Donald Trump doesn't appear to be the only psychopath in a high position in this administration. I wonder what's going to happen with some of the others who secretly scorn him but who have stayed in line so far (with the exception of Musk) as they plot their rise to the top. I would be interested in reading Dr. Lee's analysis of JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, Karoline Leavitt, Kash Patel, Kristi Noem, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., not to mention Ted Cruz and Vivek Ramaswamy.
Stephen Miller is likely a sociopath. He follows Goebbels as a propagandist. His hatred for Hispanics runs deep, he was drawn to white supremacist ideas after reading books by Wayne La Pierre, enjoyed the attention he received for his right wing columns in his hs newspaper and community.
He grew up in Santa Monica with liberal Jewish parents. After financial difficulties the family moved to a Hispanic neighborhood in LA which enraged him. It doesn’t explain how he snapped to the point of caging children. There must be a psychopathy.
Forgot pee wee german not a humorous fellow though and the author of priject 2025 who's plan is that government workers go to their jobs each day hating it and eventually leave. Gun group.
They have all found truth secondary to the grandiose pursuit of power. In my mind they are all culpable for great harms, in doubling and tripling down to horrific conclusions.
Goebbels and his wife killed themselves and their 6 children with help of the SS before he could go on trial. I think Miller lacks any awareness of possible repercussions and if he does, doesn’t care.
I was asking myself the same question as in general a dictatorship is facilitated by an inner circle of ambitious elites. But to that list I would certainly add wannabe "Reinhard Heydrich" Stephen Miller who certainly shows Psychopathic traits, totally incompetent Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, Marco Rubio but also Marjory Taylor Greene for her toxicity. Trump surrounded himself by the biggest villains he could find to do his bidding.
It astounds me that both parties in Congress do not let themselves be aware of these dangerous truths about Donald Trump. My question, since we know he will only get worse, is how best to get him out of office. He has committed enough crimes to be in prison but the immunity the Supreme Court gave him ties lawmakers hands. Again it astounds me that SCOTUS would make this judgement knowing who Donald Trump is. Why would DT ask for this provision if he was not planning to commit crimes? I’m counting on the formation of the 3.5% of our population needed to overthrow the government. The courts have no way of arresting him. He surely meets the standards for involuntary admission to a mental institution. But who has the power and guts to make that happen?!
I'm a psychologist who used the diagnostic manual (DSM) in practice and taught it at a medical college. An accurately diagnosed personality disorder is indeed a psychiatric illness. It's among all of those that are now labeled "disorders" instead of illnesses. The problem with being unable to snare antisocial (psychopathic) types can be partly due to their cunning, where they don't meet criteria for involuntary admission to psychiatric facilities (which then can be reimbursable!). The primary criterion is risk of immediate danger to oneself or others. If they deny it and there's no clear evidence of it, they can walk free. Your point would be accurate about that criterion, which doesn't take into consideration any eventual danger, which can be very real--as Dr. Lee is trying to warn people.
Please help me understand: “Immediate danger to oneself or others” wouldn’t apply here in the sense that his decisions that are a danger to the American people are enacted by others. However, if he had started chasing Elon Musk with a letter opener in narcissistic rage he could be admitted?
(Thank you for your other kind comment to which I cannot reply in the thread, presumably because the person I’d reply to didn’t understand the point I was making; but you did. Violence is the bait, I’m sure of it and the recent events in LA seem to confirm the theory; there are other ways to fight!)
Yes about your example. I had a parent ask me once if I meant that nothing could be done unless the adult child had a knife to her throat. I said essentially yes, while I also discussed a safety plan for her. The dilemma about this matter includes the situation of the homeless people, although I've read there are some cities coming up with humane (and common sense) strategies.
It makes perfect sense although it must be awfully frustrating and seem inadequate for the families.
Homelessness, drug addiction, incarceration and mental health issues are a cycle of hell that seem unbreakable and public services are neither adequately funded nor equipped to provide long term solutions; if you have any articles/references handy on those new strategies, I would be very interested.
You sure can if you are a danger to self and others, with an imminent plan. We might say that being lawless and impulsive AS the President of the United States, about sending Stealth Bombers to Iran to deal with a nuclear problem may border on DTS/Odie due to the irrational actions; lack of planning; lying and justifying why he doesn’t have to follow the Constitution. This is insanity!
My non-expert guess is that he would have to be the *direct* source of the danger, which he isn’t (waiting for the reply from the professional psychologist higher in the thread).
Worse, SCOTUS made sure he had “absolute criminal immunity for official acts under core constitutional powers”, of which Commander-in-Chief is a clear part.
He needs to be removed by force. In my opinion. I know we're all about doing things peacefully. Which I wholeheartedly believe. But we must do that proactively and consistently for it to work. I'm talking about the peaceful protests. Now, will it move the needle when it comes down to the Republicans doing their job? I would say time will tell. But that one thought leads me to also day, but do we have the time? There's no way in hell that we can survive the next 3 and a half years with this inhumane in office. Plus the scariest thing? That he's not the only dangerous person in the highest office. We have the likes of Peter Thiel, Kevin Roberts ( founder and co-creator of Project 2025) Elon Musk, Yarvov, Leonard Leo ( he planted all these right-wing extremist judges) and JD eyeliner Vance is also extremely dangerous. They must all have some form of psychopathy and evilness inside of them in order to blatantly destroy this country and the people in it. This can not continue. I wish a Democrat would invite Dr. Bandy Lee to Congress to address this issue. However, all these republicans are too spineless and too controlled by those Project 2025 evildoers that they will not accept her invitation. I say she addresses only the Democrats and for it to be televised worldwide.
I've thought for a long time that a legally ironclad sting operation would be among the best kinds of "force" to get Trump. "It takes a thief..." The effect would be something widely broadcast and throughout the Internet, clearly and irreversibly exposing his ugliness even to people who've been deluded through that "shared psychosis" termed by Dr. Lee. Among law enforcement people (probably retired--not those still in office), there would be some group that could design it and carry it out. (Please be polite and keep it clean.)
Dear Bea, with the greatest respect but zero remorse, you certainly seem to be a member of the U.S.A. … Unbelievably Stupid Animalia. Best wishes America.
