While both men have declined from where they were 15 or 20 years ago, that doesn't make their issues equal. From the article: "Forgetting the name of the president of France isn’t the same as...
While both men have declined from where they were 15 or 20 years ago, that doesn't make their issues equal.
From the article: "Forgetting the name of the president of France isn’t the same as thinking Obama is president or that Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi are one person. [...] Forgetting names and dates is normal for people who are aging, like Joe Biden, and me, and millions of others. By stark contrast, the Dementia Care Society says “confusing people and generations” is a sign of advanced dementia. And this is the type of profound memory disturbance we’re seeing in Trump."
I’m not a fan of Trump. However, mental health professionals using their title to diagnose public figure and calling it “duty to warn” is problematic. A duty to warn alludes to the exceptional and...
I’m not a fan of Trump. However, mental health professionals using their title to diagnose public figure and calling it “duty to warn” is problematic.
A duty to warn alludes to the exceptional and limited circumstances for mandated reporters to break confidentiality to protect imminent threat to life and serious bodily injury. Think actively suicidal with a plan, means and intent. Think specific target (person or place) with plan, means and homicidal intent. Think suspected abuse of a child or at risk adult or elder. Even then, it’s a one time communication of bare minimum needed information to protect life to law enforcement and/or protective agencies.
By doing this, naming it “Duty to Warn” and making it political, it only increases stigma and politicizes mental health and trust in those providers.
*Psychiatrists. That is for the American Psychiatric Association. However, this source indicates a similar consensus among the American Psychological Association. Confusing - both APA....
*Psychiatrists. That is for the American Psychiatric Association.
However, this source indicates a similar consensus among the American Psychological Association.
Confusing - both APA.
The American Psychological Association wholeheartedly agrees with Dr. Robert Klitzman that neither psychiatrists nor psychologists should offer diagnoses of candidates or any other living public figure they have never examined. Our association has declined requests from several reporters seeking referrals to psychologists who would make such speculations.
Similar to the psychiatrists' Goldwater Rule, our code of ethics exhorts psychologists to "take precautions" that any statements they make to the media "are based on their professional knowledge, training or experience in accord with appropriate psychological literature and practice" and "do not indicate that a professional relationship has been established" with people in the public eye, including political candidates.
When providing opinions of psychological characteristics, psychologists must conduct an examination "adequate to support statements or conclusions." In other words, our ethical code states that psychologists should not offer a diagnosis in the media of a living public figure they have not examined.
Susan H. McDaniel
President
American Psychological Association
Washington
damn, that's honestly kinda sad. Don't get me wrong, in my opinion trump is a horrible person and shouldn't be in a position of power anywhere, public, private, or presidential, but like. Damn....
damn, that's honestly kinda sad. Don't get me wrong, in my opinion trump is a horrible person and shouldn't be in a position of power anywhere, public, private, or presidential, but like.
Damn. Losing your ability to communicate? losing whole chunks of your memory? and all that while you're constantly in the public eye? yikes. My understanding is that dementia can be frightening for the person suffering it, and I imagine thats only compounded by things like travelling or public speaking.
this is literally just rambling
Someone on the sub stack commented something to the effect that they're pretty sure trump is just a figurehead at this point for the Republican party and that once he's in office they'll just prop him up with pillows and give him a hamburger to keep him happy while someone else runs the show and...idk. there's something incredibly sad about that. that for all his shitty behavior that kept him at the top of the heap, for all his fuck around and find out money, at the end of the day, his own mind would turn against him and the people he's surrounded himself with would just shuffle him off to the side and placate him with food like he's a dog.
I watched my grandma suffer from dementia, and my foster mom died of a brain tumor that, at the end, gave her very dementia-like symptoms, so I'm probably projecting. but for all that he's a shitty person, he's still a person and I still feel bad that he probably has some kind of dementia. in my experience with more right wing/fundie circles, disease and illness is treated more like a personal and moral failure rather than something that deserves empathy and kindness. obviously I don't know what his personal relationships are like but. idk. I can't imagine him being surrounded by loving family as he declines, y'know? idk.
