Scan barcode
omnibozo22's review against another edition
5.0
OK, finished this faster than expected. Since impeachment is a political trial, not a criminal one, Dumbtruck will be unable to plead insanity. This will change after he leaves office and his mountain of criminal acts collapse on him.
About the traits of antisocial personality disorder, the current DSM says:
A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors;
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying.... or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another; and
8. Evidence of conduct disorder [impulsive, aggressive, callous, or deceitful behavior that is persistent and difficult to deter with threats or punishment] with onset before age 15 years.
Three or more? Doesn't hitting all eight suggest immediate forceful intervention?
The book lays out plenty of carefully considered professional opinions for finding the president to be mentally unstable and untrustworthy. Impeachment, and later institutionalization, may be the best thing to happen to this maniac.
About the traits of antisocial personality disorder, the current DSM says:
A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors;
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying.... or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another; and
8. Evidence of conduct disorder [impulsive, aggressive, callous, or deceitful behavior that is persistent and difficult to deter with threats or punishment] with onset before age 15 years.
Three or more? Doesn't hitting all eight suggest immediate forceful intervention?
The book lays out plenty of carefully considered professional opinions for finding the president to be mentally unstable and untrustworthy. Impeachment, and later institutionalization, may be the best thing to happen to this maniac.
ketutar's review against another edition
3.0
Hmm... It is a thought-provoking book.
Unfortunately it's a very uneven book. I just wish they had used more discernment choosing the experts to write these essays. Some are really good and should be read by everyone, I think. Some are really bad, and shouldn't be in this book. It is really hard to review it, because it's a combination of 5 star essays and 1 star essays. That's why I gave it 3 - sort of medium. I did learn things, and I did enjoy some parts of it very much.
My first reaction when I read the subtitle of this book was "Diagnosing someone like that? Highly unethical and unprofessional!". Then I read the book and realized I was wrong - this book is not about diagnosing Donald Trump. It is a discussion (more or less) about what mental health experts see when they look at Donald Trump, and how that might impact the USA and the world, as Donald Trump is the President of USA.
That's all well and good, but a lot of this book is just adding to the mess. More demonizing, creating division, suspicion, fear and uncertainty. It gives very little solutions, very few answers, not much comfort or ways of dealing with the fear.
Sure, he's dangerous, but what can we do about it? Nothing, just sit and wait for the axe to fall. Or the bombs.
I think the premise is interesting, but some of the authors aren't impartial, neutral and professional.
One thing that bothers me is that even though the material used is all public and commonly available for everyone to verify the statements, most of them use only a rather limited selection. I was expecting to see some positive qualities to be mentioned, but there aren't any. (Well, to be fair, there are some. Very little, though.)
I also don't see any references to the culture and society where Donald Trump grew up in. A country where bullies are considered leaders, where might has always meant right and mob mentality rules, where children are raised to do what they are told to do without questions, a country where safety means more than liberty, and guns are more valuable than children, where riches and power is valued higher than human rights, kindness and understanding, where showing emotions is being weak - he is the ideal.
Parts of it are really hard to read, like chewing shoe leather, pulling teeth or some other such activity. It has taken me way too long time to actually finish it, but I am happy having read it. It did give me some ideas and insight and some compassion toward the Trumpsters.
Unfortunately it's a very uneven book. I just wish they had used more discernment choosing the experts to write these essays. Some are really good and should be read by everyone, I think. Some are really bad, and shouldn't be in this book. It is really hard to review it, because it's a combination of 5 star essays and 1 star essays. That's why I gave it 3 - sort of medium. I did learn things, and I did enjoy some parts of it very much.
My first reaction when I read the subtitle of this book was "Diagnosing someone like that? Highly unethical and unprofessional!". Then I read the book and realized I was wrong - this book is not about diagnosing Donald Trump. It is a discussion (more or less) about what mental health experts see when they look at Donald Trump, and how that might impact the USA and the world, as Donald Trump is the President of USA.
That's all well and good, but a lot of this book is just adding to the mess. More demonizing, creating division, suspicion, fear and uncertainty. It gives very little solutions, very few answers, not much comfort or ways of dealing with the fear.