I understand what you mean about the Proud Boys reference--some kind of vigilantism. I wish people in reply here can keep things polite even while firm in belief. Anyway, I'm tempted toward some kind of force but being legally ironclad--a sting operation.
Trump’s mask of sanity has definitely deteriorated with dementia/potential substance abuse, but he operates with an air of dangerous, disarming “cluelessness.”
Particularly as a psychologist, I've seen how many people can be surprised at what behavioral professionals regard as a hallmark of the antisocial personality disordered types--charming! It's part of their cunning ways as con artists. That stated, I agree with you, in that I don't see anything charming or "charismatic" about Trump at all. He's hideously disgusting. Here is where Dr. Lee then very accurately focuses on the people who do see that "charming" aspect because of what she has identified as that "shared psychosis."
Thanks, for your insight on Dr. Lee’s identification of “shared psychosis.” That resonates. It also explains a lot of the vibe I pick up from some people in the newer more conservative area where I now live. This, along with grasping a performative attachment to social/religious norms and expectations helps me make sense of my neighbors.
I need to catch up on her writing: you might find this article helpful to understand your new neighbourhood. It’s from 2021 but as relevant now as it was then.
Thanks, Bea! Interesting....TWO major emotional drives: narcissistic symbiosis and shared psychosis. I just ordered Dr. Lee's book - Profile of a Nation: Trump’s Mind, America’s Soul - to learn more.
Indeed, I’m trying to retrieve an interview where Dr Lee speaks in more detail about narcissistic symbiosis and the relationships of Trump with Vance and Musk. I’ll post the references when I find it.
I've noticed that in many conservative masses of people long time ago, already as a child, and it always disgusted me. As a different from them from very young age person in the extremely conservative-conformist-collectivist societies of former yugoslavia, I never wanted to fully fit neither could I (even though I acted the most decent and shy I could), it's why perhaps I was very early in my life perceptible of those psychopathologies in such malignant "normalcy" of an extremely conservative society.
It shocked me that, once I immigrated to USA, I've noticed much more than expected - the very similar to the former yugoslavia malignancies coming especially from so-called "republican party of USA", already during newt gingrich-g.w. bush- "christian" right era with their malignant tendencies only growing with the entrances into politics by sarah palin-tea-party-d.j. tRump. they are perversely liberal i.e. uninhibited in narcissistic ways and very cruelly controlling, sadistic, psychopathic toward anyone they merely perceive as not fitting to their mold how, paraphrasing them "everybody should be like we are" (unquote; notice their inherent malignant form of collectivism!). they very mimic nazi-fascist-stalinist mindsets, so, small wonder they are authoritarian.
Been wondering that for more than a decade, my friend Linda VSY!! What IS in those people who like him - I still don't know at all and every day I've been reflecting about it for at least an hour.
Like I've written ad nauseam in my comments throughout the net, the very first my eyes saw that creature i.e. him (if he's a human, at all) "courtesy of" cable and dish TV apprentice-shit commercials trailer clips of a couple of minutes duration - I knew he was one of the worst creatures in humanoid shape that I've ever seen. As an averagely perceptible person, I heard his verbal demeanor, his body language, his looks.... and I thought at first the commercials were advertising a comedy gone wrong. it was sufficiently grotesque to me that I categorically refused to watch that shit-show, I'd rather watch jerry springer show (which also disgusted me), at least it could be laughable and Jerry tried to make a sensible message at the end of his freakshow. But when I found out tRump actually had a nerve to demand to be taken seriously, respected and revered, I knew that apprentice-shit was too bizarre to be watched and needed to be boycotted by me and was really dismayed that more Americans couldn't/didn't want to do the same or similar as I did re: that shitshow!! All that was in 2004-2005 before I even knew what a filthy rotten spoiled rich crooked and bizarrely powerful pos tRump was. The more I found out about him, the more my blood curdled of horror. I guess I need not continue....Although not having a very high opinion of USA's choices for President (considering g.w. bush-"christian" right regime of 2000-2009 when we thought worse than that couldn't possibly even be), I still hoped Americans weren't that crazy to elect tRumputin in 2016, yet, I was proven wrong..... I know he&his cult incurred a form of post-traumatic stress disorder on us all who are different, one way or the other, from him&his. And, now, can you only imagine how I feel now in 2025 when Americans, make-believe, for the 2nd time elected him for a, no less than, potus on nov. 5th 2024????????
What if the real concern isn’t just about Trump as an individual, but about what his rise suggests regarding the type of leadership and behavior that we’re increasingly willing to accept as normal in a democratic society?
The gloves are off and the diagnoses are being made. 🤲🙏
How does Trump’s malignant narcissism interplay with his psychopathy? I have understood the heart (for lack of a better word) of psychopathy is delusional, out-of-touch-with-reality thinking.
Isn’t it correct to say Donny Trump is a poster boy for the dark tetrad - (malignant) narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy and sadism?
Our national tragedy is people's refusal to see what is playing out right in front of them; the sane-washing being done by the media; the indifference of the Republican party as to what is going vis a vis immigration, health care, gun violence, education, the use of the military, the lack of leadership in various departments; the lack of outrage regarding MASKED gunmen removing people from the streets; the violations of the Constitution. People have not forgotten history. They have not learned it in the first place.
Yes but once you understand that nearly entire, I repeat, nearly entire so-called "republican party of USA" ever since after nixon onward - has been and is psychopathic (long story short), then, you understand why is so you're lamenting. The owners of all of msm in USA are from that psychopathic party. Vast majority of all of so-called "social media, influencers, radio shows" are from that psychopathic party.
Once you let that sink in in your cognition, then, of course that you get the strongest sense of urgency to fight them and defeat them!!!
Unfortunately, we have JD whatever his name is at the moment, as the designated replacement. Trump is the wrecking ball and we have Peter Thiel to reassemble what's left.
Yep, MAGA is many super unwell people deep. A Ph.D psychologist colleague had this to say when Trump won: “We are f!Xcked.”
