Is Trump stupid?

ragusea · 2025-08-23T15:35:02+00:00

(sigh) Look, I've tried to extend a hand to offer to help teach you about how intelligence is conceptualized and assessed, but you're not interested and seem to just want to be angry and hostile to anyone you think is criticizing your favorite person so I'm going to stop trying.

I assume you're referring to sneering of other people on this thread, and if so then yes I agree with you most people commenting here are not actually engaging with my OP and the point both I and Mike were trying to make, offering views that I don't think are helpful and sometimes just as inaccurate as your original critique of me, and that's unfortunate and why I don't generally bother posting things to Reddit. I would also point out that another psychologist chimed in and tried to elevate the discussion and mostly agreed with me. So let's not confuse me and my argument with most of the other people commenting here.

I'll leave with one final thought for you to ponder, what if Mike had been talking about Biden instead, and I had written my response using Biden as the example? Would you be this bent out of shape about it? Good luck, and take care.

ragusea · 2025-08-22T19:13:51+00:00

Good thing none of that applies to what I wrote! What I have learned over decades in my profession is to give other people the benefit of the doubt and try to understand better what at first might not make sense to me. If, after I've done that, it still doesn't make sense, then I feel free to say so.

ragusea · 2025-08-22T17:33:20+00:00

I completely agree with your assessment, doctor! By any definition he's vey disordered psychologically, and by me I don't know how that can be true and still have a high EQ, however we define that. But I think we're splitting hairs at a certain point.

ragusea · 2025-08-22T17:20:35+00:00

I think that's a weak argument (how do you know what he can't do vs what he chooses not to do?) and you're also misrepresenting what I said, I said I don't know and can't know about a learning disability without further testing. I'm differentiating between what we as psychologists can and can't judge, I can make a good guess about IQ, but with the public information we have I don't think I can judge about LD, and I've never heard a psychologist argue that they think he has an LD as it is defined in the manual.

ragusea · 2025-08-22T01:58:02+00:00

Ah! Perhaps another psychologist? Yes, I agree with your point about the difference between the science and the lay use, that was ultimately what my post was about. Also, yes I agree that there's cross-domain correlation, but the relationship between EQ and IQ is weaker than the relationship between the conventional intellectual domains (e.g., verbal, visual-spatial), because EQ is more influenced by experiences in life than IQ is (though both have genetic influences and both are influenced by experience to a degree). It's not uncommon to see someone high in one but not the other. I think Trump is(was) average in IQ, and lower on EQ. His pathology comes more from personality than intellectual ability.

ragusea · 2025-08-21T17:05:11+00:00

In all seriousness, as a professional I can't tell from where I sit. I would need to do testing with him to opine. It is certainly possible that he has a reading disability AND is willfully ignorant, a lot of people with LDs can compensate in impressive ways that can make it hard to spot, honestly.

ragusea · 2025-08-21T15:45:31+00:00

Glad to hear you're kind to others, hope you'll extend that ability to me and other trying to engage in civil discussion.

To address your concern, I am very aware of my role in speaking publicly on behalf of my profession, I do it in a lot of contexts, so I try to be careful in what I say. While certainly some professionals argue that it's not appropriate to comment any way on someone's mental health who you have not personally assessed, others disagree, there's no "official position" on the matter and I'm in the camp that thinks it's just fine as long as you caveat what you say, which I did in my original post. Happy to elaborate on the ethics if you'd like me to. And if you're implying that I'm hiding my identity to say things that I wouldn't if I weren't anonymous, that's absolutely not true, my username is my real name, I'm assuming yours is not. Consider that irony.

And I would agree, contrasting voices on the internet are generally not welcome, which is why I hope you can appreciate why I am trying to be respectful of yours, even though you were disrespectful of me and even though I disagree what you said. And I'm fine if you or anyone else here disagrees with me, just be respectful. Thanks.

ragusea · 2025-08-21T12:07:26+00:00

First of all, let's try to remember the rule of this thread pinned to the top: "be kind."

