5 ms·

That’s just the reality of normalizing casual psychiatric evaluations now days. I’m pretty sure there were Standford (or Princeton) psych professors casually di

That’s just the reality of normalizing casual psychiatric evaluations now days. I’m pretty sure there were Standford (or Princeton) psych professors casually diagnosing Trump with clinical narcissism on major news networks. If anyone has a any kind of spaz out moment, they are automatically bipolar to many people. It’s the true meta form of cancelling someone, it just hasn’t caught on just yet (not to that level at least). There’s a contingent that has already started diagnosing Biden as senile. It’s one more way to categorize people, usually to discredit them. Don’t get along with your parents? Welp, head on over to /r/raisedbynarcissists, simple as that. Don’t like your ex? Boss sucks? Again, narcissist, sociopath, etc. If you think people live in a media or news bubble, wait till you dig into their amateur psych eval bubble of a life they got going on (seriously, visit some of those subreddits). Check those bubbles out, there is never a single ounce of objectivity in those subreddits/forums, just intense confirmation bias.

me_me_me 5y ago
> I’m pretty sure there were Standford (or Princeton) psych professors casually diagnosing Trump with clinical narcissism on major news networks. Yes there was something like that, it was aslo universally shunned by the community as extremely unprofessional. Though those were pretty crazy times, its unbelievable that clown got almost re-elected.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  "it was aslo universally shunned by the community as extremely unprofessional." It certainly wasn't shunned by mainstream media.
  - me_me_me 5y ago
    like anyone with a 1/2 braincell listens to mainstream media for opinions
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      A lot of people do - that is why it is "mainstream". NYT articles get posted and upvoted on HN on a regular basis.
      - me_me_me 5y ago
        sure, but what is your point? All kind of lies and misinformation is propagated via mainstream media. But that doesnt mean that the professionals in their respected fields are agreeing with some outlier giving a questionable interview on mainstream tv
kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
I don't know how to put it without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but I think eventually society really needs to reevaluate its attitude to science in general. Scientists have this elevated status, and naturally people try to exploit it. But everybody can call themselves a scientist, and even getting credibility by attaching to supposedly reliable institutions is not that hard anymore. It seems to me people are not sufficiently aware yet of "scientific studies" being used as a political tool. Maybe if they read a news article in some magazine, they may be aware it could be ideologically tainted. For "studies", that seems to be much less the case so far. Psychology also seems like an immediately scary example to me. I worry for example that "experts" can simply bypass the legal system by diagnosing people as "mentally ill" and having them locked away. Is there legal recourse for such a thing?
- crate_barre 5y ago
  Is there legal recourse for such a thing? It should fall under libel. Matt Taibbi has spoken recently about how the media in particular have no fear of committing libel: https://youtu.be/T2uptyJrdu4 https://youtu.be/T2uptyJrdu4 They will straight say certain things without any fear that someone might sue them for libel/character defamation. That link is a little topical due to the Rittenhouse case, but for many years they labeled Trump a variety of things on one side, and the right-wing labeled their targets in the same fashion on the other side. I’m pretty sure they also said Joe Rogan was taking horse medicine, which was a low blow. Well, not as low of a blow as insinuating Trump took part in Golden Showers (him pissing on girls, or vice versa, actual pee, if anyone needs to ask) in Russian hotels. They don’t give a shit, and that’s just the media. Your average person now uses the same appeal to authority attack tactics in every day encounters. What can you do if someone says you are toxic or __insert psychotic tendency here__ at work, in a relationship? The way we communicate seems to have shifted to the label being thrown out first, versus objectively walking through issues. I don’t know, I have no answers honestly, and generally find this too exhausting to even try to dissect. I guess only Peter Thiel successfully launched a counter attack: https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/11/peter-thiel-gawker-offer-buy-hulk-hogan-lawsuit https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/11/peter-thi... In summary, you need some dope lawyers if you want recourse.

me_me_me 5y ago

> I’m pretty sure there were Standford (or Princeton) psych professors casually diagnosing Trump with clinical narcissism on major news networks. Yes there was something like that, it was aslo universally shunned by the community as extremely unprofessional. Though those were pretty crazy times, its unbelievable that clown got almost re-elected.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
"it was aslo universally shunned by the community as extremely unprofessional." It certainly wasn't shunned by mainstream media.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  like anyone with a 1/2 braincell listens to mainstream media for opinions
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    A lot of people do - that is why it is "mainstream". NYT articles get posted and upvoted on HN on a regular basis.
    - me_me_me 5y ago
      sure, but what is your point? All kind of lies and misinformation is propagated via mainstream media. But that doesnt mean that the professionals in their respected fields are agreeing with some outlier giving a questionable interview on mainstream tv

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

I don't know how to put it without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but I think eventually society really needs to reevaluate its attitude to science in general. Scientists have this elevated status, and naturally people try to exploit it. But everybody can call themselves a scientist, and even getting credibility by attaching to supposedly reliable institutions is not that hard anymore. It seems to me people are not sufficiently aware yet of "scientific studies" being used as a political tool. Maybe if they read a news article in some magazine, they may be aware it could be ideologically tainted. For "studies", that seems to be much less the case so far. Psychology also seems like an immediately scary example to me. I worry for example that "experts" can simply bypass the legal system by diagnosing people as "mentally ill" and having them locked away. Is there legal recourse for such a thing?

crate_barre 5y ago
Is there legal recourse for such a thing? It should fall under libel. Matt Taibbi has spoken recently about how the media in particular have no fear of committing libel: https://youtu.be/T2uptyJrdu4 https://youtu.be/T2uptyJrdu4 They will straight say certain things without any fear that someone might sue them for libel/character defamation. That link is a little topical due to the Rittenhouse case, but for many years they labeled Trump a variety of things on one side, and the right-wing labeled their targets in the same fashion on the other side. I’m pretty sure they also said Joe Rogan was taking horse medicine, which was a low blow. Well, not as low of a blow as insinuating Trump took part in Golden Showers (him pissing on girls, or vice versa, actual pee, if anyone needs to ask) in Russian hotels. They don’t give a shit, and that’s just the media. Your average person now uses the same appeal to authority attack tactics in every day encounters. What can you do if someone says you are toxic or __insert psychotic tendency here__ at work, in a relationship? The way we communicate seems to have shifted to the label being thrown out first, versus objectively walking through issues. I don’t know, I have no answers honestly, and generally find this too exhausting to even try to dissect. I guess only Peter Thiel successfully launched a counter attack: https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/11/peter-thiel-gawker-offer-buy-hulk-hogan-lawsuit https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/11/peter-thi... In summary, you need some dope lawyers if you want recourse.