I've said it before: Conservativism is a Mental Disorder.

I don't trust psychologists/psychiatrists etc enough to give them so much power. There's (as of now, maybe in the future this will change) too much subjectivism in psychology.

...or maybe he shouldn't have gotten that labotomoy...

It IS "creepy," but after bush, I'm all for it.

I think it is a terrible idea to make information like that available for public consumption. I thought it was distasteful when the Chicago Bull insisted that their player Eddy Curry undergo DNA testing to check for any genetic pre-disposition to disease. You are using a medical exam to determine whether somebody is allowed to have a viable future in their chosen profession. Had Curry submitted to the test and any problem was made known to his employer, he would basically would have been made an outcast in the NBA.

Same thing applies here.....if Obama for example has an exam that shows he is pre-disposed to Alzheimers, he will take a huge and unfair hit in the polls, and he would be reducing his employability (is that a word?) for the future, as critics would always be able to claim that it is just his disease talking.

Absolutely NOT! This goes against all medical ethics and privacy laws! If you say OK to one person, next the rest of us will have to go through this to get a job or insurance or the like. Really, REALLY bad idea!

Their physical health is always fair game, why not their mental health as well?

This is a false dichotomy. Unless you're resorting to magical realist interpretations of medicine, mental health - at least when it comes to things like Alzheimer's - is physical health. More and more, we are finding physical, materialist explanations for psychological phenomenon. I suspect that we will eventually explain all mental phenomena this way, but that's an article of faith, not really a falsifiable scientific hypothesis.

In any case, though, OF COURSE mental health ought to be fair game. Much more so. OTOH, it's creepy.

Perhaps the device should be turned toward the voters who were dumb enough to elect the goofy bastard in the first place? You will see this tech used against the minimum wage employee long before it ever gets to the level of executive.

Enjoy.

I don't know enough about these brain scans to really say anything, but I do believe some sort of tests that measures critical thinking skills. I mean, this is the second presidency in recent times where someone with obvious mental health issues is elected to office (Reagan). I'm going to look these scans up and see how they actually work, because I don't really trust shrinks all that much.

Definitely yes! Any examination that is medically possible should be required for the good of the country. This country can not afford another neurotic personality or whatever Bush has thrust upon us. We pay dearly so we need to be prepared and informed about the nominees for the presidency. They all have such egos that they will submit.

we all know republicanism is a serious disease, religion goes hand in hand with republicanism...

have their heads examined?

hell no, COMMIT these psychos NOW.

Don't mock me my friend. It's a condition of mental divergence. I find myself on the planet Ogo, part of an intellectual elite, preparing to subjugate the barbarian hordes on Pluto. But even though this is a totally convincing reality for me in every way, nevertheless Ogo is actually a construct of my psyche. I am mentally divergent, in that I am escaping certain unnamed realities that plague my life here. When I stop going there, I will be well. Are you also divergent, friend?

I have long maintained (and NOT as a joke or an insult) that President Bush is suffering from very serious mental and emotional problems.

I have a lot of experience with people who are having problems with their medication (getting the dose right is always trial and error) and I know how they act. I know what their faces look like and how they act and I'm telling you our president is on anti-psychotics.

Add to that the disturbing reports from Austria a year ago when Bush visited there and the picture starts to form.

For those of you who don't know, the president apparently travels with his own porta-potty. His feces is packaged up and returned to the United States for disposal. Why would this be done? To prevent people from testing the material. Testing would reveal all medications and their respective doses.

Here is a link to an article about it. If you do a Google search you'll find many other articles about it also. Please note, I cannot get to the original of this article, which is hidden behind a paid subscription. However this is a copy of the original from Wayne Madsen.

I have also seen similar articles from Austria, Italy and the UK.

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=6590

I was assigned a patient who had been to the "Amen Clinic". This guy is very controversial in the medical field, claiming to be able to diagnose psychiatric conditions based on very expensive radiology tests. Personally, I think he is a complete quack. You can read the research and be the judge. Just convenient that he advocates expensive testing, that he can do in-house, for just about everything under the sun.

Buyer beware.

I suspect that such brain scans are subjective and speculative and therefore not precise enough to be utilized as a credible filter...yet.

If/when the day comes that such scans are reliable measures of a person's mental health and provide deterministic diagnosis only then they should be considered.

Even then such tests would have to be carefully controlled and monitored so that candidates are not falsely ruled out due to manipulation of the tests.

Shit, we can't even count our ballots right in every state and we're debating brain scans. We are all optimists are we not?