Sure, he's dangerous, but what can we do about it? Nothing, just sit and wait for the axe to fall. Or the bombs.
I think the premise is interesting, but some of the authors aren't impartial, neutral and professional.
One thing that bothers me is that even though the material used is all public and commonly available for everyone to verify the statements, most of them use only a rather limited selection. I was expecting to see some positive qualities to be mentioned, but there aren't any. (Well, to be fair, there are some. Very little, though.)
I also don't see any references to the culture and society where Donald Trump grew up in. A country where bullies are considered leaders, where might has always meant right and mob mentality rules, where children are raised to do what they are told to do without questions, a country where safety means more than liberty, and guns are more valuable than children, where riches and power is valued higher than human rights, kindness and understanding, where showing emotions is being weak - he is the ideal.
Parts of it are really hard to read, like chewing shoe leather, pulling teeth or some other such activity. It has taken me way too long time to actually finish it, but I am happy having read it. It did give me some ideas and insight and some compassion toward the Trumpsters.
msand3's review against another edition
4.0
An interesting book in which leading mental health experts in the nation grapple with two conflicting ethical standards: 1) It is unethical to diagnose public figures one hasn’t personally examined, and 2) One has an ethical “duty to warn” when one sees a danger to the public based on professional observations of someone’s mental health. As many of the writers state in their essays, the latter does not require (and is not the same as) a diagnosis, which is personal and leads to a patient's direct plan for treatment. These experts see clear patterns that suggest Trump exhibits certain mental health traits that make it obvious that Trump is a danger to hold the highest office in the land, which requires no individual examination, diagnosis, or treatment plan. Their arguments are reasonable, valid, and often supporting other professional opinions, both inside and outside the mental health field.
Perhaps the one thing all these essays have in common (besides the “duty to warn” of Trump’s dangerousness) is an understanding of how Trump’s presence on the national stage fosters what these professionals terms “malignant normality,” which is, to quote contributor Gail Sheedy, “the gradual acceptance by a public inundated with toxic untruths of those untruths until they pass for normal.” If anything, the warnings present in these essays alert us to the societal harm done to the body politic when a dangerous public figure like Trump dominates the national dialogue.
As is so often the case, those who support Trump (who see him as the Ideal reflection of their own narcissistic desires and fantasies) will never heed the warnings of these experts precisely because his supporters so closely identify with Trump’s fears and Shadow traits. His brash persona -- with all the projections and delusional defense mechanisms built in -- shield his followers as much as Trump himself, which is precisely why he is so dangerous.
Perhaps the one thing all these essays have in common (besides the “duty to warn” of Trump’s dangerousness) is an understanding of how Trump’s presence on the national stage fosters what these professionals terms “malignant normality,” which is, to quote contributor Gail Sheedy, “the gradual acceptance by a public inundated with toxic untruths of those untruths until they pass for normal.” If anything, the warnings present in these essays alert us to the societal harm done to the body politic when a dangerous public figure like Trump dominates the national dialogue.
As is so often the case, those who support Trump (who see him as the Ideal reflection of their own narcissistic desires and fantasies) will never heed the warnings of these experts precisely because his supporters so closely identify with Trump’s fears and Shadow traits. His brash persona -- with all the projections and delusional defense mechanisms built in -- shield his followers as much as Trump himself, which is precisely why he is so dangerous.
soavezefiretto's review against another edition
3.0
I was disappointed with the first part, which was basically a bunch of professionals (some of them more on the semi-professional side) debating over is it narcissism? is it dementia? is it psychopathy? It seemed fruitless and unnecessary, as was much of the second part, where the legitimacy or not of such attempted diagnoses was addressed. I understand why it had to be in the book, but - well, meh. The third part made up for most of the disappointment, though, because there the articles didn't deal with the diagnoses of Trump, but with *our* diagnoses. How about *our* narcissism? What ails the mind and soul of a society that would choose such a leader? And how can we heal?
So, if you are a somewhat obsessive follower of the Trump phenomenon, this might be a sufficiently interesting read. It would also be helpful if you don't think Jungian analysis or psychotherapy in any form are, you know, unscientific.
