Psychiatrists Comment on Trump's Lack of Fitness for Office

Salon reports on a detailed analysis of the Mueller report by a panel of psychiatrists. The analysis was to assess President trump's mental fitness for office. The Mueller report includes detailed data that bears on Trump's state of mind and the basis on which he makes decisions in office. Salon writes:

Dr. Bandy Lee, who is a professor of psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine and editor of the bestselling book "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump" convened a panel comprised of leading mental health experts to evaluate Donald Trump based upon his behavior as detailed in the Mueller report.

Their definitive conclusion: Trump is mentally unfit, a threat to the United States and the world, and as such should have his powers severely restricted. At the invitation of several Democratic members of Congress, Lee and other mental health professionals will present their findings about Donald Trump's mental health at what they hope will be a bipartisan congressional meeting in Washington next month.

In a YouTube video, Dr. Lee, a forensic psychiatrist comments further, alleging that the president "failed every criterion for rational and reality-based decision-making capacity. Our assessment is definitive. Our recommendations were, first and foremost, to remove Mr. Trump from access to nuclear weapons and war-making powers. We could offer many more, but given the urgency, we decided to focus on the two most important." The psychiatrists concluded that Trump "can no longer see reality. His actions are exactly what we would predict from an individual who lacks mental capacity."



Dr. Lee goes on to assert that the situation could have been avoided if the president and vice president were subject to fitness-for-duty tests before taking office. Military personnel who deal with nuclear weapons are subject to such mandatory psychological testing annually. She pointed out that the panel's assessment looked for impaired decision making as evidenced by low levels of impulsivity, recklessness, paranoia, and false beliefs. The psychiatrists found Tump is highly impaired in his decision-making function, but they made no clinical diagnosis.

It is important to note that the psychiatrists considered the evidence in the Mueller report, much of it sworn testimony, to be of higher quality and quantity than they usually worked with. That led to confidence in their function analysis: "The wealth and quality of the report’s content made this possible. In fact, we had more and better data, under sworn testimony, than we have ever had in our usual practice."

The panel invited the President to come in for an in-person exam if he believed their assessment was incorrect. Obviously, the President will never do that.

This is more evidence of the president's unfitness for office, something that arguably should have been obvious to most open-minded people by now.

B&B orig: 7/10/19

President Attacks Climate Science, Again

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that a State Department intelligence analyst resigned in protest because the White House blocked his discussion of climate science in Congressional testimony. The White House refused to approve Dr. Rod Schoonover’s written testimony for entry into the permanent Congressional record because it contradicted the president's false opinions about climate science. The WSJ writes:

A policy expert familiar with his case confirmed that his resignation came as a direct result of the episode. His last day is expected to be Friday.

“Intelligence analysts, as a rule, are very committed to objective truth,” said Francesco Femia, the head of the Center for Climate and Security, a research organization in Washington. “And when something extraordinary happens to try to politicize their or suppress their analysis, as happened in this case, that flies in the face of their professional integrity. It’s a matter of someone standing up for principle.”

The State Department agency where Dr. Schoonover worked, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, has long been regarded as one of the most scrupulous and accurate in the federal government. In the prelude to the 2003 United States invasion of Iraq, the agency stood almost alone in asserting — correctly, but contrary to the positions of the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency — that Iraq was not reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

As usual, the White House refused to comment. For context, a few days ago, the president gave a speech touting his great and wonderful record on leading the world in protecting the environment. That speech was loaded with lies, as discussed here previously.

Once again, republican attacks on science they dislike is on full display and undeniable to all except their supporters. For the GOP and its supporters, ideology talks and all contrary reality, science and logic walks.

B&B orig: 7/10/19

What Hypocrisy Looks and Sounds Like

This 6-minute video is self explanatory.



B&B orig: 7/11/19

Identity Protective Cognition

Dan Kahan at Yale University's Cultural Cognition Project studies identity protective cognition. In a working paper, Misconceptions, Misinformation, and the Logic of Identity-protective Cognition, he discusses identity protective cognition.

ABSTRACT: This paper supplies a compact synthesis of the empirical literature on misconceptions of and misinformation about decision-relevant science. The incidence and impact of misconceptions and misperceptions, the article argues, are highly conditional on identity protective cognition. Identity protective cognition refers to the tendency of culturally diverse individuals to selectively credit and dismiss evidence in patterns that reflect the beliefs that predominate in their group. On issues that provoke identity-protective cognition, the members of the public most adept at avoiding misconceptions of science are nevertheless the most culturally polarized. Individuals are also more likely to accept misinformation and resist the correction of it when that misinformation is identity-affirming rather than identity-threatening. Effectively counteracting these dynamics, the paper argues, requires more than simply supplying citizens with correct information. It demands in addition the protection of the science communication environment from toxic social meanings that fuse competing understandings of fact with diverse citizens’ cultural identities.

INTRODUCTION: This paper investigates the role that “misinformation” and “misconceptions of science” play in political controversies over decision-relevant science (DRS). The surmise that their contribution is large is eminently plausible. Ordinary members of the public, we are regularly reminded (e.g., National Science Foundation 2014, 2016), display only modest familiarity with fundamental scientific findings, and lack proficiency in the forms of critical reasoning essential to science comprehension (Marx et al. 2007; Weber 2006). As a result, they are easily misled by special interest groups, who flood public discourse with scientifically unfounded claims on global warming, genetically modified foods, and other issues (e.g., Hmielowski et al. 2013). I will call this perspective the “public irrationality thesis” (PIT).

The unifying theme of this paper is that PIT itself reflects a misconception of a particular form of science: namely, the science of science communication. One of the major tenets of this emerging body of work is that public controversy over DRS typically originates in identity-protective cognition—a tendency to selectively credit and discredit evidence in patterns that reflect people’s commitments to competing cultural groups (Sherman & Cohen 2002, 2006). Far from evincing irrationality, this pattern of reasoning promotes the interests of individual members of the public, who have a bigger personal stake in fitting in with important affinity groups than in forming correct perceptions of scientific evidence. Indeed, the members of the public who are most polarized over DRS are the ones who have the highest degree of science comprehension, a capacity that they actively employ to form and persist in identity-protective beliefs (Kahan 2015a).

The problem, in short, is not a gullible, manipulated public; it is a polluted science communication environment. The pollution consists of antagonistic social meanings that put individuals in the position of having to choose between using their reason to discern what science knows or using it instead to express their group commitments. Safeguarding the science communication environment from such meanings, and repairing it where protective measures fail, should be the principle aim of those committed to assuring that society makes full use of the vast stock of DRS at its disposal (Kahan 2015b)

Is Kahan right to argue that the problem is a polluted science communication environment and not a gullible or manipulated public? For example, the president met yesterday with propagandists of the radical right and praised their efforts at deceiving and manipulating the public, commenting no their propaganda tactics: "The crap you think of is unbelievable. I mean it's genius — but it's bad." That evinces manipulation broader than just science-based content. Is there a difference between a polluted science communication environment and a manipulated public?

B&B orig: 7/12/19