As a Canadian, Im somewhat aghast that in a nation of what, 330 million people that Trump and Biden are the choices the US has for a president? We only get to experience the results of the US...
As a Canadian, Im somewhat aghast that in a nation of what, 330 million people that Trump and Biden are the choices the US has for a president? We only get to experience the results of the US election second hand but it most definitely affects our country and I am concerned.
I cant say that Im thrilled with EITHER of those men as the new leader of the free world. I never thought Id see a campaign where the question is who is least demented! They both seem to be well past their prime, and even as a senior myself, I think there is a time when one has to say, yes I have experience and wisdom that comes with age, but its time for me to stand down and let someone younger, more vital, with 100% of their cognitive functions to take the wheel. Good lord, in my 60s I have a much tougher time dealing with stress and long days, I cant even begin to imagine doing it in my late 70s and 80s as a business owner, let alone the leader of a powerful and influential country.
At this point, with either of those choices, the US faces the very real prospect of their next president dying of old age or ill health while in office. And that kind of death rarely comes without some serious decline before the end. They best pick their vice presidents very carefully.
What exactly is your issue with Biden? He's been a more successful president then Obama at this point. Did you prefer Bush? Clinton? Obama? Bush Sr? Reagan? That's over 40 years of presidents....
What exactly is your issue with Biden? He's been a more successful president then Obama at this point. Did you prefer Bush? Clinton? Obama? Bush Sr? Reagan? That's over 40 years of presidents.
Perhaps we should start evaluating Presidents by their actual contributions and not against some vague imagined perfect candidate that doesn't and has never existed?
My issues with Biden is that he's now 81 and showing obvious signs of being very old and slowing down, as one naturally does in your 80's. If he gets re-elected he will be just shy of 86 when he's...
My issues with Biden is that he's now 81 and showing obvious signs of being very old and slowing down, as one naturally does in your 80's. If he gets re-elected he will be just shy of 86 when he's done his term. I know a few 85 yr olds and on the whole, they are generally somewhat disabled and mentally diminished by that age as ANY normal person is when they age. One of them would be my mother in a semi vegetative state at 86, one would be my father who died last month at 85, one would be an aunt who is in her 90s and still mentally sharp but immobile and in a wheelchair and one would be my ex mother in law who is surprisingly spry and mentally alert and speaks with considerably more strength and vigor than most 85 yr olds and is definitely a more articulate speaker than Biden. It takes more than a little stamina, strength and mental acuity to lead and there's no doubt that very few people have that at 85. Its not a slight against Joe Biden in particular, it's that 85 year olds are, in general, beyond their best and brightest years. So if you take your political bias out of the picture, you would see that my argument isn't against his record, its the understanding that only an exceptional person would be fit to govern the US as that age. And I think Biden is a normal, aging man, not a superman and even if he's doing ok right now, he won't be in 4.5 years because he's normal.
Edit:: I actually forgot that my ex father in law, and my current mother in law and father in law were all dead before 86, so out of the seven people I know directly of that age, one is fully competent, one is semi competent and five are already dead. Not good odds and I come from a family of pretty healthy people. Average life span for an American male is 74 years. My point is that the chances of Biden making it through another term are slim to very slim and at some point we all have to retire.
Hahaha my political bias. I apologize but that got a real chuckle out of me. As a fellow Canadian I have voted for the Conservatives in every election for the past twenty years, for it to be...
Hahaha my political bias.
I apologize but that got a real chuckle out of me. As a fellow Canadian I have voted for the Conservatives in every election for the past twenty years, for it to be insinuated I'm politically biased for the nominally "liberal" side is ironic.
I understand your fears of Biden's age but I go back to my point: He has accomplished more than the spry 47 year old Obama ever did despite facing the most divided Congress since the Civil War. He is not showing signs of dementia (yet) and with the exception of his very typical memory lapses, appears to be in good health. There is a value to his experience in government that I believe you are discarding with fears of his age.
