We'll have equal rights for LGBTQ people and "secured enough" rights for pro-choice abortion position fans precisely when the odds of having a mentally ill man or woman are very high.

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:12:03 AM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> We'll have equal rights for LGBTQ people and "secured enough" rights for pro-choice abortion position fans precisely when the odds of having a mentally ill man or woman are very high.

I meant to say, "having a mentally ill man or woman as President of the United States..." .

"B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:12:03 AM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
>> We'll have equal rights for LGBTQ people and "secured enough" rights
>> for pro-choice abortion position fans precisely when the odds of
>> having a mentally ill man or woman are very high.
>
> I meant to say, "having a mentally ill man or woman as President of
> the United States..." .

Haven't you already had a couple?

--
Ben.

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 12:05:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "B.H." <xlt...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:12:03 AM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> >> We'll have equal rights for LGBTQ people and "secured enough" rights
> >> for pro-choice abortion position fans precisely when the odds of
> >> having a mentally ill man or woman are very high.
> >
> > I meant to say, "having a mentally ill man or woman as President of
> > the United States..." .
> Haven't you already had a couple?
>
> --
> Ben.

Well, I don't feel comfortable diagnosing Presidents or anyone with psychological disorders. I wouldn't speculate on diagnostic labels, but I do think that Bush, Obama (a substance abuser), Trump, and Biden have exhibited very strange and callous behavior that is not sensitive to the rights or feelings of others.

Is it a Communist/KGB/terrorist plot to ruin the USA? I don't know.

Do you care to share what you think of Teresa May, Boris Johnson, and their predecessors back to Blair? I don't know anything much about British politics; in the US press, Blair was portrayed as quite close to Bush, and the later leaders didn't get as much press that I saw and didn't draw the kind of intense controversy that was shown in the press for Blair. I've seen Teresa May crying over Brexit and some sci.math-like discussions in Parliament, though.

-Philip

"B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 12:05:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "B.H." <xlt...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:12:03 AM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
>> >> We'll have equal rights for LGBTQ people and "secured enough" rights
>> >> for pro-choice abortion position fans precisely when the odds of
>> >> having a mentally ill man or woman are very high.
>> >
>> > I meant to say, "having a mentally ill man or woman as President of
>> > the United States..." .
>>
>> Haven't you already had a couple?
>
> Well, I don't feel comfortable diagnosing Presidents or anyone with
> psychological disorders.

I think it is widely accepted that several US presidents suffered from
clinical depression. In a few cases, very severe depression.

--
Ben.

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 3:01:25 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "B.H." <xlt...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 12:05:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >> "B.H." <xlt...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:12:03 AM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> >> >> We'll have equal rights for LGBTQ people and "secured enough" rights
> >> >> for pro-choice abortion position fans precisely when the odds of
> >> >> having a mentally ill man or woman are very high.
> >> >
> >> > I meant to say, "having a mentally ill man or woman as President of
> >> > the United States..." .
> >>
> >> Haven't you already had a couple?
> >
> > Well, I don't feel comfortable diagnosing Presidents or anyone with
> > psychological disorders.
> I think it is widely accepted that several US presidents suffered from
> clinical depression. In a few cases, very severe depression.
>
> --
> Ben.

Do you mean recent presidents? If so, that's cool...it means you're either lying or in possession of access to a special UK internet that I can't see..

https://thepoliticalinsider.com/presidents-mental-illness/
https://www.healthcentral.com/article/7-presidents-who-battled-depression

I'm not sure I trust web sources like this one:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16462555/

....in the sense that although I don't know the true practice in scientific psych for diagnoses--my unverified belief is that you have to be in a clinical setting, typically consensually or at least "for a good reason," to be diagnosed--I tend to see the hint that many US Presidents were mentally ill as a "carefully worded trap."

In 10th grade AP psych (AP = advanced placement, it means you get college credit (and an extra point to your GPA)), I learned that a symptom of schizophrenia is something very close to the idea of "secret coded messages hidden in various things that no one else can see," although those were not the exact words. I sometimes see psych definitions as worded to trap possible abusive bad guys, in the sense that trained psychologists/psychiatrists might have "secret understandings," including hints that only such professionals would understand, about how psych really works. In particular, it is possible for hints and other innuendo to be "secretly hidden in things" that other people CAN see, and of course religious perspectives allow for the idea of secret (non-coded?) messages that religious folks might be able to see that others cannot see. I think the idea is that the symptom description is technically true, depending on how certain words are defined...but perhaps un-conscientious people who might wish mentally ill people to have bad outcomes might be sloppy and imprecise in interpreting these definitions, and wind up walking into carefully designed "traps" set for them by psych professionals who stand to gain by protecting their patients.

