Riobard

“Goodest” is real neck & neck with “bigly”. Eeesh.

It’s like a Battle of the Lears, inn’t? Some individual personal biophysiological and characterologic components unique, others in common. A close and elusive hard predictive call on the lesser of two possible tragedies. I hope that JB’s being pinned into a hero complex works for him and all. Would that the team goes over Cole’s Notes at the least. I think there are more sophisticated, paradoxically more gentle, ways to stimulate the opponent’s publicly perceivable decompensation. —— Say, “George, look, nobody should be old before they’re wise.” Even if abstract, the pundits will unpack it all the live long day.

My take is that the discussion, topic, what have you, is linear, multi-faceted, both-and. If it were circular there would be no conclusion; there will be one. The problem you identify (IMO irrefutable) is entrenched. Surely some of the noise you perceive to be extraneous around the signal requires attention. If the focus is to be removed from cognitive competence, a course correction in which sociopathy is allowed to speak for itself is in order. Biden is not intelligent enough and trained sufficiently to persuade anybody about his opponent’s shortcomings beyond views already held. He’s shitty at mudslinging, like most empaths, and it comes off poorly, indeed, whiny in tone. Exasperated is not presidential. He does not score the denigration points many posters here are able to rack up. A dumb-looking grin does not cut it. He should never have tried to speak if DJT was blathering over a cold mic a few feet away. The debate was not a discussion. A debate should be somewhat of a discussion not a verbal UFC octagon match, not overlapping speeches (DJT’s offputting strategy). Why couldn’t Biden have politely held his opponent to task and appeared to ‘go high’? Example: pause: “You may do better here if you actively listen. In my experience interaction goes well if talking over the other person is held in check. What say you, mods?” Drop some of the recitation of hard facts, struggling to cover off all kinds of complex data and figures. No presenter with common sense will attempt such without (eg) PowerPoint. KISS. Extensive info retrieval diminishes the desired countenance. Why was there no forecasting and strategy for dealing with anticipatory acting out? These skills can be taught to undergrad med students barely out of their teens, in short periods of time, even though more science-y book-smart and comparatively short-changed in relationship-centred care concepts required for inevitably difficult patients.

I’m not American and my exposure to Biden, Gupta, etc, is limited, my impressions cursory. But perhaps a one-week transverse outsider view counts for something as adjunct to extended info flooding. I watched Biden on ABC. I think he would score perfectly on Mini Mental State Exam testing, often the first step in screening. Its items can be altered to mitigate rote exposure bias. I think he’s a nice guy but naïve. Irrespective of cognitive function he’s not particularly smart and insightful. He knows stuff; that’s nice, an experienced and relatable politician. Higher office and advanced intelligence are not well correlated. Worse yet, his advisers are not smart and cannot read the room. I wish I had been able to coach him on what was obviously going to be a pivotal question on openness to evaluation. There would have been a better short and simple way to decline without the tone of oppositionality and pre-Fall pride, and/or reporting having been concretely screened at least at a rudimentary level with illustration beyond ‘well, my clinicians handle that’ [non-sic]. Goode Lawd A’mighty, doesn’t VP Biden (🤔😉) have an EdD? Gupta’s idea about baseline standardized cognitive paper+interview testing is not terrible. Annually is not appropriate for a lot of reasons. Follow-up at particular junctures over time could be useful. Normative score value references are as useful as within-subject longitudinal comparisons.

Gupta means well and I liked his personal account of evaluation, but slow your roll, Dr Ben Casey. To my way of thinking it would be imperative to establish a priori score and other results cut-off points for determining acceptable President role capacity if such testing is to be used in credential terms. Such an endeavour would be a monumental task hardly attainable over a short time. The battery of tests could have utilitarian merit, however, as the subject and inner circle would be provided with a breadth and depth of potentially more objective data to consider in his appraisal of his own fitness. As I suggested earlier, practice / rehearsal on many cognitive tests introduces recall bias influencing results favourably. In contrast, being an impromptu evaluative curve thrown at the Jessica Lange character in The Great Lillian Hall (Broadway production insurance the context) yielded a more damning result. Interestingly, standardized scores on the widely used assessment tool employed in the film reflect cognitive impairment for the majority of adults of any age with less than Grade 12 education. No age group scores within that variable match those of folks age 70-80 with post-secondary education. Age and education just examples of several demographic variables associated with score variance above and below normative cut-off values. Try to establish an arbitrary binary cut-off of fitness when several extenuating factors that highlight flaws within tried and true tests will inevitably enter the mix. (Parenthetically, speaks to voter legitimacy.) There is a huge array of factors to consider over a limited period of time in integrating formal assessment with the already existing demands for meta-synthesis of information over which there already exists discord about what credentials are arbitrarily essential and what salutary qualities and context merit consideration in spite of isolated deficiencies. Gupta is certainly on to something. It needs to be realistically planned, not on the crash-cart. He executed his own pursuit of testing for a special. Repurposing it precipitously in the way now proposed? Not so sure.