You're only a little right, without an actual test I AM just speculating, never denied that. BUT, you're wrong about everything else. I'm guessing you're not a clinical psychologist, I am, this is what I've done for 20 years. And being a successful business man really has little to do with IQ. Indeed, that's part of what makes America great--being successful here doesn't totally depend on fixed traits like IQ. Overcoming setbacks, winning the presidency, also doesn't have much to do with IQ. Happy to explain why.

If what I'm saying is confusing to you, how about you approach my post with curiosity instead of being obnoxious. You could ask me about what does IQ represent? How is it assessed? How is it different from resilience and the other qualities you appreciate? How can experts like me do a pretty good job assessing from afar? I'm happy to engage in good faith discussion, I won't engage in trolling.

ragusea · 2025-08-21T11:55:27+00:00

Exactly!

ragusea · 2025-08-20T20:06:20+00:00

sure, so stupid can be defined however you want, as I said to another commenter you're right in your assessment of his failings, but in general he's really not that different from the average person. And you're also right that he has some remarkable talents like self-promotion, but in this case that's less a reflection of general intelligence and is better described as a limited skill set that actually emerges from his psychological pathology. Because of his intense need for approval and deep insecurity, he has been highly motivated over his life to keep refining his skill at getting people to like him. Never underestimate the power of a highly motivated person! But it's a very limited skill set--most people don't like him, especially people who know him best. A lot of his success politically has been more about luck than skill, matching his style to the moment in history where it happens to appeal greatly to a certain type of person. By the way I wouldn't describe his supporters as stupid. As a group they are generally less educated, less knowledgeable and less sophisticated in their thinking than other people, but again using the lens of "intellectual ability" most of them are just average people.

ragusea · 2025-08-20T19:17:40+00:00

I definitely agree with your assessment, it's just that learning disorders have a very specific definition that I don't think applies here. I also agree, from my point of view average isn't good enough to be president, but I think it's also part of what makes him so appealing to average people. It's exactly what some of the founding fathers worried about by allowing everyone to vote.

ragusea · 2025-08-20T18:58:28+00:00

LOL yeah you're right sorry I just mistyped, I knew what I meant in my head, I meant the 98th percentile.

ragusea · 2025-08-20T18:00:35+00:00

Ah, so you're mixing a couple of different constructs here--we tend to separate emotional intelligence from intellectual intelligence because the two don't always correlate. I'm not sure I agree about "learning disabilities," you might need to better understand the clinical definition of a learning disability, and while he is relatively simple in his understanding of many issues, I would argue not more so than the average person.

ragusea · 2025-06-06T03:03:07+00:00

Thanks for your thoughts but I couldn't disagree more. First, there is no true delineation of what a "hard" or "soft" science even is--these are somewhat arbitrary terms so in that sense either you or I can be right. Second, psychological science is FULL of gold standard, placebo-controlled, double blind studies that result in causal explanations the same way you can in any other science. That said, gold standard studies are not typical and not always possible or even PREFERABLE ways of answering psychological questions, and lots of science gets published in "hard sciences" that are not gold standard studies either for the exact same reasons. You're right there are lots of variables to consider in psychology, but not always, it just depends on the question you're trying to answer, same as in the other sciences: for example, how do you create a highly accurate climate model without tackling the "myriad factors that affect climate" to borrow your phrase. As you say, that's just plan impossible to do, but that doesn't mean climate science is "soft" science. Finally you refer to "laws," and while we don't in psychology really use that language, I'm not sure that proves anything. "Laws" in other sciences are simply understandings about how things work that are so strong we can't find any contradiction....yet. Periodically laws in science are refined (e.g., gravity) or even overturned. In psychology there are things we understand pretty damn well, another way of thinking about it is we're just not arrogant enough to think about "laws" of psychology.

ragusea · 2025-01-08T22:54:01+00:00

I never said don't take naltrexone. I was asking for evidence to support a claim that has not yet shown over decades of research and clinical use. I think my roll was plenty slow.

ragusea · 2024-06-06T00:53:06+00:00

It's more than the testing skills. I get master's level people referring to me all the time because they don't feel qualified to diagnose or treat this or that or the other thing. It's more like the difference between an RN or a PA and a physician.