I am still holding out hope we can unf!Xck ourselves but time is ticking like a bomb; if we can’t unscrew this quickly, we are looking at total subjugation, a civil war, WWIII, and possibly all three. 🤲
I previously posted (but no one bothered to challenge) the next two (slightly edited) paragraphs:
When a preferred conclusion that happens to be convenient is challenged by an inconvenient conclusion that happens to be closer to the truth, every five-year-old knows how to express the immoral intent to serve a limited interest at the expense of the common good by identifying evidence and logic supporting the former and refuting the latter.
When any two fifth graders drawing conflicting conclusions have a mutual desire to resolve the conflict, they know how to express the moral intent to serve the common good at the expense of their limited interests by openly sharing and challenging each others’ logic until the conflict is resolved.
The little I know about human psychology does not make me a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Not even close. I understand I’d have much to learn, and I have neither the talent nor the desire. But if immoral intent is Option One, and moral intent is the Option Two, then am I wrong to believe that there is no Option Three? And if no one can identify a flaw in my simple logic, then I suggest it informs how we should be responding to our current situation.
You're right that moral intent is the only option if we want to survive, but whether we like it or not, survival is optional. If our choice is between thriving and not surviving, then I'm doing my best to choose the former.
IMHO, I'd say option 2 - ethical intent is the only option.
Why do I prefer ethics instead of the compromised, worn-out and controversial concept of "morality"? Because the psychopathic "christian" right (which has always been and still is the inalienable part of this what Dr. Bandy X. Lee rightfully denounces as tRumputinist i.e. psychopathic) had been homohatefully and chauvinistically heterosex-ISTICally, shamelessly co-opting, perverting and abusing a concept of "morality" to the point it became controversial unless clearly explained what is indeed meant under that "morality".
As a psychologist, I'm thinking that option three could include aspects of emotionality. One could argue that there is always some logic or reason for saying/doing things, even if it's illogical and based on emotion (such as self-contradiction or delusion)--a certain kind of "logic." I worked with psychotic patients where direct logic could be clearly counterproductive and could even be agitating. There are ways to work around irrationality. It's like in football, to make an end-run or pass rather than pushing through the middle. (Medication for those patients also helps!) Here's where perhaps a legally ironclad sting operation could be helpful about finally getting through to Trump MAGAt people. It would include an emotional shock of clearly and irreversibly exposing his ugly motives that already are obvious to us. Then follow it up with Dr. Lee widely messaging further evidence.
Thank you again, Richard, for responding to another one of my comments.
I am not a psychologist, but I believe my idiosyncratic understanding of human psychology is critically important. I’m responding to your comment while setting my potentially erroneous belief aside, although it underlies my response.
From my perspective, every intent is logical at some level. The only question is whether the logic is flawed or sound. For example, if I’m choosing between two conflicting responses to one stimulus, then the conflict is because the responses serve conflicting interests. Unless I resolve the conflict in service of the common interest (Option 2), my response will be logical from the perspective of one limited interest and illogical from the other perspective (Option 1).
To me, logic and emotion are to understanding intent what direction and speed are to understanding a journey. If you don’t have both, then you don’t have an intent/journey.
To me, intent is always logical and potentially conflicted. And much logic is deeply buried under layers of logic in the “hidden” (unconscious) mind. But there’s a simple rule: If the conflict is resolved in service of the common interest, then the logic is sound. Otherwise, the conflict is left unresolved in service of a limited interest, and then there is an identifiable logic flaw. The only question is whether identifying the flaw is worth the effort.
If I wanted to get through to a MAGA cult member, I’d use the concept Adam Smith used to name his book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). Specifically, I need to identify and then understand the logic in the MAGA person’s intent. From Wikipedia’s article about Smith’s book: “It operated through the logic of mirroring, in which a spectator (aka me) imaginatively reconstructed the experience of the person he watches.”
I’ve tried, and it always works, not necessarily by getting them to change their mind, but by getting me to change my mind by me learning from the experience.
If I assume that the person is “just being emotional,” then I’ll be acting based on the mistaken assumption that there is no logic. It’s like not catching a fish because I didn’t fish because I acted based on my “I’m not going to catch a fish” assumption.
The above doesn’t mean I’m right. It just means that if my logic is flawed, then your response hasn’t helped me identify the flaw. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to believe that there is no third option.
quoting James R. Carey "If I wanted to get through to a MAGA cult member, I’d use the concept Adam Smith used to name his book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). Specifically, I need to identify and then understand the logic in the MAGA person’s intent. From Wikipedia’s article about Smith’s book: “It operated through the logic of mirroring, in which a spectator (aka me) imaginatively reconstructed the experience of the person he watches.”
I’ve tried, and it always works, not necessarily by getting them to change their mind, but by getting me to change my mind by me learning from the experience.
If I assume that the person is “just being emotional,” then I’ll be acting based on the mistaken assumption that there is no logic. It’s like not catching a fish because I didn’t fish because I acted based on my “I’m not going to catch a fish” assumption.
The above doesn’t mean I’m right. It just means that if my logic is flawed, then your response hasn’t helped me identify the flaw. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to believe that there is no third option." (unquote)
ha ha ha ha ha, so, long story short, u want us to - what? to learn to conform to magats. ......
There is a fundamental fallacy in your proposal because it fails to appreciate the existing dichotomy as between the actors; they are definitely not coming from the same ( im )moral compass.
An Option Three (at least in form if not substance) does exist and it is what is allowing Trump to make significant headway with his immoral intent - the other parties, with their (at least some) mature moral intent, are ceding their intent to Trump’s immoral intent. This means over time the moral intenders risk being consumed by immoral intent - just like with Option One.
An Option Four also exists and may well be the best option - moral intent navigates AROUND, UNDER, and OVER (not necessarily through) the immoral intent, strengthening existing ties with disenfranchised experts and allies from within and with other experts and allies from without.
Your Option Four sounds similar to part of what I replied: It's like in football, to make an end-run or pass rather than pushing through the middle. (Medication for those patients also helps!) Here's where perhaps a legally ironclad sting operation could be helpful about finally getting through to Trump MAGAt people. It would include an emotional shock of clearly and irreversibly exposing his ugly motives that already are obvious to us. Then follow it up with Dr. Lee widely messaging further evidence.