But these are merely cherry-picked observations in what was evidently a rousing speech. Full disclosure: I just plagiarized a bit from Sanjay Gupta’s earlier post regarding the debate …

Apparently today on campaign trail: “I will beat Donald Trump. I will beat him again in 2020. By the way we’re going to do it again in 2024.” ”When you get knocked down you get back up.” First order of business: orientation to time …

Furst tho, wot and wear is Phillipines?

Some would say CSAM or CSEM are better terms than CP (here presented as acronyms); others (like me) would say legitimately interchangeable. If one doesn’t understand that sexual, abuse, exploitation, and material are all implicit in Child Pornography one is living under a rock. What it means is tried and true, irrespective of somebody’s contrarian Linguistics/SocialConstructionism PhD thesis. “Material” has multiple noun and adjective definitions, hence possessing inexplicitness requiring an additional level of interpretative implicitness. The trouble with splitting hairs on nomenclature is that it can end up in circles, obscure the essential point, and is impactless on the unfortunate phenomenon it attempts to label anyway. Of course, one never knows whether the subject’s prosecution or defense will get caught up in this type of definitional material, or that both sides are in possession of Child Pornography for different purposes, and so on ad infinitum.

A tragedy, though? Yes and no.

The military ones are bonny.

In any case, one is a musical fruit that makes you toot, the other a tout in a musical for fruit.

If you presented Grand Rounds at a similar level of performance you’d be escorted off the podium, sympathetically of course, and subject to evaluation of professional capacity. For the sake of beneficence. In contrast, the imperative of non-maleficence applies to the other one.

I think what was meant up-thread is “congestive heart failure”. But one of the candidates arguably has cognitive heart failure. —- Doesn’t the ill-advised Supreme Court ruling inadvertently support refusal to capitulate to cognitive function testing? Otherwise, submitting to such evaluation is a fiduciary, legal one might assert, responsibility. Not a bad strategy given the forecasted election outcome. — Having done clinical rotation in Geriatric Psychiatry I would suggest that standardized rigorous cognitive testing formats exist in the public domain and any candidate can work at finesse with coached practice. Advantage DJT because they transcend other pathology and mendacity. Comparatively off-cuff contexts, eg, May JB interview with Burnett, recent CNN debate, tomorrow’s ABC interview, etc, are reasonable surrogate markers of capacity. The problem with the debate opponent challenge is how to evaluate any senior person’s ability to respond to a Roseanne Roseannadanna gone sociopathic. —— I vote for the next dragon hatchling to be named Suckrates. The wording itself tracks.

There must be a root cause.

True, with 1 or 2 varieties, hardly near 57.

Sigh. “Child Pornography” is an easier sell in language and legal terms and is appropriate terminology because what is distinctive about pornography is that it is oriented to inciting sexual excitement, whether acceptable or not. It is implicit that the imagery constitutes abuse.

Hindsight is too clear. Judging by the popularity of such a comment, clairvoyance is rampant within the population viewing erotica. It’s too easy to conflate legal yet objectionable (to some) pornography content with the background existence of unequivocally illegal conduct. One is not automatically a corollary of the other. It is, and will be, given evidentiary value but that should be restricted to the court of public opinion. That said, I wholeheartedly reject the nomenclature of “boy”, for example, within any sexualized context other than related legislation, the reason as much to do with the inability of the general population to grasp nuance as with the idea it is creepy particularly when paired with imagery suggestive of youth. The reason I’m not surprised is that the charges and convictions are so ubiquitous judging by USA sentencing data. Similarly reflecting such vast community interest in thematically edgy porn. That, and naïveté among users. Known players will inevitably emerge and folks will assert they look the part as if it’s a meaningful contribution. If those judgements are accurate then there is no end to the quantity of porn creators that should be under suspicion. The subject of discussion was only under surveillance once named by another arrested person (ahem, canary) snagged in the FBI investigative net and given incentivizing informant status months previously. That person’s arrest was unrelated to the subject of discussion.

Couldn’t it be due to Edge-y material including the embedded ‘Boytoyflirt’ redirect, tasteful STI discussions, etc?

Yes, certainly very incriminating, and the alleged file name itself related to the 10-yr old, albeit in Spanish, clearly stated the content as above, so it cannot be easily argued as having been embedded in a video that contained innocuous material, with the person in possession claiming to be unaware or polyglottally challenged, even if large 3-figure caches contain elements of simulated content with colloquial terms (eg, “boy”) in keeping with the technically legal but gateway performative material that is so prolific and monetized for ‘fan’ consumption. SouthernDistrictNY sentencing length appears to be an anomaly, for the year referenced anyway, a 1% microcosm of cumulative federal cases. Recent NY state Child Pornography federal sentence lengths are much greater and consistent with overall national trends. Only the more serious cases are publicized, so it’s difficult to get a sense of what mitigating factors yield a mere probation sentence.

Inquiring minds want to know: how did you breach the firewall to enter your above post, then?

Yeah but what’s Nippon’s follow thru rate for that clamping?