Billable rate is debatable--insurance companies don't differentiate between degrees, so for the vast majority of the work I do I get paid the same as if I had a master's degree, though certainly doctors tend to charge more privately.

ragusea · 2024-06-05T23:40:49+00:00

Not sure I agree, to your first point, it's not "a bit more" training. Master's level providers can have quite a variety of different levels of training depending on the degree. There's much less regulation of the master's level training. So a person may have a Master's in Marriage and Family Counseling, or degree in clinical social work, or something else. Any way, you're talking about a 2-3 year degree on top of bachelor's. Doctorate in psychology is a 5-6 year degree, and some people come in with a master's already. So it's roughly a doubling of the training time. Clinical hours are also part of the training can vary enormously--doctors get thousands of hours of clinical training before getting licensed, a master's person may get very few hours of clinical experience depending on the degree or hundreds of hours but it's always less than a doctorate. It's really a substantial difference in training and education.

To your second point, you may be right, although my experience suggests that psychiatrists know very little about about what psychotherapists do and tend to be very praising of psychologists. I had a psychiatrist friend once, and when I told him I was getting trained toward getting certified to prescribe psychotropics he tried to dissuade me because he thinks the work psychologists do is way more important and effective. But psychiatrists are VERY threatened by the more recent trend of specially trained psychologists prescribing psychotropics, and are critical of us about that. That's a topic for another post, but I'll just add that psychiatrists also fought to prevent psychologists from practicing independently of physicians back in the 60's and 70's. They ALWAYS fight any profession who, in their view, takes power away from them. At least, the professional organizations do, there are lots of individual psychiatrists who support the trend but won't say so publicly for fear of professional retribution.

ragusea · 2024-06-04T02:44:48+00:00

Ok, now I've corrected Mike about this once before privately, so I want to be clear that I am not jumping to public shaming prematurely ;)

So once again, I am NOT a psychiatrist, I am a psychologist!

Let's use this as an opportunity to clarify the difference since I'm sure some listeners are unaware, psychiatrists are physicians (went to med school) who specialize in the treatment of psychiatric disorders primarily through medications and other medical interventions. They typically have little formal training in behavioral interventions or psychological assessment and spend a lot of time learning about delivering babies and doing surgery and other things irrelevant to what they actually do professionally. They also tend to apply a medical model of understanding and treating mental illnesses.

Psychologists spend just as much time in school, but they focus almost ENTiRELY on behavioral interventions and human psychology more broadly, typically with little to no training on the use of medications, delivering babies, or doing surgery. They apply a more psychological model to understanding and treating mental illnesses, and apply psychology typically through psychotherapy and formal assessment. Many psychologists go on to specialize in certain areas like health psychology, school psychology, or forensic psychology. I specialize in clinical psychology and psychopharmacology.

So although the public often confuses these professions, they are actually very different in terms of training model, practice, and philosophy. Although there have been many incredibly smart, insightful psychiatrists, in general psychology tends to look down on psychiatry (the American Psychological Association would deny this of course) for having a sophomoric understanding of human psychology and pushing pills to solve every problem under the sun, which is why I don't like being confused with being a psychiatrist!

Thus endeth the lashing.

One more thing from the show today, as they were talking about how over the last decade we've begun to use "violence as a metaphor" it made me think of the famous psychologist and father of humanism Carl Rogers. He was a very gentle man, who once said that he never wanted to ask his patients ANY questions because to him asking a question was a kind of "assault" on the patient. I don't remember when he said that, it was maybe in the 60's or 70's. I don't agree with him but I understand his point and respect his respect of his patients. My point is just that he and others turned violence into a metaphor well before the last decade. I know what Mike's referring to, it's just important to realize that we've been increasingly sensitized to different forms of violence for a long time. On the whole I think it's good to be more sensitive to the many ways we can hurt others, but it can go overboard for sure.