It is entirely possible that everything I wrote above is false; I remember I had a psychiatrist when I was 20 who mentioned the idea of "delusions about 'shared secrets'" that I might be susceptible to, back when I saw myself as sometimes actually at least somewhat delusional instead of just actually attacked by people. You don't have to react at all to details about my personal health issue that I chose to share in public because I felt like it, but my point is that I think it is hard for outsiders who haven't gotten a Ph.D. in psychology or an MD in psychiatry to know all that much about brain science; in particular, I think the field is changing a lot as treatments improve and "the history of human minds" updates itself (including due to internet technology, innovation, world events, etc.), and psych doctors tend to have the best access to mentally ill patients in treatment, which can provide an extremely valuable perspective to psych doctors. Actually, I think that is another cause of the coronavirus; I suspect that attacks against mental patients tend to get conscientious psych doctors to feel viscerally or just professionally inclined to clam up, protect their patients, and stop sharing valuable data about the human mind from patients to help those who might actually just be attacking these unique patients. I believe that that is one explanation for "where all the science went."

-Philip White

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 3:21:57 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 3:01:25 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > "B.H." <xlt...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 12:05:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > >> "B.H." <xlt...@gmail.com> writes:
> > >>
> > >> > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:12:03 AM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > >> >> We'll have equal rights for LGBTQ people and "secured enough" rights
> > >> >> for pro-choice abortion position fans precisely when the odds of
> > >> >> having a mentally ill man or woman are very high.
> > >> >
> > >> > I meant to say, "having a mentally ill man or woman as President of
> > >> > the United States..." .
> > >>
> > >> Haven't you already had a couple?
> > >
> > > Well, I don't feel comfortable diagnosing Presidents or anyone with
> > > psychological disorders.
> > I think it is widely accepted that several US presidents suffered from
> > clinical depression. In a few cases, very severe depression.
> >
> > --
> > Ben.
> Do you mean recent presidents? If so, that's cool...it means you're either lying or in possession of access to a special UK internet that I can't see.
>
> https://thepoliticalinsider.com/presidents-mental-illness/
> https://www.healthcentral.com/article/7-presidents-who-battled-depression
>
> I'm not sure I trust web sources like this one:
>
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16462555/
>
> ...in the sense that although I don't know the true practice in scientific psych for diagnoses--my unverified belief is that you have to be in a clinical setting, typically consensually or at least "for a good reason," to be diagnosed--I tend to see the hint that many US Presidents were mentally ill as a "carefully worded trap."
>
> In 10th grade AP psych (AP = advanced placement, it means you get college credit (and an extra point to your GPA)), I learned that a symptom of schizophrenia is something very close to the idea of "secret coded messages hidden in various things that no one else can see," although those were not the exact words. I sometimes see psych definitions as worded to trap possible abusive bad guys, in the sense that trained psychologists/psychiatrists might have "secret understandings," including hints that only such professionals would understand, about how psych really works. In particular, it is possible for hints and other innuendo to be "secretly hidden in things" that other people CAN see, and of course religious perspectives allow for the idea of secret (non-coded?) messages that religious folks might be able to see that others cannot see. I think the idea is that the symptom description is technically true, depending on how certain words are defined...but perhaps un-conscientious people who might wish mentally ill people to have bad outcomes might be sloppy and imprecise in interpreting these definitions, and wind up walking into carefully designed "traps" set for them by psych professionals who stand to gain by protecting their patients.
>
> It is entirely possible that everything I wrote above is false; I remember I had a psychiatrist when I was 20 who mentioned the idea of "delusions about 'shared secrets'" that I might be susceptible to, back when I saw myself as sometimes actually at least somewhat delusional instead of just actually attacked by people. You don't have to react at all to details about my personal health issue that I chose to share in public because I felt like it, but my point is that I think it is hard for outsiders who haven't gotten a Ph.D. in psychology or an MD in psychiatry to know all that much about brain science; in particular, I think the field is changing a lot as treatments improve and "the history of human minds" updates itself (including due to internet technology, innovation, world events, etc.), and psych doctors tend to have the best access to mentally ill patients in treatment, which can provide an extremely valuable perspective to psych doctors. Actually, I think that is another cause of the coronavirus; I suspect that attacks against mental patients tend to get conscientious psych doctors to feel viscerally or just professionally inclined to clam up, protect their patients, and stop sharing valuable data about the human mind from patients to help those who might actually just be attacking these unique patients. I believe that that is one explanation for "where all the science went."
>
> -Philip White

The back-and-forth between politician and scientist, by the way, might involve the politician making puppy dog faces and begging for new science ideas to help the world and appealing to "the heartbreaking big-deal tragedy that affects us all and has killed so many sweet and innocent Americans and others and continues to do so every day," and the silent unstated rebuttal from the scientist that might be something like, "if you weren't just kidding about caring about other people and if you were healthy and moral enough to lead, you would stop trying to torment my patients for imaginary science that you claim that you want for 'your purposes,' and maybe then I would take your claims about the urgent need to save lives seriously and fork over some helpful science, but until then, no way--you're just a faker." That's just my impression, though.