So returning to my other point: These are the two candidates we (they) have. Lamenting that it isn't a younger millennial type doesn't serve to change that fact and ultimately the argument takes away from all the work Biden has accomplished in his first term. Despite his advanced age he and his team are working tirelessly and seeing results.
Should he falter within the next four years? Well that's a risk. But don't be aghast at the guy that's already exceeding expectations.
I'm not sure if you accidentally responded to the wrong comment, but their concern is illustrated pretty clear in my opinion. The US will choose between two men both of whom are significantly...
I'm not sure if you accidentally responded to the wrong comment, but their concern is illustrated pretty clear in my opinion. The US will choose between two men both of whom are significantly older than all previous presidents at the time of their appointment (Reagan was 77 at the end of his presidency). The median age of presidents at inauguration historically was 55.
So I don't think there concern is with Biden as a person or politician in this context, but that both Biden (currently 81) and Trump (77) are pretty old. I think it's reasonable to be concerned regarding both men about how any health challenges due to their current age will affect their ability to lead one of the most powerful countries on earth. But I don't see anything in @gowestyoungman's comment about some perfect candidate or something.
I imagine it's missing from that quoted passage because the Macron/Mitterand mistake is explicitly mentioned earlier in the article:
I imagine it's missing from that quoted passage because the Macron/Mitterand mistake is explicitly mentioned earlier in the article:
Joe Biden’s calling the current president of France by the old president of France’s name is like me calling my youngest daughter by my oldest daughter’s name
[…]
Forgetting the name of the president of France isn’t the same as thinking Obama is president or that Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi are one person.
There's a clinical definition for "confusion" which is a profound affliction and contrasts with mere forgetfulness, and it's this definition that's being used in the quote rather than the...
There's a clinical definition for "confusion" which is a profound affliction and contrasts with mere forgetfulness, and it's this definition that's being used in the quote rather than the conversational use of the word.
America's obsession with "freedom" comes with the unintended consequence of the "freedom to be manipulated". We did this to ourselves through unintended consequences. The GOP is in full reality...
America's obsession with "freedom" comes with the unintended consequence of the "freedom to be manipulated". We did this to ourselves through unintended consequences.
The GOP is in full reality distortion field. They reject how out of touch they have become with reality, instead projecting same on the Democrats.
In the US, the advent of conservative talk radio followed by Fox News further opened and moved the Overton Window. Ending the Fairness Doctrine, even perhaps with the good intention of supporting freedom of speech, was an enormous mistake.
I am liberal. I say this because what I'm about to write isn't: an unintended consequence of benevolent multiculturalism has been to allow subversive cultural manipulation and perversion. The cancer of populism and fascism has been growing under our noses since at least the 90s with Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. At the time, we could almost dismiss them as cranks. Some did.
Look where that got us: Trump, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones, and on and on.
It's hard not to be cynical. It's hard not to see our world as a frog boiling in the water of its own making.
EDIT: I'd really appreciate some legitimate reason to believe the US will give up on its death cults. If anyone has one, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I'm left with cynicism.
I don't think multiculturalism did that, it just gave us alternatives. I mean that very genuinely. I don't know what you'd consider the start of multiculturalism as a policy or practice but I...
I don't think multiculturalism did that, it just gave us alternatives. I mean that very genuinely. I don't know what you'd consider the start of multiculturalism as a policy or practice but I don't know that there's a time where the US didn't have racists, white supremacists, eugenics, misogyny, all codified into law and/or actively supported by those in power. We had religious sects that engaged in harmful practices.
Multiculturalism gives more alternative options. I don't see it causing any of this. We had populism before, we have it again.
I was starting to reply and then realized the bad day I'm having was starting to cause me to ramble. Started over. No, I don't see multiculturalism as the cause. I see the necessary tolerance of...
I was starting to reply and then realized the bad day I'm having was starting to cause me to ramble. Started over.
No, I don't see multiculturalism as the cause. I see the necessary tolerance of different cultures as creating an environment hospitable to cultural schism and divergence.
In the US, we started to move away from cultural indoctrination to embracing cultural differences. On the whole, a positive! This same tolerance allowed for slow perversion.