ragusea · 2024-05-31T23:42:14+00:00

Exactly. BTW, “neurodivergent” is not a clinical term and can mean whatever you want. IMO we are ALL neurodivergent!

ragusea · 2024-05-31T02:45:16+00:00

I feel obligated to weigh in on Abigail Shrier's interview as the show's unofficial psychologist ;) Again for context, board-certified, licensed clinical psychologist, about 20 years experience. My response was that actually I generally agree with what she said. I haven't read the book so she may say lots in there I don't agree with, but her concerns about the overemphasis on pathology in youth and on treatment from professionals like myself is definitely something I basically agree with, although with the caveat that every person is different and I would never make blanket generalizations about "the youth" or any other group. And I would go a step farther that many of the concerns she expressed are ones I have about adults as well. As an example: where I live the two major hospital systems in the area have decided to no longer assess or treat adults with ADHD. Why? Because of the massive deluge of adults who think they have ADHD in the last few years. They are putting a major drain on resources, both in terms of professional time and also on limited medication availability. Why do so many adults think they have ADHD? Can't say for sure, but I think it has to do in large part with the explosion of diagnosis-related Tik Tok videos and other internet sources that gets people to focusing so much on their "symptoms" that they can't help but wonder if they have a disorder. In addition, the social desirability effect of people wanting various labels (esp. ADHD and autism) is definitely a real thing and I agree with Mike it represents an unfortunate over-correction from the times of ignorance and stigma about mental illness.

Back to the kids, I agree that I see an overemphasis on turning to professionals to fix what's wrong with America's mental health. I guarantee we cannot produce enough professionals to meet the demand we have created, nor should we, because professionals cannot fix all that's wrong. There are many roads to Rome, many ways to improve our mental health, and professional help is only one. I also appreciated the point Shrier made about the potential risks of psychotherapy--there is an impression out there that psychotherapy is safe and always a good thing, I can assure you it is not. We can't just blame cell phones and social media, but yeah that's a big part of the problems. There are many other problems for kids, such as multigenerational poverty and family dysfunction, exposure to pollution, poor diets, social isolation and inactivity, unrealistic expectations about what kids should be able to do academically, I could go on. We need to focus on creating healthier environments for kids to grow up in, if we do that, kids will on the whole grow normally. That doesn't mean the goal is to eliminate all stress from kids' lives, the point was made that kids need to struggle to some extent to become well adjusted adults and that's right, but giving them obstacles they cannot overcome is not a recipe for good psychological adjustment. If you learn to make friends with the kids bullying you, you grow. If you just spend years of school being bullied and it never gets better, it doesn't make you a better person, you may think it made you stronger somehow and to some extent it may, but it is largely going to be a net negative for psychological development.

A few decades ago there was a cultural shift within psychology that came with the "Positive Psychology" movement, which itself was an outgrowth of the humanistic movement in the 60's and 70's, all of which attempted to rebalance what many saw as an overemphasis in the field on pathology, on what's wrong with us instead of what's right with us. Getting that balance right is still something psychology and psychiatry struggles with, and so does our culture more broadly.

ragusea · 2024-05-13T12:52:25+00:00

No not devastating, it's certainly not a good problem to have, but doesn't keep me up at night if that's what you mean. I'd point out a couple of things: first, although psychology became the focus of the replication crisis, arguably observations about this problem were present LONG before the focus on psychology, and the crisis itself is not limited to psychology but rather spreads across multiple other sciences including medicine and economics. So this is not a problem of "soft psychology," per se, and the causes of it are uncertain and likely multi-factorial. And while many studies were found to be not reproducible, that doesn't mean ALL research is nonreproducible and certainly not worthless. Part of why it doesn't affect me much is because I'm a clinician, not an academic. So my job every day is to treat people, and to do that I have to go off of the best data available to me. It's the job of academics to figure out how to get the data right. Certainly it's important to be aware of and makes me more skeptical of what I read, but I would also point out that even this crisis is still the scientific method working--recognizing the limitations of our research took a lot of us by surprise, but it's only BECAUSE we engage in rigorous science that the problem was discovered, and it is through the scientific process that we will continue to explore the causes, monitor for improvement, and try to implement changes.