Thank you for your response to my comment. I’m hoping this might be a manifestation of Option 2, which involves two interactors openly sharing and challenging each others’ logic aimed at the truth without regard for its tendency to be inconvenient.
There might be a logic flaw in my 2-option dichotomy. You might discover that flaw, and if you do, I think I’m pretty good at recognizing and acknowledging my error, but with respect, I don’t think you’re there yet.
My original comment states that there is a dichotomy between the two options, but it does not state and instead only implies how that dichotomy plays out between two interactors. That’s not a fundamental fallacy and is instead what happens when one necessarily states a conclusion in lieu of also stating its underlying assumptions and evidence, which is counterproductive because then the needle-like message gets lost in the haystack-like detail.
What you’re calling Option 3 is a manifestation of one person choosing Option 1. Trump is making significant headway with his immoral intent because too many of his detractors are also choosing immoral intent. There is only one way to defeat immoral intent. It’s not with immoral intent against immoral intent and is instead with moral intent against immoral intent.
Moral intenders do not risk being consumed by immoral intent, and instead, immoral intenders risk being consumed by immoral intent. In the words of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process (they do) not become a monster.”
What you are calling Option 4 is a manifestation of a mature interactor choosing Option 2 despite an immature interactor’s immoral intent. We don’t have to look far to see that when maturity goes up against immaturity, the former doesn’t win all the battles. However, if human history has anything to teach us, maturity ultimately wins the war (metaphorically and otherwise).
If someone has undying faith in mature moral intent, then they win even when they lose a battle. In the words of Viktor Frankl (1905-1997), “When we are no longer able to challenge a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.” In saying that, Frankl is describing one manifestation of my Option 2 in lieu of your fourth option.
For the record, and to explain as opposed to merely complain, I see myself as a disenfranchised expert and ally from within the community that includes me because I was invited to subscribe to this newsletter, and I accepted the offer. Maybe I’m wrong to feel that way, but that’s what my original comment implied.
I would've appreciated had you asked James R. Carey what does he specifically mean by this, quoting him "Trump is making significant headway with his immoral intent because too many of his detractors are also choosing immoral intent." (unquote) ??
Also, specifically what "moral intent" does he offer in fighting tRumputin that hasn't been done already??
Also, why taking Viktor Frankl's quote out of the context and addressing it at us who are the victims of tRumputin&his criminals??
And if you wonder why I had to quit directly communicating with James R. Carey - it's 'cause I concluded he's a verbose troll here.
Also, Mr. James R. Carey posited two premises in his two initial paragraphs in rigid manner, quoting him: "When a preferred conclusion that happens to be convenient is challenged by an inconvenient conclusion that happens to be closer to the truth, every five-year-old knows how to express the immoral intent to serve a limited interest at the expense of the common good by identifying evidence and logic supporting the former and refuting the latter.
When any two fifth graders drawing conflicting conclusions have a mutual desire to resolve the conflict, they know how to express the moral intent to serve the common good at the expense of their limited interests by openly sharing and challenging each others’ logic until the conflict is resolved." (unquote)
- never explaining how he knows so surely what, quoting him "every five-year-old" (unquote) knows or doesn't know.
- never explaining how he knows so surely what, quoting him "any two fifth graders" (unquote) know or don't know.
Not to mention his stubborn omissions of bothering ever to explain - what is the common good - according to him.....
I began studying Hitler more so since Trump from Hell, became President again. I learned that Mein Kampf was published 100 years ago, next month, July 18th. I haven’t read it yet but I have a feeling it is like Project 25. We must continue to face was scares us and do what ever it takes to neutralize the threat. The Threat is very real.
I just saw headlines that the Trump Administration could end asylum claims and dismiss thousands of claims, and speed deportations for hundreds of thousands of migrants. Just awful. 😡
Donald Trump doesn't appear to be the only psychopath in a high position in this administration. I wonder what's going to happen with some of the others who secretly scorn him but who have stayed in line so far (with the exception of Musk) as they plot their rise to the top. I would be interested in reading Dr. Lee's analysis of JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, Karoline Leavitt, Kash Patel, Kristi Noem, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., not to mention Ted Cruz and Vivek Ramaswamy.
Stephen Miller is likely a sociopath. He follows Goebbels as a propagandist. His hatred for Hispanics runs deep, he was drawn to white supremacist ideas after reading books by Wayne La Pierre, enjoyed the attention he received for his right wing columns in his hs newspaper and community.
He grew up in Santa Monica with liberal Jewish parents. After financial difficulties the family moved to a Hispanic neighborhood in LA which enraged him. It doesn’t explain how he snapped to the point of caging children. There must be a psychopathy.
You left out Pete Hegseth.
And Tweetybird Johnson
Forgot pee wee german not a humorous fellow though and the author of priject 2025 who's plan is that government workers go to their jobs each day hating it and eventually leave. Gun group.
You're right. He's the bottomest feeder in the group.
And Stephen Miller, the very embodiment of psychopathy.
They have all found truth secondary to the grandiose pursuit of power. In my mind they are all culpable for great harms, in doubling and tripling down to horrific conclusions.
MOSF 20.5: Trump and Musk’s First 70 Days: Attempting Technofascist Knockout of Democracy, Empathy, Reality, and Sanity. (And Guess What? Hamilton Saw This Coming.) https://eastwindezine.com/mosf-20-5-trump-and-musks-first-70-days-attempting-technofascist-knockout-of-democracy-empathy-reality-and-sanity/
MOSF 19.15: TrumpVance and their Proposed Advance of the Plantation of Lies and Weirdness https://eastwindezine.com/mosf-19-15-trumpvance-and-their-proposed-advance-of-the-plantation-of-lies-and-weirdness/
The US must have its own version of the Nuremberg Trials to hold every last one of these criminals accountable!
Goebbels and his wife killed themselves and their 6 children with help of the SS before he could go on trial. I think Miller lacks any awareness of possible repercussions and if he does, doesn’t care.
Gas station canopies still exist. Jus sayin. According to a friend.
You forgot 'Mr. Personality', Howard Lutnick.
Vivek Ramaswarmy.
