot at Republican politicians.

 

[Tambora]

You really ought to read both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu.

They guessed a lot.