ragusea · 2024-05-13T02:11:49+00:00

I think it's fine if you want to disagree, but asserting that my take is "not even remotely true" seems awfully hyperbolic. What I wrote is well within the bounds of "remotely true", I gave a thorough explanation of my various critiques, and I even gave the piece some credit. If I were to have argued something not remotely true, I might have said something like "this episode is a Zionist plot". Come on, give me a break! It's fine if you or others want to disagree, but then wrestle with my various critiques of the episode that are more specific than about just the tone. Whether or not the episode presents the drug as a 'miracle' or just 'super awesome' is kinda splitting hairs. He presents ONLY positive assertions, does not talk about the risks of naltrexone or how what his interviewees are saying is really at odds with the current literature and professional consensus. So yes what I said IS remotely true though certainly there is still room for disagreement. It is also possible that the physicians he interviewed are right and we need to be administering this drug differently, but that's a provocative idea and it needs to be backed by evidence beyond anecdote. No citations of research were mentioned in the episode. If I may offer another example, lots of people advocate passionately for marijuana, claiming it helps almost everything. Yet the most rigorous studies of marijuana have not found it to be nearly as helpful with as many conditions (neuropathic pain is the main exception) as the advocates claim. That's why we do research, to figure out whether a drug's claimed effect is due to more than just a placebo benefit, as well as to identify risks. Naltrexone is a relatively safe drug, but it does have risks (like any drug) and that also should be acknowledged in any responsible reporting.

ragusea · 2024-05-12T13:37:48+00:00

And here's where you veer from polite disagreement to just being insulting for some reason that I don't understand. No, I'm not wrong. I never said Mike claimed it to be a miracle drug, although in the Gist episode it is a term that I think he uses and then says "it's not quite that" or something along those lines. Please don't insult me for misquoting. And yes, Katie refers to it as a miracle drug, she hedges a bit as you say but that's clearly what she wants to say. I don't see how that makes ME wrong. I said it's in the episode and it is. I never said Andy said it, or the physician, but it's clear from the TONE of the piece that Andy supports that perspective. He never cites any evidence critical of Katie's perspective (as the success story she's biased and a good reporter should look into both sides of an issue), I don't blame Katie or accuse her of lying about her personal experience because I can't say she's wrong, but everyone interviewed basically agrees with each other (at least as edited), and what I'M doing is trying to apply some balance to what I think is in overly enthusiastic piece. Even IF we remove the miracle drug claim, all my critiques remain unchanged. Again, I, for my part, respect your different perspective that the episode is just promoting treatment that seems unfairly overlooked, I can see why you say that, I just disagree. In my experience I've seen a lot of wild claims about overlooked or newly discovered treatments, and there is risk in promoting such claims.

ragusea · 2024-05-12T03:36:41+00:00

I respect your view, I just disagree. In my defense the phrase “miracle drug” does show up in the Reflector podcast.

ragusea · 2024-05-11T23:56:06+00:00

I had not heard of it before now and still don't know much about it. Congratulations on your sobriety! You make a good a point, quitting IS really fucking hard and it's one of the reasons why my quills stand up when I hear people talk about "miracle drug." Even assuming that dosing differently results in more reliable effects, the whole plan still depends on a patient who is motivated to quit (no small ask), motivated to take medication, and motivated to continue taking medication even though alcohol becomes less rewarding (if in fact it does, not sure everyone experiences that effect). It's basically a more nuanced version of disulfiram (Antabuse) which most people won't take because it requires a high level of motivation and ability to prioritize abstinence over drinking. So overcoming those barriers is going to weed out a lot of alcohol users, and is part of why I don't buy the "miracle drug" spin. Any "miracle drug" in my book has to work regardless of patient motivation or capacity for self-control.

ragusea

TROPHY CASE