Time4good, don’t worry about those attacking you. It’s obvious that they have zero familiarity with Asperger’s/high-functioning autism, and they seem to think that it’s a huge negative and very insulting to suggest anyone has it (even though many very successful, extremely intelligent people have been on the autism spectrum, including Albert Einstein as many experts agree). I find that attitude to be offensive, truly “unkind and not Christian,” but mostly just “stupid” and ill-informed.
As someone with Asperger’s myself, I thought it was patently obvious months ago from all that I saw of and read or heard about him that Barron is on the spectrum (long before his appearance at his father’s victory speech). That’s not an insult, regardless of what those who may hold biased opinions about autism might think. In certain ways, I believe our sort of high IQ auties and aspies are actually superior to average neurotypicals—so I personally prefer to see it as complimenting him. ;)
I’m glad that Trump has repeatedly expressed concern and interest in the autism epidemic too from the time that his son was a toddler; that’s a plus coming from a soon to be president. I do sympathize with Barron though. I remember the terror with which I faced big changes as a child.
Thanks. Much appreciated.
Why don’t all of us agree to leave it at that and just to wish the Trump family Godspeed and God’s help in all they are and will be going through. We know they’ll need every bit of it, and our support.
Article: Are Aspergians Really Rude and Inconsiderate? Aspergers, empathy, and relationships...
While this may explain the aspergian point of view towards this boy, you need to understand that your speculation lacks empathy towards the entire Trump family. Why stigmatize him, to what goal? Realize, that if you were a psychiatrist, these type of comments of cyber psychoanalysis could easily be considered litigious. They are banned, by the APA, thanks to Republican Barry Goldwater!
All of the Trumps have become public figures, including the 9 kids to a lesser extent. Adult relatives and especially these minor children should not be subjected to unsolicited unprofessional intellectually dishonest diagnoses from afar. It would be unfortunate if this forum becomes the original source of this nonsense, so hopefully it has ended.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Psychiatrists are not allowed to offer their opinion on Trump or Clinton. (Likewise, psychoanalyzing their family members for public consumption is prohibited.)
It’s election season, which means everyone is looking for ways to tie their own interests and expertise to the candidates and their policies. Everyone except the American Psychiatric Association, that is. The professional group, which represents more than 35,000 practicing psychiatrists has a policy that bans members from commenting on the mental status of people they haven’t personally diagnosed....
“The unique atmosphere of this year’s election cycle may lead some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates, but to do so would not only be unethical, it would be irresponsible,” her statement reads.
“We live in an age where information on a given individual is easier to access and more abundant than ever before, particularly if that person happens to be a public figure. With that in mind, I can understand the desire to get inside the mind of a Presidential candidate. I can also understand how a patient might feel if they saw their doctor offering an uninformed medical opinion on someone they have never examined. A patient who sees that might lose confidence in their doctor, and would likely feel stigmatized by language painting a candidate with a mental disorder (real or perceived) as ‘unfit’ or ‘unworthy’ to assume the Presidency.”
It’s also “intellectually dishonest for a mental health professional — or any physician — to give a diagnosis without examining the patient,” as the psychiatrist Richard A. Friedman argued in The NYT. And such armchair diagnoses could be used as “a political weapon to denigrate an opponent,” he added.
In other words, diagnosing public figures from afar is both unscientific and potentially stigmatizing. But the policy isn’t just about being fair to patients (and the profession as a whole). It’s actually the result of a messy situation — lawsuits and all — that took place during an election more than a half century ago.
In 1964, a magazine asked 12,000 psychiatrists what they thought of then-candidate Barry Goldwater and turned it into a story headlined “FACT: 1,189 Psychiatrists Say Goldwater is Psychologically Unfit to Be President.” (Nevermind the FACT that the vast majority of surveyed psychiatrists did not respond.) Goldwater later successfully sued, and the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 created a rule to try to prevent a similar situation reoccurring.
The rule reads: “On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/does-trump-have-a-psychiatric-diagnosis-mental-illness-2016-8
This game’s over- pick on someone your own size, not a 4th grade child. Does anyone on the left/right have a shred of decency left?
http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Barron-Trump-Autism-Video-Poster-Says-He-ll-10641286.php
Let’s Play- Pick on Melania—
she doesn’t smile enough—>pissed off with nosey people
her hair’s never pulled up —>hiding secret hearing devices
speaks with a thick accent —>tricked aliens into voting Trump
wears high fashion couture—>hidden ties to globalist designers