Super J.

I find this whole idea abhorrent. Brain scans? Hey, this ain't 1984. I recommend full lobotomies on all candidates that will certainly slow down the amount of damage that they can do.

I don't know much about brain scans, but many police departments subject recruits to a basic psychological exam to test for pychopaths. Since Bush came to office, it has been apparent that all officials need to be vetted in this manner. Psychopaths often pass as "normal", are often charismatic, and often quite dangerous. THe founding fathers didn't have an awareness of this kind of disease. It is time to stop pretending that mentally unstable and unhealthy people can't get elected.

Point is moot.

We'll get this treatment next from our employers. Never happen to them.

RE "Their physical health is always fair game."

Candidates release as much about their physical health as they choose to.

There is no requirement that they release everything, and they often don't.

Functional-neuroimaging studies have to be carefully designed and interpreted with care. Statistical analysis (often using a technique called statistical parametric mapping) is often needed so that the different sources of activation within the brain can be distinguished from one another. This can be particularly challenging when considering processes which are difficult to conceptualise or have no easily definable task associated with them (for example belief and consciousness).

This is from the wikipedia page for functional neurology scanning. It seems to be pretty subjective at this point. I was reading an artical on our morality and what happens in the brain when people are presented with tough choices like killing one man to save 5 and other situations like these. They find that the brain begins to stuggle, with the different regions lighting up and cross-chatting. I would be worried if this didn't happen in a candidates head. That he or she wouldn't think twice about sacrificing if he or she believed it was for a greater good.

Well clearly; President Chucklenuts has a first class brain. NOT.

I'm with chip and centralilgirl. Let's stick to the Medical Privacy Act. Frankly, anyone who wasn't crazy themselves could have seen in 2001 that Bush was mentally unfit for office; if they're unhappy with his presidency and they voted for him, it's their own damn fault.

For that matter, I think the president's physical health should be off limits, too, unless he's undergoing a procedure and the Vice Prez is in charge, or something like that. I realize it's an important job, but once you start making medical requirements for important jobs, next thing you know, every job's important and nobody with a medical condition could get hired.

I think this is a great idea. We should also perform basic logic and reasoning tests on them. I wouldn't be opposed to an aptitude test as well.

After all if I have to take a test to get a driver's license, a person commanding nuclear weapons should as well.

Let's NOT stop there...I think everyone in an influential MSM position should also be tested along with candidates for the SUPREME COURT...the MSM picks our candidates (at least any that can get to the "tier" where they have a chance) and the SUPREME COURT has already picked one mental deficient (could do again) besides holding much of the rest of what we hold dear in their old, wrinkled hands...Oh, maybe also owners of BIG MEDIA (soon there will be only two or three anyway)...Let's have some real fun with this...

all candidates and persons involved in government and situations involving critical thinking and decisions.
all politicians have a predilection to lie, distort, etc.. to do anything in their psychopathic desire for power.
best figure a few other things that need to be studied considering the neurological implications of all or our pieholes absurd statements that sound as though they are suffering acute mental illness, 24/7

who would be so qualified as to give their professional opinion?
how would such information be used by political opponents?
where would we find anyone willing to undergo such examination?
what would this have shown us about bush that we did not know prior to his announcing his run for the presidency in 2000?
we do not need to know a candidates predisposition to criminal acts, but we must use the law to remove them when such acts are perpetrated the first time.

Very. Bad. Idea. Even if it isn't just plain quackery.

It would be easier to just mandate some form of public exposure, perhaps such as debates, wherein the candidates and their handlers cannot manipulate the forum. Thus allowing the public to see the contenders unfiltered where they can be asked difficult questions that will expose their agendas. Imagine if anyone asked Bush detailed questions about his religious beliefs, he would have been forced to either show his hand to the middle of the political spectrum, alienate his base, or prevaricate for all to see.

There are better ways than trying to disqualify people based on their faults. Disqualify them based on the beliefs that underly their faulty policies.

On the other hand, if the person acts bat-shit insane after being elected, maybe that's probable cause for someone to secretly administer a battery of tests...? But I'm not even sure I want to go there. No matter how good your intentions, you would eviscerate privacy and undercut the foundations of liberty.

jimbow8 @ 15:

I think this is a really stupid idea, but you left off the best part: where the doc brings up potential problems like Reagan's memory lapses at the time of the Iran-Contra Scandal, and Tucker replies, "But what were the long-term consequences of the Iran-Contra Scandal? I don't think there really were any." (paraphrased to best of my recollection. ;) ).