Put another way, give people more freedom, and some assholes will find ways to game the system for their own selfish gain at the cost of society. I see it as an enshittification of society; once all of the value can be extracted has been done so to ethical limits, some will find unethical ways to do same.
Ironically, I find myself making an argument for less freedom. I don't believe the freedom of speech or the freedom to "bear arms" should be absolute.
I don't think I agree that it lets it go unnoticed either. I think that's more about a ton of other factors. But I do agree that as far as my limited knowledge of it goes the fairness doctrine's...
I don't think I agree that it lets it go unnoticed either. I think that's more about a ton of other factors.
But I do agree that as far as my limited knowledge of it goes the fairness doctrine's loss was a causal point
Too easy to say "a ton of other factors". It's almost a tautology as no system as big as the US operates on just one or two! So, agreed, my argument is a vast simplification. And it's not backed...
Too easy to say "a ton of other factors". It's almost a tautology as no system as big as the US operates on just one or two!
So, agreed, my argument is a vast simplification. And it's not backed by a deep education in poli sci. It is backed by some modicum of historical knowledge at best.
Sure, I made a conscious choice not to go down that track in depth. I also hadn't seen your replacement post. I just think without diversity - multiculturalism and pluralism and everything...
Sure, I made a conscious choice not to go down that track in depth. I also hadn't seen your replacement post.
I just think without diversity - multiculturalism and pluralism and everything associated with it - we still get populists and Nazis, we just have fewer inoculating factors. We've always had schisms, abolitionists were schismatic in a sense. I don't think we'd be better without.
While both men have declined from where they were 15 or 20 years ago, that doesn't make their issues equal.
From the article: "Forgetting the name of the president of France isn’t the same as thinking Obama is president or that Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi are one person. [...] Forgetting names and dates is normal for people who are aging, like Joe Biden, and me, and millions of others. By stark contrast, the Dementia Care Society says “confusing people and generations” is a sign of advanced dementia. And this is the type of profound memory disturbance we’re seeing in Trump."
I’m not a fan of Trump. However, mental health professionals using their title to diagnose public figure and calling it “duty to warn” is problematic.
A duty to warn alludes to the exceptional and limited circumstances for mandated reporters to break confidentiality to protect imminent threat to life and serious bodily injury. Think actively suicidal with a plan, means and intent. Think specific target (person or place) with plan, means and homicidal intent. Think suspected abuse of a child or at risk adult or elder. Even then, it’s a one time communication of bare minimum needed information to protect life to law enforcement and/or protective agencies.
By doing this, naming it “Duty to Warn” and making it political, it only increases stigma and politicizes mental health and trust in those providers.
Not a fan.
Also, isn't this exactly why the Goldwater Rule forbids psychologists from making public diagnoses of those they haven't actually seen as a patient?
*Psychiatrists. That is for the American Psychiatric Association.
However, this source indicates a similar consensus among the American Psychological Association.
Confusing - both APA.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230125160457/https://www.apa.org/news/press/response/presidential-candidates
damn, that's honestly kinda sad. Don't get me wrong, in my opinion trump is a horrible person and shouldn't be in a position of power anywhere, public, private, or presidential, but like.
Damn. Losing your ability to communicate? losing whole chunks of your memory? and all that while you're constantly in the public eye? yikes. My understanding is that dementia can be frightening for the person suffering it, and I imagine thats only compounded by things like travelling or public speaking.
this is literally just rambling
Someone on the sub stack commented something to the effect that they're pretty sure trump is just a figurehead at this point for the Republican party and that once he's in office they'll just prop him up with pillows and give him a hamburger to keep him happy while someone else runs the show and...idk. there's something incredibly sad about that. that for all his shitty behavior that kept him at the top of the heap, for all his fuck around and find out money, at the end of the day, his own mind would turn against him and the people he's surrounded himself with would just shuffle him off to the side and placate him with food like he's a dog.I watched my grandma suffer from dementia, and my foster mom died of a brain tumor that, at the end, gave her very dementia-like symptoms, so I'm probably projecting. but for all that he's a shitty person, he's still a person and I still feel bad that he probably has some kind of dementia. in my experience with more right wing/fundie circles, disease and illness is treated more like a personal and moral failure rather than something that deserves empathy and kindness. obviously I don't know what his personal relationships are like but. idk. I can't imagine him being surrounded by loving family as he declines, y'know? idk.