Ohio gubernatorial candidate.
NO OHIO, JUST NO!
Yes, please.
I was asking myself the same question as in general a dictatorship is facilitated by an inner circle of ambitious elites. But to that list I would certainly add wannabe "Reinhard Heydrich" Stephen Miller who certainly shows Psychopathic traits, totally incompetent Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, Marco Rubio but also Marjory Taylor Greene for her toxicity. Trump surrounded himself by the biggest villains he could find to do his bidding.
Exactly, the entire tRumputin’s reign of terror is psychopathic!
psychopaths are birds of a feather who stick together!
Birds of a feather…will ruin the finish on your automobile…
It astounds me that both parties in Congress do not let themselves be aware of these dangerous truths about Donald Trump. My question, since we know he will only get worse, is how best to get him out of office. He has committed enough crimes to be in prison but the immunity the Supreme Court gave him ties lawmakers hands. Again it astounds me that SCOTUS would make this judgement knowing who Donald Trump is. Why would DT ask for this provision if he was not planning to commit crimes? I’m counting on the formation of the 3.5% of our population needed to overthrow the government. The courts have no way of arresting him. He surely meets the standards for involuntary admission to a mental institution. But who has the power and guts to make that happen?!
You don’t get institutionalized for a personality disorder: it’s not an illness.
I'm a psychologist who used the diagnostic manual (DSM) in practice and taught it at a medical college. An accurately diagnosed personality disorder is indeed a psychiatric illness. It's among all of those that are now labeled "disorders" instead of illnesses. The problem with being unable to snare antisocial (psychopathic) types can be partly due to their cunning, where they don't meet criteria for involuntary admission to psychiatric facilities (which then can be reimbursable!). The primary criterion is risk of immediate danger to oneself or others. If they deny it and there's no clear evidence of it, they can walk free. Your point would be accurate about that criterion, which doesn't take into consideration any eventual danger, which can be very real--as Dr. Lee is trying to warn people.
Thanks for your valuable comment and expertise.
Please help me understand: “Immediate danger to oneself or others” wouldn’t apply here in the sense that his decisions that are a danger to the American people are enacted by others. However, if he had started chasing Elon Musk with a letter opener in narcissistic rage he could be admitted?
(Thank you for your other kind comment to which I cannot reply in the thread, presumably because the person I’d reply to didn’t understand the point I was making; but you did. Violence is the bait, I’m sure of it and the recent events in LA seem to confirm the theory; there are other ways to fight!)
Yes about your example. I had a parent ask me once if I meant that nothing could be done unless the adult child had a knife to her throat. I said essentially yes, while I also discussed a safety plan for her. The dilemma about this matter includes the situation of the homeless people, although I've read there are some cities coming up with humane (and common sense) strategies.
It makes perfect sense although it must be awfully frustrating and seem inadequate for the families.
Homelessness, drug addiction, incarceration and mental health issues are a cycle of hell that seem unbreakable and public services are neither adequately funded nor equipped to provide long term solutions; if you have any articles/references handy on those new strategies, I would be very interested.
But involuntary admission to a jail is possible for someone with a severe personality disorder who has committed multiple crimes!
You sure can if you are a danger to self and others, with an imminent plan. We might say that being lawless and impulsive AS the President of the United States, about sending Stealth Bombers to Iran to deal with a nuclear problem may border on DTS/Odie due to the irrational actions; lack of planning; lying and justifying why he doesn’t have to follow the Constitution. This is insanity!
My non-expert guess is that he would have to be the *direct* source of the danger, which he isn’t (waiting for the reply from the professional psychologist higher in the thread).
Worse, SCOTUS made sure he had “absolute criminal immunity for official acts under core constitutional powers”, of which Commander-in-Chief is a clear part.
Yes, it has to be imminent, with him acting out.
“You don’t get institutionalized for a personality disorder: it’s not an illness.”
Increasingly researchers are revisiting this decision.
Because White Supremecists & Eugenicists wrote the rules.
Decolonize the mental health industrial conplex and the DSM now!
“You’re gonna need a bigger psychiatric facility”
Yes it is!
He needs to be removed by force. In my opinion. I know we're all about doing things peacefully. Which I wholeheartedly believe. But we must do that proactively and consistently for it to work. I'm talking about the peaceful protests. Now, will it move the needle when it comes down to the Republicans doing their job? I would say time will tell. But that one thought leads me to also day, but do we have the time? There's no way in hell that we can survive the next 3 and a half years with this inhumane in office. Plus the scariest thing? That he's not the only dangerous person in the highest office. We have the likes of Peter Thiel, Kevin Roberts ( founder and co-creator of Project 2025) Elon Musk, Yarvov, Leonard Leo ( he planted all these right-wing extremist judges) and JD eyeliner Vance is also extremely dangerous. They must all have some form of psychopathy and evilness inside of them in order to blatantly destroy this country and the people in it. This can not continue. I wish a Democrat would invite Dr. Bandy Lee to Congress to address this issue. However, all these republicans are too spineless and too controlled by those Project 2025 evildoers that they will not accept her invitation. I say she addresses only the Democrats and for it to be televised worldwide.
I've thought for a long time that a legally ironclad sting operation would be among the best kinds of "force" to get Trump. "It takes a thief..." The effect would be something widely broadcast and throughout the Internet, clearly and irreversibly exposing his ugliness even to people who've been deluded through that "shared psychosis" termed by Dr. Lee. Among law enforcement people (probably retired--not those still in office), there would be some group that could design it and carry it out. (Please be polite and keep it clean.)
Please tell me you don’t intend to turn into the Proud Boys and attempt a coup… you realise that it’s not better if the Democrats do it?
Bandy Lee published the 1st version of the book in 2017; I’m quite sure all the Dems in Congress know about it and the GOP don’t care about it.
You might want to read this about the Shared Psychosis of Trump loyalists.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-shared-psychosis-of-donald-trump-and-his-loyalists/
How the heck did you come up with that shit about proud boys by my comment? You're nuts.
Dear Bea, with the greatest respect but zero remorse, you certainly seem to be a member of the U.S.A. … Unbelievably Stupid Animalia. Best wishes America.