Damn, give Tucker a break. Wasn't he something like eight years old at the time of Iran-Contra?

This phrenologist, Dr. Daniel Amen, is so full of crap his eyes are brown. The practice of examining heads to determine the likelihood of future criminal behavior has been discredited for a while now.

Uh, just no. If they begin using it on the President, then the logical conclusion will be that eventually you will need a brain scan just to get a job, or go to college, or to marry... and if you scan badly? How are you ever going to support yourself for something that is not even in your control? Will you ultimately end up with a two- or three-tiered society just based on brain scans?

Look, People are smart, body language is 90% of all communication, it is there every day with President Bush. Lots of people (including me) have never trusted him. We don't need a brain scan to tell us what we know in our gut to begin with.

And this doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the issue of invasion of privacy.

So no. Just no.

They should also be scanned to see if they even have a physical heart.
I'll bet Bush, Cheney, Condi, and Rumsfeld (the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse)
are all void of having one.

jr Says:

you can see the new wife smell craving impulses on Rudy’s scan

If he's president he can have the Secret Service chauffeur around his next mistress and he can use Camp David as his love-nest.

Bad idea. Besides, if the country was paying attention then Bush and his mental disorder would never been so close to beating Gore in the first place.

Or maybe the ones who needed the brain scans were the undecided voters who just wanted a president to have a beer with.

I'm a Neuroscience student. The validity of the personality implications of these brain scans is low, if not completely hypothetical (i assume hes talking about fMRIs). Modern scanning techniques are very useful for a variety of things, like Alzheimer's detection, language problems, and memory deficits, but to say scans should be part of a character judgment is ridiculous. Everyone in the scientific community knows by now that we are both what we are (our brain) and what we do (our experiences). The brain is plastic, and character is built through a rich life, not physiologically destined to be one way or the other. Also, his point about Clinton is absolutely backwards. That said, one could do a scientific survey of the republican candidates and probably find that they may have problems in their anterior cingulate gyrus which is somewhat responsible for "Theory of Mind," or the ability to acknowledge others as thinking, feeling beings. But again, as said in a recent research report on Theory of Mind, "We conclude that our findings urge caution against using functional imaging as the sole method of establishing cognitive neuroanatomy." So, ultimitely, we should also talk about how these lunatics were raised...

would candidates who submitted to this indignity understand why we want them to protect the fourth amendment?

This idea would NEVER have come to light had it not been for the last 7 years of mayhem caused by the most pathetic, deranged and out of control pResident the world has ever seen!

That or an IQ test works for me.

Tucker is such a dunce. 500 years from now nobody will remember. The Iran contra situation certainly effected us in the few short years afterward. We almost started another war with them for no reason. The ones that need a brain scan are the ones who voted for Bush and Cheney. Tucker included.

Amitola @ 75:

Brain scans, probably not. Lie detector tests - for sure!

It's true that polygraph technology is not foolproof is some instances, but politicians (especially the curent lot) tell such whoppers, with such frequency, I think even an amateur could spot the lies on the screen.

Unfortunately, some people believe their delusions.
e.g., evolution is just a theory. An invisible man in speaks to them. Iran has a nuclear program.

John Hummel @ 11:

I'd rather not. Evidently, Lincoln suffered from Depression or who knows what other conditions - and yet, he was our greatest president ever. FDR struggled with physical handicaps.

A person is not measured by their genes or their "likelihood" - but by what they do...

I think Mr. Hummel has it right. Like many things that sound good on the surface the idea of testing someone for predisposition of mental illness doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

I value privacy and rights, period. I could see Bush had problems long before he "won" the Presidency, it's the American people and our education system that truly worry me.

I find the stereotypes against MD's (yes, Psychiatrists are real doctors) sad but typical. So much for the open-mindedness of progressives. "Quackery"? Maybe this Dr. Amen (but 1 doesn't a standard make), but not the one's I know personally, including my wife. You couldn't find a more ethical, competent Dr. who constantly reads to keep up on the science, doesn't dole out meds like candy, and actually sees results from her patients. Mental illness is serious, 1 in 5 have some form, and seriously underfunded compared to the other medical fields despite it's prevalence. Most mental illnesses, even if known by the public, should not serve as an eliminator for most jobs, even the presidency. Of course, there is an obvious bias so it would probably eliminate that candidate anyways.

If we really want to know the viability of our candidates, we could accomplish it with an IQ test. W would have failed.

NO!

