No sane man would think himself capable of, or harbour any desire to, run the country. Having said that, I generally agree that one should not diagnose via the public media, but on the other hand, in loose way, it seems fair to resist the normalisation of insanity through the media. To say Trump is paranoid, aggressive and mean, erratic, outrageous and concerning (morally) is not to make a diagnosis, merely to suggest that one might want to make one.

Have you read Alice Miller?

To say Trump is paranoid, aggressive and mean, erratic, outrageous and concerning (morally) is not to make a diagnosis, merely to suggest that one might want to make one. — unenlightened

I think this can be interpreted as saying it is fair to poison the well by suggesting a person is unqualified without any qualifications yourself.

Have you read Alice Miller? — unenlightened

Not very much.

When Trump was campaigning and after his election, there were several psychiatrists and psychologists who offered warnings about his deteriorating mental health. They had not examined him yet spoke of possible or likely narcissism, paranoid schizophrenia or dementia. — darthbarracuda

A friend of mine who is a therapist recommended "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump - 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President." She has very strong negative feelings for the president.

I'm ambivalent on the issue. If President Trump is seriously mentally ill, that's a good reason not to vote for him. Now that he's elected, it's more appropriate to make judgments based on his behavior in office. I think he's a terrible president. I think his policies are bad and dangerous. On the other hand, so far he's damaged the country much less than George W. Bush did when he got us into the war in Iraq. I don't think anyone seriously questions Bush's mental health.

I think he's no more or less sociopathic than Hillary Clinton and likely many other politicians.

I reject the Goldwater Rule as being without basis. It just seems like a bad rule that some irrelevant committee arrived at. No worries. I have come up with the Hanover Rule: "Psychiatrists, like all other citizens of the US, can say whatever they want about the President no matter how abusive or untrue it is. If you don't want people being mean to you, choose another job."

I'd submit a better case of incompetence could be found on the Supreme Court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85, and I doubt she knows where her pants are. This is Hanover Rule 2 - "Mental incompetence is acceptable in a politician as long as they are politically aligned with you."

I mean, would you trust her making you a cup of coffee, much less having her decide whether there was a sufficient link to interstate commerce to permit federal preemption of state law?

Psychologically speaking, there's something very peculiar about this thread. As if one can run for office without being spotted and vetted out for being a sociopathic individual or XYZ.

I would think that the really crazy people get spotted out before they can get into office or implode under the pressure.

I thoroughly loath and detest Donald Trump and I would enjoy reading his obituary next week, BUT I don't think he is crazy. "Paranoid; check. Aggressive and mean; check. In a noticeable way? He's the Prez -- whatever he does is going to be noticeable. Erratic? Maybe. Outrageous; check. Concerning? How about morally appalling. Narcissistic? Double-check. A megalomaniac? Some of these characteristics are minimum requirements to run for the office. Check!

Was Richard Nixon paranoid, aggressive, vicious, erratic, megalomanic, narcissistic, outrageous, morally appalling; check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check. He was found to be in violation of the constitution, not in violation of the DSM. He was an awful person; but except for a little criminal behavior (Watergate and the Watergate Cover Up)--meh -- well within the operational standards of Washington.

Look, putting aside the fine rhetoric about democracy and all that, Congress and the Presidency are institutional shit holes of graft and corruption. Swamp? It's more of a sewage lagoon. It pretty much stays the same regardless of who is in office: DT, BO, GB II, WC, GB I, RR, JC, GF, RN, LBJ, JFK...

Why is Washington so bad? It's because it spends a lot of money (much of it appropriately) and money attracts the greedy and corrupt--like lobbyists, for instance, and lucre-minded politicians.

I would think that the really crazy people get spotted out before they can get into office or implode under the pressure. — Posty McPostface

In the "good old days" of the "smoke-filled back room" where the party leaders got together and decided things in private, there was more control over who would be trotted out to be nominated for the top office. The pros knew who had skeletons in their closets, and how they got there. And they could better control information.