So, if you are a somewhat obsessive follower of the Trump phenomenon, this might be a sufficiently interesting read. It would also be helpful if you don't think Jungian analysis or psychotherapy in any form are, you know, unscientific.
rwedewer's review against another edition
5.0
I finished The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump on day 22 of the longest government shutdown in history. It was not encouraging reading.
eralon's review against another edition
3.0
This is a collection of 27 essays by mostly experts in psychiatric medicine. I was surprised and interested that many of the essays examined a different angle.
First, the authors discuss the ethics of this book. The author-psychiatrists have not personally met Donald Trump to diagnose him, so the American Psychiatric Association's Goldwater Rule states it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined in person. They note that they disagree with association rule where public safety is at great risk as they believe it is, that members of the APA did not vote on the rule, that if they had met with him as a client they would be forbidden to give a public opinion based on confidentiality, that no other profession is barred from expressing an opinion regarding the mental health of the president except the people who are actually experts on mental health.
Also, they briefly mentioned the Tarasoff Rule, which is a legal standard in America. I'll quote it in its entirety here: "When a ltherapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his profession, should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger."
The essays present different points of view regarding the president's mental health both as a general idea that Democracy needs to address, and as it specifically relates to Donald Trump. Despite the different angles of the essays a few themes emerge.
1) Donald Trump is likely mentally ill in that his behavior is not beneficial to himself, is harmful to individuals he attacks- which he does frequently, and is harmful to the country generally. In addition to the harm that he has already caused, he might present additional dangers to the country and world.
2) Whether or not he is mentally ill, the more important question is whether he is dangerous, which he definitely is according to his own statements and actions. No psychiatric expertise necessary to understand this point.
As an aside, I often read reviews that disagree with my views in order to find points which I should concede. In this case, the one-star and two-star reviews make no sense to me and seem to be more emotional than logical.
First, the authors discuss the ethics of this book. The author-psychiatrists have not personally met Donald Trump to diagnose him, so the American Psychiatric Association's Goldwater Rule states it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined in person. They note that they disagree with association rule where public safety is at great risk as they believe it is, that members of the APA did not vote on the rule, that if they had met with him as a client they would be forbidden to give a public opinion based on confidentiality, that no other profession is barred from expressing an opinion regarding the mental health of the president except the people who are actually experts on mental health.
Also, they briefly mentioned the Tarasoff Rule, which is a legal standard in America. I'll quote it in its entirety here: "When a ltherapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his profession, should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger."
The essays present different points of view regarding the president's mental health both as a general idea that Democracy needs to address, and as it specifically relates to Donald Trump. Despite the different angles of the essays a few themes emerge.
1) Donald Trump is likely mentally ill in that his behavior is not beneficial to himself, is harmful to individuals he attacks- which he does frequently, and is harmful to the country generally. In addition to the harm that he has already caused, he might present additional dangers to the country and world.
2) Whether or not he is mentally ill, the more important question is whether he is dangerous, which he definitely is according to his own statements and actions. No psychiatric expertise necessary to understand this point.
As an aside, I often read reviews that disagree with my views in order to find points which I should concede. In this case, the one-star and two-star reviews make no sense to me and seem to be more emotional than logical.
hartereads's review
5.0
The practice of psychiatry mandates that a psychiatrist should not diagnose without having talked to the person first. In other words, they should not diagnose mental problems of public figures.
The 27 psychiatrists in this book make it clear they are not diagnosing Trump but feel the moral obligation to warn the public of problems they see.
Unfortunately, the book was not given the attention is warrants.
The 27 psychiatrists in this book make it clear they are not diagnosing Trump but feel the moral obligation to warn the public of problems they see.
Unfortunately, the book was not given the attention is warrants.
aprileclecticbookworm's review against another edition
3.0
Some of the essays were better than others but they were repetitive and if you are already worried there wasn't anything new and if you aren't bothered by him then there wasn't anything new to change your mind since nobody has actually been able to sit down with him so he can be properly diagnosed.
katiecski's review
3.0
Fascinating. Unsettling. Sombering. Most of all though, deeply horrifying. I actually forgot all the completely insane things Trump has done and said, as a person, as a presidential candidate, and as president. He is undefendable. #bookworm #bookstagram #thedangerouscaseofdonaldtrump