As a Canadian, Im somewhat aghast that in a nation of what, 330 million people that Trump and Biden are the choices the US has for a president? We only get to experience the results of the US election second hand but it most definitely affects our country and I am concerned.
I cant say that Im thrilled with EITHER of those men as the new leader of the free world. I never thought Id see a campaign where the question is who is least demented! They both seem to be well past their prime, and even as a senior myself, I think there is a time when one has to say, yes I have experience and wisdom that comes with age, but its time for me to stand down and let someone younger, more vital, with 100% of their cognitive functions to take the wheel. Good lord, in my 60s I have a much tougher time dealing with stress and long days, I cant even begin to imagine doing it in my late 70s and 80s as a business owner, let alone the leader of a powerful and influential country.
At this point, with either of those choices, the US faces the very real prospect of their next president dying of old age or ill health while in office. And that kind of death rarely comes without some serious decline before the end. They best pick their vice presidents very carefully.
What exactly is your issue with Biden? He's been a more successful president then Obama at this point. Did you prefer Bush? Clinton? Obama? Bush Sr? Reagan? That's over 40 years of presidents.
Perhaps we should start evaluating Presidents by their actual contributions and not against some vague imagined perfect candidate that doesn't and has never existed?
My issues with Biden is that he's now 81 and showing obvious signs of being very old and slowing down, as one naturally does in your 80's. If he gets re-elected he will be just shy of 86 when he's done his term. I know a few 85 yr olds and on the whole, they are generally somewhat disabled and mentally diminished by that age as ANY normal person is when they age. One of them would be my mother in a semi vegetative state at 86, one would be my father who died last month at 85, one would be an aunt who is in her 90s and still mentally sharp but immobile and in a wheelchair and one would be my ex mother in law who is surprisingly spry and mentally alert and speaks with considerably more strength and vigor than most 85 yr olds and is definitely a more articulate speaker than Biden. It takes more than a little stamina, strength and mental acuity to lead and there's no doubt that very few people have that at 85. Its not a slight against Joe Biden in particular, it's that 85 year olds are, in general, beyond their best and brightest years. So if you take your political bias out of the picture, you would see that my argument isn't against his record, its the understanding that only an exceptional person would be fit to govern the US as that age. And I think Biden is a normal, aging man, not a superman and even if he's doing ok right now, he won't be in 4.5 years because he's normal.
Edit:: I actually forgot that my ex father in law, and my current mother in law and father in law were all dead before 86, so out of the seven people I know directly of that age, one is fully competent, one is semi competent and five are already dead. Not good odds and I come from a family of pretty healthy people. Average life span for an American male is 74 years. My point is that the chances of Biden making it through another term are slim to very slim and at some point we all have to retire.
Hahaha my political bias.
I apologize but that got a real chuckle out of me. As a fellow Canadian I have voted for the Conservatives in every election for the past twenty years, for it to be insinuated I'm politically biased for the nominally "liberal" side is ironic.
I understand your fears of Biden's age but I go back to my point: He has accomplished more than the spry 47 year old Obama ever did despite facing the most divided Congress since the Civil War. He is not showing signs of dementia (yet) and with the exception of his very typical memory lapses, appears to be in good health. There is a value to his experience in government that I believe you are discarding with fears of his age.
So returning to my other point: These are the two candidates we (they) have. Lamenting that it isn't a younger millennial type doesn't serve to change that fact and ultimately the argument takes away from all the work Biden has accomplished in his first term. Despite his advanced age he and his team are working tirelessly and seeing results.
Should he falter within the next four years? Well that's a risk. But don't be aghast at the guy that's already exceeding expectations.
