Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Should the United States have a standard Psychological Test [View all]jberryhill
(62,444 posts)103. "you all seem to want it to fail anyway"
So, the criterion for "wanting the country to fail" is asking how this panel is appointed?
It's an extremely basic question to your proposal. And the question is driving at something that is very basic to Constitutional thought - i.e. that one of the main ideas is it is not based on "trusting" anyone to do the right thing or to be unbiased.
There are a lot of academics in a lot of universities doing a lot of things. We could simply expand on this "experts" idea, and have judges appointed by the top law schools, the military run by the top military academies, and so on.
Any system establishes incentives. So, you set up this "Commission on Candidate Sanity" and clearly, one of the games becomes to get onto that Commission. Academic institutions run on their own set of politics (where "politics" is meant to refer to the peculiar politics of academia, and not public politics generally).
So, the game becomes "get on that Commission", and introduces a new set of unwritten criteria by which academic advancement might be influenced. I guarantee you that the Koch brothers are perfectly well able to endow academic chairs - and indeed they do precisely that sort of thing to turn out "research" that supports their agenda.
You have this image of "neutral academia" which can be applied to presidential politics. But doing that then injects presidential politics into that "neutral academia". It is unavoidable.
Have you considered, in this two hour effort to save the country with which anyone who disagrees is clearly looking to have the country fail, perhaps running this idea past an honest-to-betsy doctorate-possessing psychologist?
Because, and again I apologize for relying on "history", we've seen this program before. The Soviet Union, for example, certainly relied on the "scientific opinions of qualified psychologists" within that system in order to diagnose and disqualify persons from political participation; and the last time this kind of thing was seriously discussed in the US psychological community was when the APA developed what is called the "Goldwater Rule".
Rather than reacting with hostility, questioning the motives of persons who disagree with you, and smoking a bowl, perhaps you might flesh this out a little more and think about how one goes about selecting this "neutral" test and/or its administrators.
Because if you come up with that, then we can just skip a step and use this sort of "neutral body of unbiased people of good intentions" selection process to select judges, public officials of all sorts, and so on.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
185 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yes, known bastions of liberals, communists, feminists, homosexuals, minorities, etc.
jberryhill
Apr 2017
#19
This would require a constitutional amendment which 3/4s of the states would have to ratify.
Yo_Mama
Apr 2017
#171
...and a non-partisan Committee of experts to pick the non-partisan Committee of Scientists?
brooklynite
Apr 2017
#89
Lincoln was extremely depressive, Kennedy appears to have had some sexual addiction. Who would you
Squinch
Apr 2017
#18
And if Lincoln's depression or Kennedy's sexual addiction had come out during their
Squinch
Apr 2017
#23
The voters in this election knew Twitler(R) was crazy. It didn't stop them. But
Squinch
Apr 2017
#34
Well, here's the thing: it wouldn't have prevented Trump, but it would have prevented Lincoln.
Squinch
Apr 2017
#42
In 1860, you think a person with a publicized "mental problem" could have been elected?
Squinch
Apr 2017
#56
Only if it's acceptable for you and the rest of the country to be required one
loyalsister
Apr 2017
#27
I have never seen where it is required for employment or education. Could you give some
Squinch
Apr 2017
#37
I have had umpteen jobs, and have a bachelors and a masters degree. I have never
Squinch
Apr 2017
#45
A server at home doesn't disqualify anyone from running, but it sure can be blown up
Squinch
Apr 2017
#54
How about the people commenting on the test results? Would they come from Fox News?
Squinch
Apr 2017
#57
You said it well. And we had plenty of proof that Trump is crazy, but his voters didn't care.
Squinch
Apr 2017
#39
I find it disturbing you don't have the foresight to see how this is a terrible idea.
Gravitycollapse
Apr 2017
#102
I actually find you to be the most arrogant one in this entire discussion.
Gravitycollapse
Apr 2017
#146
I don't think you understand anything about psychological testing, and its limitations.
Yo_Mama
Apr 2017
#174
How do we determine if the voters themselves are smart enough, or psychologically capable, of...
Marengo
Apr 2017
#137
Nazi Germany - another example of psychologists providing important public service
jberryhill
Apr 2017
#114
The poster above identified Trump as having a personality disorder. From that you conclude, "So
Squinch
Apr 2017
#161
I can't wait until we can decide which babies will be good Presidents.
Gravitycollapse
Apr 2017
#115
Better look up what I'm talkiing about before you try to blast me to smithereens
Warpy
Apr 2017
#106
I guarantee that whatever cognitive test it is you're advocating for, it is biased.
Gravitycollapse
Apr 2017
#109
Understood, but I believe the poster I was responding to was suggesting voters should be tested...
Marengo
Apr 2017
#176
Yes, but it wouldn't be very exclusive psychologically. I would prefer...
Buckeye_Democrat
Apr 2017
#122
With all due respect my friend, yuiyoshida, I understand the rationale but...
steve2470
Apr 2017
#125
You do realize there's huge potential for a requirement like this to be abused.
Calista241
Apr 2017
#135
Probably not, people who are psychologically "normal" don't run for president (n/t)
Spider Jerusalem
Apr 2017
#138
Why would any politician ever agree to take a test where they best they can do is gain nothing,
hughee99
Apr 2017
#144
So you're going to have a constitutional convention and THIS is what you're going to look to change?
hughee99
Apr 2017
#177
Until this election, I would have said no, but we're in a really bad situation here.
Vinca
Apr 2017
#147
i don't think the NFL is going to work as an analogy for our national democracy
0rganism
Apr 2017
#163