I understand what you mean about the Proud Boys reference--some kind of vigilantism. I wish people in reply here can keep things polite even while firm in belief. Anyway, I'm tempted toward some kind of force but being legally ironclad--a sting operation.
Couldn’t agree more. I’m very tired of his minions accusing me of their TDS slur.
Never trust anyone who doesn’t like dogs.
I will never understand how anyone with a functioning set of eyes and three working brain cells looks at Trump and sees a “mask of sanity.” 😳
Trump’s mask of sanity has definitely deteriorated with dementia/potential substance abuse, but he operates with an air of dangerous, disarming “cluelessness.”
Particularly as a psychologist, I've seen how many people can be surprised at what behavioral professionals regard as a hallmark of the antisocial personality disordered types--charming! It's part of their cunning ways as con artists. That stated, I agree with you, in that I don't see anything charming or "charismatic" about Trump at all. He's hideously disgusting. Here is where Dr. Lee then very accurately focuses on the people who do see that "charming" aspect because of what she has identified as that "shared psychosis."
Thanks, for your insight on Dr. Lee’s identification of “shared psychosis.” That resonates. It also explains a lot of the vibe I pick up from some people in the newer more conservative area where I now live. This, along with grasping a performative attachment to social/religious norms and expectations helps me make sense of my neighbors.
I need to catch up on her writing: you might find this article helpful to understand your new neighbourhood. It’s from 2021 but as relevant now as it was then.
Good luck!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-shared-psychosis-of-donald-trump-and-his-loyalists/
Thanks, Bea! Interesting....TWO major emotional drives: narcissistic symbiosis and shared psychosis. I just ordered Dr. Lee's book - Profile of a Nation: Trump’s Mind, America’s Soul - to learn more.
Indeed, I’m trying to retrieve an interview where Dr Lee speaks in more detail about narcissistic symbiosis and the relationships of Trump with Vance and Musk. I’ll post the references when I find it.
Precisely, Linda VSY and Richard Hahn!!
I've noticed that in many conservative masses of people long time ago, already as a child, and it always disgusted me. As a different from them from very young age person in the extremely conservative-conformist-collectivist societies of former yugoslavia, I never wanted to fully fit neither could I (even though I acted the most decent and shy I could), it's why perhaps I was very early in my life perceptible of those psychopathologies in such malignant "normalcy" of an extremely conservative society.
It shocked me that, once I immigrated to USA, I've noticed much more than expected - the very similar to the former yugoslavia malignancies coming especially from so-called "republican party of USA", already during newt gingrich-g.w. bush- "christian" right era with their malignant tendencies only growing with the entrances into politics by sarah palin-tea-party-d.j. tRump. they are perversely liberal i.e. uninhibited in narcissistic ways and very cruelly controlling, sadistic, psychopathic toward anyone they merely perceive as not fitting to their mold how, paraphrasing them "everybody should be like we are" (unquote; notice their inherent malignant form of collectivism!). they very mimic nazi-fascist-stalinist mindsets, so, small wonder they are authoritarian.
Been wondering that for more than a decade, my friend Linda VSY!! What IS in those people who like him - I still don't know at all and every day I've been reflecting about it for at least an hour.
Like I've written ad nauseam in my comments throughout the net, the very first my eyes saw that creature i.e. him (if he's a human, at all) "courtesy of" cable and dish TV apprentice-shit commercials trailer clips of a couple of minutes duration - I knew he was one of the worst creatures in humanoid shape that I've ever seen. As an averagely perceptible person, I heard his verbal demeanor, his body language, his looks.... and I thought at first the commercials were advertising a comedy gone wrong. it was sufficiently grotesque to me that I categorically refused to watch that shit-show, I'd rather watch jerry springer show (which also disgusted me), at least it could be laughable and Jerry tried to make a sensible message at the end of his freakshow. But when I found out tRump actually had a nerve to demand to be taken seriously, respected and revered, I knew that apprentice-shit was too bizarre to be watched and needed to be boycotted by me and was really dismayed that more Americans couldn't/didn't want to do the same or similar as I did re: that shitshow!! All that was in 2004-2005 before I even knew what a filthy rotten spoiled rich crooked and bizarrely powerful pos tRump was. The more I found out about him, the more my blood curdled of horror. I guess I need not continue....Although not having a very high opinion of USA's choices for President (considering g.w. bush-"christian" right regime of 2000-2009 when we thought worse than that couldn't possibly even be), I still hoped Americans weren't that crazy to elect tRumputin in 2016, yet, I was proven wrong..... I know he&his cult incurred a form of post-traumatic stress disorder on us all who are different, one way or the other, from him&his. And, now, can you only imagine how I feel now in 2025 when Americans, make-believe, for the 2nd time elected him for a, no less than, potus on nov. 5th 2024????????
What if the real concern isn’t just about Trump as an individual, but about what his rise suggests regarding the type of leadership and behavior that we’re increasingly willing to accept as normal in a democratic society?
U.S.A. … Unbelievably Stupid Animalia. Best wishes America.
That's why never ever accept his&his movement's malignant "normalcy"!! Do NOT normalize him/them, but delegitimize him/them at every way!!
I’m still laughing too hard at Bannon saying trump worked “very hard, day and night….” Like that ever happened. 🤦🏻♂️
stevebannon is one of the grossest epitomes of the tRumputinist malignancy.
Wednesday 6/25/25
Senate hearings scheduled for today & tomorrow, Thursday, 6/26, have been "postponed".
************************************************
Thank you all 39 Authors for the updated Edition!
Tuesday** BREAKING**.. A 15 year DOJ insider praised by all presidential Administrations including Trump has filed a potent White Blower Complaint.
Whistleblower is EREZ REUENI detail the ending of the Rule of Law by nailing:
* specific violations of law, rules & regs
* abuse of authority
* substantial & specific dangers of health & safety.
The gloves are off and the diagnoses are being made. 🤲🙏
How does Trump’s malignant narcissism interplay with his psychopathy? I have understood the heart (for lack of a better word) of psychopathy is delusional, out-of-touch-with-reality thinking.
Isn’t it correct to say Donny Trump is a poster boy for the dark tetrad - (malignant) narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy and sadism?