As parties became more open and democratic, this kind of control broke down. In 1972, Thomas Eagleton, George McGovern's VP running mate, was revealed to have been a mental hospital patient, diagnosed with manic depression, and had received electroshock therapy. I don't remember all the details of how this was revealed, but it was the kiss of death for his candidacy.

The FBI sure ain't what it used to be.

I had intended this thread, not as a discussion about the merits and failings of the orange clown, but as a discussion over the threat psychiatry is to a moral society. When "objectivity", "sanity" and "rationality" are socially conditioned, the idea of a truly free and equal society is conceivably a contradiction in terms. Disregarding the opinion of a "raving madman" because he is a raving madman dismisses this individual's perspective as irrelevant. "Sanity" is a way of (arbitrarily?) separating opinions that "matter" from those that don't.

Yet if sanity is defined as an overwhelming majority consensus of what is "real", then the imposition of sanity upon society as a whole is tyrannical. The assumption of the "sane" with regards to the "insane" is that the latter must have something "broken" or deficient. This is dogmatic - what "sane" people describe as, say, paranoid schizophrenia, may actually be a more expansive form of awareness. The "broken mind of the schizophrenic" may actually let light in that is blocked by the normal "sane" mind. A so-called delusional person may actually be more acquainted with reality than the majority. It is not inconceivable that at least some people are mis-diagnosed as insane when they are, in reality, very much so sane. What people call "insanity" can actually be a surplus of sanity.

All we are acquainted with are subjective phenomena. "Objectivity" is inter-subjectivity: the only contact we have with anything outside of ourselves is through mediated references and symbols. I cannot see what you see, you cannot see what I see. We can only partially represent what we see through language. This means that anyone not in broad agreement with general principles pertaining to the world at large is marginalized, and their political opinions ignored. This has a funny consequence: an "insane" person can be oppressed by the "sane" society, and this oppression is ignored as oppression by the sane society in virtue of it being a deficiency of sanity. The insane is silenced, ignored and sometimes locked away in a mental hospital.

So a free and equal society is a contradiction in terms for many reasons, the tyranny of sanity being one. This tyranny is especially concerning when the state develops a strong ideology that incorporates certain mental states with privilege. Those who do not believe in the ideology of the state are deemed "insane". Sanity is political, it is but one way of organizing humans into those with opinions that matter and those that do not. It is discrimination, but it is not recognized as discrimination. Those who are "sane" are given more voice, time and recognition than those who are "insane".

I had intended this thread, not as a discussion about the merits and failings of the orange clown, but as a discussion over the threat psychiatry is to a moral society. — darthbarracuda

Are we really living in a moral society?

When "objectivity", "sanity" and "rationality" are socially conditioned, the idea of a truly free and equal society is conceivably a contradiction in terms. Disregarding the opinion of a "raving madman" because he is a raving madman dismisses this individual's perspective as irrelevant. "Sanity" is a way of (arbitrarily?) separating opinions that "matter" from those that don't. — darthbarracuda

Yes, when you label a person as 'irrational' or 'insane' it is the deepest of ad hominem attacks possible.

Yet if sanity is defined as an overwhelming majority consensus of what is "real", then the imposition of sanity upon society as a whole is tyrannical. — darthbarracuda

Well, we do live in a democracy. It's not some Orwellian dystopia, yet.

The assumption of the "sane" with regards to the "insane" is that the latter must have something "broken" or deficient. — darthbarracuda

I think the terms is "disorder" or "dysfunctional".

This is dogmatic - what "sane" people describe as, say, paranoid schizophrenia, may actually be a more expansive form of awareness. The "broken mind of the schizophrenic" may actually let light in that is blocked by the normal "sane" mind. — darthbarracuda

Well, there is some danger in professing this line of thought. As if being schizophrenic were something 'normal', which it isn't.