I'm not sure if you accidentally responded to the wrong comment, but their concern is illustrated pretty clear in my opinion. The US will choose between two men both of whom are significantly older than all previous presidents at the time of their appointment (Reagan was 77 at the end of his presidency). The median age of presidents at inauguration historically was 55.
So I don't think there concern is with Biden as a person or politician in this context, but that both Biden (currently 81) and Trump (77) are pretty old. I think it's reasonable to be concerned regarding both men about how any health challenges due to their current age will affect their ability to lead one of the most powerful countries on earth. But I don't see anything in @gowestyoungman's comment about some perfect candidate or something.
I imagine it's missing from that quoted passage because the Macron/Mitterand mistake is explicitly mentioned earlier in the article:
There's a clinical definition for "confusion" which is a profound affliction and contrasts with mere forgetfulness, and it's this definition that's being used in the quote rather than the conversational use of the word.
America's obsession with "freedom" comes with the unintended consequence of the "freedom to be manipulated". We did this to ourselves through unintended consequences.
The GOP is in full reality distortion field. They reject how out of touch they have become with reality, instead projecting same on the Democrats.
In the US, the advent of conservative talk radio followed by Fox News further opened and moved the Overton Window. Ending the Fairness Doctrine, even perhaps with the good intention of supporting freedom of speech, was an enormous mistake.
I am liberal. I say this because what I'm about to write isn't: an unintended consequence of benevolent multiculturalism has been to allow subversive cultural manipulation and perversion. The cancer of populism and fascism has been growing under our noses since at least the 90s with Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. At the time, we could almost dismiss them as cranks. Some did.
Look where that got us: Trump, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones, and on and on.
It's hard not to be cynical. It's hard not to see our world as a frog boiling in the water of its own making.
EDIT: I'd really appreciate some legitimate reason to believe the US will give up on its death cults. If anyone has one, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I'm left with cynicism.
I don't think multiculturalism did that, it just gave us alternatives. I mean that very genuinely. I don't know what you'd consider the start of multiculturalism as a policy or practice but I don't know that there's a time where the US didn't have racists, white supremacists, eugenics, misogyny, all codified into law and/or actively supported by those in power. We had religious sects that engaged in harmful practices.
Multiculturalism gives more alternative options. I don't see it causing any of this. We had populism before, we have it again.
I was starting to reply and then realized the bad day I'm having was starting to cause me to ramble. Started over.
No, I don't see multiculturalism as the cause. I see the necessary tolerance of different cultures as creating an environment hospitable to cultural schism and divergence.
In the US, we started to move away from cultural indoctrination to embracing cultural differences. On the whole, a positive! This same tolerance allowed for slow perversion.
Put another way, give people more freedom, and some assholes will find ways to game the system for their own selfish gain at the cost of society. I see it as an enshittification of society; once all of the value can be extracted has been done so to ethical limits, some will find unethical ways to do same.
Ironically, I find myself making an argument for less freedom. I don't believe the freedom of speech or the freedom to "bear arms" should be absolute.
I don't think I agree that it lets it go unnoticed either. I think that's more about a ton of other factors.
But I do agree that as far as my limited knowledge of it goes the fairness doctrine's loss was a causal point
Too easy to say "a ton of other factors". It's almost a tautology as no system as big as the US operates on just one or two!
So, agreed, my argument is a vast simplification. And it's not backed by a deep education in poli sci. It is backed by some modicum of historical knowledge at best.
Sure, I made a conscious choice not to go down that track in depth. I also hadn't seen your replacement post.
I just think without diversity - multiculturalism and pluralism and everything associated with it - we still get populists and Nazis, we just have fewer inoculating factors. We've always had schisms, abolitionists were schismatic in a sense. I don't think we'd be better without.
Everything has trade offs and unintended consequences.
I tend to agree with you; I see multiculturalism as a good thing overall.
"Casual" or "causal"? I suspect you meant the latter and got spellchecked as I nearly did. 😉
Fecking iOS!
I can't blame iOS, but yeah I definitely typed "causal" and got got by autocorrect. Ty!