Against the constition, the right to privacy.

If we would've just search Bush's backround a bit, we all could see he is mental.
All Skull and bones members should be banned from government positions.

Their past is what we should judge their mental stability on.

You know like failed businesses, deals with criminals, AWOL, ect ect ect stuff like that.

The current selection process seems to be a personality contest filtered by the media. I think we all instinctively understand who we like. How about instead of a debate (which merely shows how well they can spin) they have to take a test similar to the GMAT or LSAT to see if they even have enough intelligence to be the president. Questions could be submitted by the public and the press. GOP and DEM moderators can pick the best question.

Wouldn’t you just love to see Fred Thompson sweating on in a auditorium trying to remember who is the prime minister of Canada or where is the Ukraine in relation to china?

Are you asking if someone should be barred from running because they have a criminal tendency? If not, as I suspect, I agree with the reader who commented that knowing this information would need to be actually paid attention to in order to be practical.

Also, today American's seem less likely to trust a scientist than a pundit. I really thought the news couldn't get worse. O'Rielly thinks the Revelation (of John) is approx. 5,000 years old and Sheppard knows that there was no one before Christians. But there is no consensus on global warming.

To run brain scans without enough history and research to produce valid and reliable results, I would vote no for this particular piece of a mental health exam.

However, I do think that candidates should be tested for evidence of auditory and visual hallucinations, for persistent delusions (grandiosity, anyone?) and marked personality disorders. They should also be treated for mental illnesses and the exam should note their response to treatment. I do believe that diagnoses of schizophrenia, progressive memory disorders and severe personality disorders should disqualify candidates from the job as those are severe disabilities which directly interfere with judgment. There isn't an adequate means to compensate for them since this is the highest governmental executive position.

However, depression - treated and managed, should not be a disqualifying diagnosis, in and of itself.

I would also like to see evidence that candidates use sound reason, logic and fact as the basis for their decisions. So far, that has been absent from every "debate", and no one seems to be asking questions that would illuminate the fundamental ability for candidates to use critical thinking, as was mentioned by another commenter.

I, too, see enough signs that Bush is mentally ill and has impaired judgment. That he has the power of the "football" is a very scary thing. Our country should never tolerate another permanently judgmentally impaired person in the WH. This is an ethical issue which deserves much public discussion and thought.

Brain scans show damage from drug abuse.

It is part of their health records.

Requiring brain scans and the even more problematic interpretation of the results would require a change in federal law. If you think a proposal like this would ever make it out of committee, let alone getting to the President's desk, I have a bridge to sell you.

I for one welcome our Gattaca overlords.

(NOT!)

You are assuming that Bu$h in fact does actually have a brain.

What's to keep them from requiring US to get brainscans for jobs or to vote?

How do georgie get his masters in business, from a box of Cracker-Jacks or a poker game?

[deleted - off topic]

So if they do find an anomaly, they medicate the POTUS with drugs whose “minor” side effects may be worse than the symptoms they’re treating? This branch of medicine is still in its infancy so we shouldn’t jump the gun here. However, I have no problem whatsoever with an IQ test or a pre-employment physical. I would hate to think that the most powerful human being on earth has an IQ of 50, you know, like the one we have now. Additionally, I would like to think that my President is healthy enough to survive up to eight years. (McCain and Thompson come to my mind here. Especially McCain, he’s looking very ill.)

Besides, if we start making all politicians take pre-employment physicals, we can identify preexisting conditions, thereby saving taxpayer money. Similar to what every other American citizen has to go through, where the result is saving insurance companies money so they can give huge benefit packages to their CEO’s.

I found Screech's parting shot offensive: "You get Hillary Clinton into a brain scan, and I'll buy you a dinner any place, anytime".

I would like to see Screech get a brain scan, if he had a brain.
It is time for that creep to go - over yonder

Other gems by Screech about Nancy Pelosi: "... but apparently she's not bright enough."
"I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the—you know, and grabbed him, and—and...

ABRAMS: And did what?

TUCKER: Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!"

Kathleen @ 93:

AIPAC TURNING UP THE INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC

Intel Bombshell Sends Community Scrambling To Hold Line on Iran Threat
Israel Challenges U.S. Spies’ Report
By Marc Perelman
Wed. Dec 05, 2007

Kathleen - maybe, just maybe you should post something relative to the subject of this thread!

Great idea... Battle of the Head Doctors. Reminiscent of the great Teri Shaivo "is she brain-dead" dispute.

I believe their mental health is more important than their physical.