Yes, especially toward those of us who are immediately seen as different from him&his!!
Our national tragedy is people's refusal to see what is playing out right in front of them; the sane-washing being done by the media; the indifference of the Republican party as to what is going vis a vis immigration, health care, gun violence, education, the use of the military, the lack of leadership in various departments; the lack of outrage regarding MASKED gunmen removing people from the streets; the violations of the Constitution. People have not forgotten history. They have not learned it in the first place.
Yes but once you understand that nearly entire, I repeat, nearly entire so-called "republican party of USA" ever since after nixon onward - has been and is psychopathic (long story short), then, you understand why is so you're lamenting. The owners of all of msm in USA are from that psychopathic party. Vast majority of all of so-called "social media, influencers, radio shows" are from that psychopathic party.
Once you let that sink in in your cognition, then, of course that you get the strongest sense of urgency to fight them and defeat them!!!
Unfortunately, we have JD whatever his name is at the moment, as the designated replacement. Trump is the wrecking ball and we have Peter Thiel to reassemble what's left.
Yep, MAGA is many super unwell people deep. A Ph.D psychologist colleague had this to say when Trump won: “We are f!Xcked.”
I am still holding out hope we can unf!Xck ourselves but time is ticking like a bomb; if we can’t unscrew this quickly, we are looking at total subjugation, a civil war, WWIII, and possibly all three. 🤲
Yeah. The evil is palpable.
Trump can’t die soon enough. I pray every day.
I previously posted (but no one bothered to challenge) the next two (slightly edited) paragraphs:
When a preferred conclusion that happens to be convenient is challenged by an inconvenient conclusion that happens to be closer to the truth, every five-year-old knows how to express the immoral intent to serve a limited interest at the expense of the common good by identifying evidence and logic supporting the former and refuting the latter.
When any two fifth graders drawing conflicting conclusions have a mutual desire to resolve the conflict, they know how to express the moral intent to serve the common good at the expense of their limited interests by openly sharing and challenging each others’ logic until the conflict is resolved.
The little I know about human psychology does not make me a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Not even close. I understand I’d have much to learn, and I have neither the talent nor the desire. But if immoral intent is Option One, and moral intent is the Option Two, then am I wrong to believe that there is no Option Three? And if no one can identify a flaw in my simple logic, then I suggest it informs how we should be responding to our current situation.
Option 2- Moral intent is the only option.
You're right that moral intent is the only option if we want to survive, but whether we like it or not, survival is optional. If our choice is between thriving and not surviving, then I'm doing my best to choose the former.
How can you thrive if you don't survive?? oh, never mind....
Please help me stop thinking you're stupid by taking the time to think about what you're reading before you respond.
Sir, I've already drawn my conclusions about u.
I gotta cut the losses, bye!!
IMHO, I'd say option 2 - ethical intent is the only option.
Why do I prefer ethics instead of the compromised, worn-out and controversial concept of "morality"? Because the psychopathic "christian" right (which has always been and still is the inalienable part of this what Dr. Bandy X. Lee rightfully denounces as tRumputinist i.e. psychopathic) had been homohatefully and chauvinistically heterosex-ISTICally, shamelessly co-opting, perverting and abusing a concept of "morality" to the point it became controversial unless clearly explained what is indeed meant under that "morality".
Morality is not mathematically provable.
As a psychologist, I'm thinking that option three could include aspects of emotionality. One could argue that there is always some logic or reason for saying/doing things, even if it's illogical and based on emotion (such as self-contradiction or delusion)--a certain kind of "logic." I worked with psychotic patients where direct logic could be clearly counterproductive and could even be agitating. There are ways to work around irrationality. It's like in football, to make an end-run or pass rather than pushing through the middle. (Medication for those patients also helps!) Here's where perhaps a legally ironclad sting operation could be helpful about finally getting through to Trump MAGAt people. It would include an emotional shock of clearly and irreversibly exposing his ugly motives that already are obvious to us. Then follow it up with Dr. Lee widely messaging further evidence.
Thank you again, Richard, for responding to another one of my comments.
I am not a psychologist, but I believe my idiosyncratic understanding of human psychology is critically important. I’m responding to your comment while setting my potentially erroneous belief aside, although it underlies my response.
From my perspective, every intent is logical at some level. The only question is whether the logic is flawed or sound. For example, if I’m choosing between two conflicting responses to one stimulus, then the conflict is because the responses serve conflicting interests. Unless I resolve the conflict in service of the common interest (Option 2), my response will be logical from the perspective of one limited interest and illogical from the other perspective (Option 1).
To me, logic and emotion are to understanding intent what direction and speed are to understanding a journey. If you don’t have both, then you don’t have an intent/journey.
To me, intent is always logical and potentially conflicted. And much logic is deeply buried under layers of logic in the “hidden” (unconscious) mind. But there’s a simple rule: If the conflict is resolved in service of the common interest, then the logic is sound. Otherwise, the conflict is left unresolved in service of a limited interest, and then there is an identifiable logic flaw. The only question is whether identifying the flaw is worth the effort.
If I wanted to get through to a MAGA cult member, I’d use the concept Adam Smith used to name his book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). Specifically, I need to identify and then understand the logic in the MAGA person’s intent. From Wikipedia’s article about Smith’s book: “It operated through the logic of mirroring, in which a spectator (aka me) imaginatively reconstructed the experience of the person he watches.”
I’ve tried, and it always works, not necessarily by getting them to change their mind, but by getting me to change my mind by me learning from the experience.
If I assume that the person is “just being emotional,” then I’ll be acting based on the mistaken assumption that there is no logic. It’s like not catching a fish because I didn’t fish because I acted based on my “I’m not going to catch a fish” assumption.
The above doesn’t mean I’m right. It just means that if my logic is flawed, then your response hasn’t helped me identify the flaw. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to believe that there is no third option.
quoting James R. Carey "If I wanted to get through to a MAGA cult member, I’d use the concept Adam Smith used to name his book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). Specifically, I need to identify and then understand the logic in the MAGA person’s intent. From Wikipedia’s article about Smith’s book: “It operated through the logic of mirroring, in which a spectator (aka me) imaginatively reconstructed the experience of the person he watches.”