A so-called delusional person may actually be more acquainted with reality than the majority. It is not inconceivable that at least some people are mis-diagnosed as insane when they are, in reality, very much so sane. What people call "insanity" can actually be a surplus of sanity. — darthbarracuda

That's possible, though self justifying and prone to delusion itself.

This has a funny consequence: an "insane" person can be oppressed by the "sane" society, and this oppression is ignored as oppression by the sane society in virtue of it being a deficiency of sanity. The insane is silenced, ignored and sometimes locked away in a mental hospital. — darthbarracuda

Well, again we live in a democracy, so everyone on the far or middle end of the spectrum can find some place in society.

So a free and equal society is a contradiction in terms for many reasons, the tyranny of sanity being one. — darthbarracuda

If you ask me, I have never seen American society so full of delusion, paranoia, and mistrust. So, if you really think that's a good thing, then you're living in the golden age of American madness.

f you ask me, I have never seen American society so full of delusion, paranoia, and mistrust. So, if you really think that's a good thing, then you're living in the golden age of insanity. — Posty McPostface

No, I don't think living in crazy-land is a good thing. My point was that no matter how you frame it, excluding insane people from political discourse is a form of discrimination. Worldviews are silenced simply because they don't make "sense" to the "sane". The tyranny of sanity is the tyranny of a certain perspective that is more prevalent than others. It is aggressive and hypocritical. But that's just politics.

So, your essentially saying that you are wary of any appeals to authority in regards to figuring out who is most fit or competent for a job in terms of rationality or sanity. If you assume so, then there's no real answer to give here.

Psychiatry faces a difficult ethical dilemma: when is it permissible to use one's professional medical expertise for political ends?

Furthermore, in a more radical sense: in what way is the psychiatrist's own subjective appropriation of what is "normal" by any means applicable to every single person? How can a society be truly free and equal when the democratic mob establishes a tyranny of "sanity"? — darthbarracuda

"Psychiatry is the branch of medicine focused on the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mental, emotional and behavioral disorders.
"A psychiatrist is a medical doctor (an M.D. or D.O.) who specializes in mental health, including substance use disorders. Psychiatrists are qualified to assess both the mental and physical aspects of psychological problems." -internet, psychiatry.org

A psychiatrist meets professional standards and satisfies licensure requirements to provide a service valued by the community, as do other doctors, lawyers, teachers, plumbers, electricians, & etc.

The answer to your first question is, when appropriate.

To your second, it isn't. (I suspect you do not understand my answer because you do not understand your own question - correct me if I'm mistaken.)

To your third, it cannot.

I know you - or I've read many of your posts over time. These questions of yours aren't worthy of you.

I hold the Goldwater "rule" to be nonsense and of neither prescriptive nor proscriptive value.

Disregarding the opinion of a "raving madman" because he is a raving madman dismisses this individual's perspective as irrelevant. — darthbarracuda

That's right, and rightly so. Someone walking down the street babbling a word salad is diagnosable (by the way, "raving madman" is not a diagnosis, these days) and as such what they are babbling about can be ignored. Someone who takes off their clothes and attempts to jump off a freeway bridge into traffic does not have a unique perspective, they have a psychological crisis. Someone who is so depressed they are catatonic is not more aware than everybody else, they are sicker than everybody else.

Mental illness is real. I assume you accept that. The policies and behaviors of political figures can be so extremely off-putting to the opposition that we are inclined to reach for psychiatric terms. 99% of the time when we do that, we will be wrong. Calling a politician crazy is essential a "mental health insult" -- having nothing to do with psychiatry.

Likewise, calling President Trump a "moron" is not an assessment of his actual intelligence. It's a way of saying how much you dislike him.

Calling the legitimate concepts of mental illness into question with "it's not abnormal, it's a unique perspective" is extremely lame.

Worldviews are silenced simply because they don't make "sense" to the "sane". The tyranny of sanity is the tyranny of a certain perspective that is more prevalent than others. — darthbarracuda

Do you really believe that?