There's no need. The corrupted system is already in place. It's called Congress and it's called oversight. You can't just blame Bush on this anymore... many, many, many people aided and abetted his actions and still continue to do so.

The President cannot do anything on the magnitude of war without Congressional authority... why are people now accepting that as fallacy?

Brain scans for all politicians if that's the route... don't just stop at the highest office.

The candidates are applying for a job. Employment tests are acceptable. Why not a full battery of psychological tests, including personality inventories, IQ, projectives (evil empire candidates would be ruled out.) History, geography, and English tests. Then 8 hours in front of the best journalists in the country to see who breaks under pressure.

The process of electing a president should, for any thoughtful and insightful person, provide enough information about their fitness for the position. Our current president, for example, exhibited a lack of regard for the rules for himself, lack of dedication to the National Guard, lack of direction, lack of empathy, and drug and alcohol addiction. A mental health test would probably eliminate most of us because many of us function quite well and some even excel with various levels of depression, compulsion, autism and other disorders. Lincoln, for example, wouldn't have passed the test. F. Roosevelt, J. Kennedy, and R. Reagan may not have passed a brain scan or a physical exam. I believe the person that said "we are all handicapped; it's just more evident in some than in others." I'm more concerned about medications (prescribed, over the counter and alcohol) being consumed by our leaders. I think open forums where no one is vetted and no questions are off the table would be more insightful (including the little old ladies whose landlords are shooting rays into their apartment). Many presidents came from dysfunctional families. You can't even judge the current president by the actions of his father, who was a war hero and passed the Americans for Disability Act - a far reaching act, with teeth, that affects almost every corporation to ensure disabled people can get jobs.

Call it the Richard Milhous Cheney Memorial Presidential Award.

We all say it's great for "them" but what happens when we're denied housing because we didn't pass the brain scan part of the application process? What happens when your kid doesn't get accepted to that private school because he didn't pass the brain scan?

I don't like it. It reminds me of Gattaca.

And add six months of waterboarding to the brain scan.

Use an imperfect science to obtain data that will be passed out to a scientifically illiterate electorate? Gee, don't see how that could go wrong.

As a psych professor I have to point out that we are just the the very beginning of being able to use brain scans in a useful way. Human behavior is influenced by so many factors - we are not even close to being able to diagnose and predict accurately using brain scans...

Personally, I don't think we need brain scan.
We have enough public information about each candidate and if only they were analyzed and REPORTED without "journalistic balance", we will be fine.

I wonder what kind of pictures we'd get if we scanned Bill Clinton's brain?

Bad idea. This will invariably descriminate against those with emotional disabilities. So now not only do you have to be male and white to be president, but you also should have a lesser frontal lobe to ensure your empathy levels are low, because who is to say a soft hearted liberal would push the button when the terrorist are comming in by the boatloads to destroy the fabric of american capitalism, I mean lifestyle.

Given the current state of knowledge in the field of Physiological Psychology, Amen's proposal is on so slippery a slope that I don't even want to be within spitting distance.

And, just because nobody else has said it yet, I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

Bad idea. "normal" is MEDIOCRE. Superlative people are going to be ABNORMAL, period. I detest psychiatry for that simple reason: it pathologises personality.

I work in a brain imaging lab at a top research university. Dr. Amen and his ilk sell little better than snake oil. Imaging techniques are nowhere close to being advanced enough to make definitive statements about most aspects of mental health and personality. Individual brain regions are usually involved in quite a few different types of mental processing, and this, together with differences in individual physiology and chemo-architecture, makes it close to impossible to say anything about an individual's mental acuity or character. This is why studies published in neuroscience journals like Neuron and Nature Neuroscience are *group* analyses with at least 10 individuals in each comparison group. (Statistical analyses for most types of experiments suggest the ideal number is more like 16-24.) Candidate's words and actions are going to be considerably more telling for decades to come.

A really, really bad idea. The brain scan is not sufficiently established as a diagnostic tool to require this. Meanwhile, candidates are not even required to publish the result of their medical exams, though some do. There is something so Howard Beale about America these days, it's depressing. Why not have a nightly astrology feature on the news?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If you really could learn people's dispositions this way, I'd agree to this in a hot moment.

Of course, that 'if' is a pretty big one. I'm not convinced it would work as advertised. If I were a gambler, I'd wager my money that J Kilgore at #144 has it right; this is probably snake oil.

But I really wish there were a simple way to figure it out. As it is, the only choice we have is to watch those painful debates and listen to those painful speaches.