I’ve tried, and it always works, not necessarily by getting them to change their mind, but by getting me to change my mind by me learning from the experience.
If I assume that the person is “just being emotional,” then I’ll be acting based on the mistaken assumption that there is no logic. It’s like not catching a fish because I didn’t fish because I acted based on my “I’m not going to catch a fish” assumption.
The above doesn’t mean I’m right. It just means that if my logic is flawed, then your response hasn’t helped me identify the flaw. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to believe that there is no third option." (unquote)
ha ha ha ha ha, so, long story short, u want us to - what? to learn to conform to magats. ......
Long story short, I want you to stop acting like Donald Trump and his cult members, the behavior you supposedly oppose. But you do you.
u can't confuse me, james r. carey. I figured u out.
Good for you. Now you can spend your time trying to figure yourself out.
There is a fundamental fallacy in your proposal because it fails to appreciate the existing dichotomy as between the actors; they are definitely not coming from the same ( im )moral compass.
An Option Three (at least in form if not substance) does exist and it is what is allowing Trump to make significant headway with his immoral intent - the other parties, with their (at least some) mature moral intent, are ceding their intent to Trump’s immoral intent. This means over time the moral intenders risk being consumed by immoral intent - just like with Option One.
An Option Four also exists and may well be the best option - moral intent navigates AROUND, UNDER, and OVER (not necessarily through) the immoral intent, strengthening existing ties with disenfranchised experts and allies from within and with other experts and allies from without.
Your Option Four sounds similar to part of what I replied: It's like in football, to make an end-run or pass rather than pushing through the middle. (Medication for those patients also helps!) Here's where perhaps a legally ironclad sting operation could be helpful about finally getting through to Trump MAGAt people. It would include an emotional shock of clearly and irreversibly exposing his ugly motives that already are obvious to us. Then follow it up with Dr. Lee widely messaging further evidence.
Exactly, Richard Hahn!!
Thank you for your response to my comment. I’m hoping this might be a manifestation of Option 2, which involves two interactors openly sharing and challenging each others’ logic aimed at the truth without regard for its tendency to be inconvenient.
There might be a logic flaw in my 2-option dichotomy. You might discover that flaw, and if you do, I think I’m pretty good at recognizing and acknowledging my error, but with respect, I don’t think you’re there yet.
My original comment states that there is a dichotomy between the two options, but it does not state and instead only implies how that dichotomy plays out between two interactors. That’s not a fundamental fallacy and is instead what happens when one necessarily states a conclusion in lieu of also stating its underlying assumptions and evidence, which is counterproductive because then the needle-like message gets lost in the haystack-like detail.
What you’re calling Option 3 is a manifestation of one person choosing Option 1. Trump is making significant headway with his immoral intent because too many of his detractors are also choosing immoral intent. There is only one way to defeat immoral intent. It’s not with immoral intent against immoral intent and is instead with moral intent against immoral intent.
Moral intenders do not risk being consumed by immoral intent, and instead, immoral intenders risk being consumed by immoral intent. In the words of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process (they do) not become a monster.”
What you are calling Option 4 is a manifestation of a mature interactor choosing Option 2 despite an immature interactor’s immoral intent. We don’t have to look far to see that when maturity goes up against immaturity, the former doesn’t win all the battles. However, if human history has anything to teach us, maturity ultimately wins the war (metaphorically and otherwise).
If someone has undying faith in mature moral intent, then they win even when they lose a battle. In the words of Viktor Frankl (1905-1997), “When we are no longer able to challenge a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.” In saying that, Frankl is describing one manifestation of my Option 2 in lieu of your fourth option.
For the record, and to explain as opposed to merely complain, I see myself as a disenfranchised expert and ally from within the community that includes me because I was invited to subscribe to this newsletter, and I accepted the offer. Maybe I’m wrong to feel that way, but that’s what my original comment implied.
Thanks for quoting Frankl & Nietzsche!
I would've appreciated had you asked James R. Carey what does he specifically mean by this, quoting him "Trump is making significant headway with his immoral intent because too many of his detractors are also choosing immoral intent." (unquote) ??
Also, specifically what "moral intent" does he offer in fighting tRumputin that hasn't been done already??
Also, why taking Viktor Frankl's quote out of the context and addressing it at us who are the victims of tRumputin&his criminals??
And if you wonder why I had to quit directly communicating with James R. Carey - it's 'cause I concluded he's a verbose troll here.
Of course, BAS!!
Also, Mr. James R. Carey posited two premises in his two initial paragraphs in rigid manner, quoting him: "When a preferred conclusion that happens to be convenient is challenged by an inconvenient conclusion that happens to be closer to the truth, every five-year-old knows how to express the immoral intent to serve a limited interest at the expense of the common good by identifying evidence and logic supporting the former and refuting the latter.
When any two fifth graders drawing conflicting conclusions have a mutual desire to resolve the conflict, they know how to express the moral intent to serve the common good at the expense of their limited interests by openly sharing and challenging each others’ logic until the conflict is resolved." (unquote)
- never explaining how he knows so surely what, quoting him "every five-year-old" (unquote) knows or doesn't know.
- never explaining how he knows so surely what, quoting him "any two fifth graders" (unquote) know or don't know.
Not to mention his stubborn omissions of bothering ever to explain - what is the common good - according to him.....
So true.
If only there were more sane Americans who believed factual medical insights into this extremely dangerous man he would not be POTUS for the 2nd time
I began studying Hitler more so since Trump from Hell, became President again. I learned that Mein Kampf was published 100 years ago, next month, July 18th. I haven’t read it yet but I have a feeling it is like Project 25. We must continue to face was scares us and do what ever it takes to neutralize the threat. The Threat is very real.
I just saw headlines that the Trump Administration could end asylum claims and dismiss thousands of claims, and speed deportations for hundreds of thousands of migrants. Just awful. 😡
128 House of Reps Democrats will lose their jobs in 2026. They couldnt even vote to impeach on the baseline constitutional principles. How pathetic.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-impeachment-vote-al-green-democrats-list-2090250
Indeed!!