Ben Carson and the psychology exam

I haven't seen a thread on this, so figured I'd start one. If there's already a thread, please let me know:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/11/ben-carson-and-tale-redemption

There's a story in Carson's book that goes like this:

The WSJ checked this one out, since it sounded so far-fetched, and found that it just doesn't seem to be true -- for starters, there was no class named "Perceptions 301" at Yale at the time.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ben-carsons-past-faces-deeper-questions-1446861864

In response, Carson's campaign came back with ... this:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/11/ben-carsons-psychology-test-story-gets-even-weirder

So Carson is now claiming that he apparently fell for the hoax, went to the fake retest, and took it, and that's the basis of his story!

Except for several things:

1. There's no evidence for most of what he claims. For instance, there's no evidence that 150 students took the test, or that everyone eventually walked out, or that a professor ever showed up, or that a professor gave him $10. The story says "a few students" showed up. And if there were handing out money for "honesty", I'd think that would show up as a detail.

But there's another weird thing that the stories don't highlight.

Remember how the class "Perceptions 301" didn't even exist? The retests were supposedly for Psychology 10.

So Carson claims to have taken a class that didn't exist -- and as proof, points to a hoax retest in a different class.

My question: Why would Carson show up to take a retest for a class he wasn't even taking?

Also note how his story is designed as a parable -- God gave me $10 when I needed it, and later, when I needed $10, God found a different way to give me $10.

My, what a conveniently parallel story!

Carson appears to have embellished a story he wasn't even part of, to create a Biblical parable to add to his life story.

We're now up to at least 12 loony or dissembling examples of Carson's beliefs and claims.

 

Maybe he's much sicker than he appears?

When did he give up his medical license?

 

the right doesnt care about lies

 

Judging by is delusional state, it was much later than he should have.

.

 

Additional claims by Carson on this exam that don't hold up:

1. He says he had his picture taken and it was published in the school newspaper. A search of the newspaper archives turns up no picture of Carson.

2. The date of the hoax exam has it occuring in Carson's freshman year, not his junior year as he claimed.

3. He points to a class named "Perceptions" in the Yale course catalog from 2002 as evidence that the class existed in the 1970s -- which, of course, isn't proof of anything, and the WSJ already examined the course catalogs from the 1970s and found no such class.

 

Carson has lied in his past therefore he can't be president. Can we resurrect George Washington.

 

If he forgot the class name, no big whoop.

The class name doesn't matter.

It's that he concocted a story to brag how he was awarded "the most honest person in the class" -- George Washington I cannot tell a lie style, and it turned out he lied about it. If he got any award, it was for being the most gullible.

Which, we know, he is.

 

I have been looking around.. He's 64 and it appears that he quit medicine three years ago at age 61.

 

Not being able to remember the class name is one thing. Claiming a very specific class name ("Perceptions 301") when you actually don't remember the class name -- that's weird.

The irony is strong.

 

Mostly, no one cares about lies when it is your guy doing the lying
And he is generally serving your agenda

 

Wow, I totally remember the course names of classes I took back in school.

 

When you fail to remember them, do you still write them down precisely in your book?

 

Carson's campaign is increasingly entirely to the far religious rightwing, which will pay well in Iowa as the Republican caucus system on the Republican side is largely only attended by rightwing religious zealots and old white people.

There is the obvious question of why would he appear to retake a test for a class he wasn't in?

His is a typical instance of a person who gives speeches praising himself year after year, decade after decade, for which the story always gets a little better and there are more stories each year. Ultimately he comes to believe the stories himself.

The significance is not so much lying as it is a person who makes reality out to be what he wants it to be - for him all in a spiritual context - and then will make his decisions based upon such fantasy. This was a problem with W Bush and Obama. They believed they could define reality by words and platitudes - and then acted upon that self delusion.

This is particularly dangerous in my opinion when put into a spiritual context, creating facts out of spiritual beliefs intermixed with ego.

 

If I had a book, I would probably try to estimate or approximate the name, yes.

 

There also is how bizarrely he is handling this.

For example, to a group of reporters he asked them if they all would promise to print that he's a wonderful candidate if he provides the name of the relative he claims he so violently tried to stab in the stomach in a violent outburst that he broke the blade on the victim's belt buckle - asking them all to raise their hands promising to do so.

That's pure nonsense, of course. If Carson were to prove just how horrifically he was explosively violent with deadly weapons in one instance does not therefore prove he would be a good president, does it?

That is the bizarrest of his claims - fervently insisting that he frequently and without good reason violently exploded and attacked many people with chains, bricks, a knife and even a hammer against his own mother. Yeah, that sounds like someone I want to be president, huh?

Yet it figures into his Pentacostal nature religious declarations. For Pentacostal types, it is critical to explain how they were among the most evil, sinful people on earth - and then were redeemed by Jesus. If you ever attended a Pentacostal church (he is instead 7th Day Adventist), there is a wailing room were people sob of how horrific they were and the terrible things they did, praising Jesus for saving the person from themselves. Like a contest, in services people will stand and each tell how they were even worse a person than everyone else had said before finding Jesus.

Carson is playing that religous card. It will work with rightwinger Christians, but more and more people will start pondering: "He tried to hit his own mother in the head with a hammer? Tried to stab a relative in the stomach with a knife?" Even Carson himself defined it as a "pathological" condition.

People at 13 and 14 have been convicted as adults for assaulting or killing other people. If it is a "pathology" (and Carson knows what the means), he is claiming this is his very nature for which he relies upon spiritually to contain himself.

Full Definition of PATHOLOGICAL

1
: of or relating to pathology
2
: altered or caused by disease; also : indicative of disease
3
: being such to a degree that is extreme, excessive, or markedly abnormal <a pathological liar> <pathological fear>

In Carson's own words, he has a pathologically violent personality so strong it causes him to act upon that mental illness as extreme as violently attacking his own mother, relatives and other people. Why would we want someone like that to be president? I think it's great if he found a religious belief as a self imposed restraint, but this is not someone I want to be president. Maybe his religous belief will co-align with his pathological mental illness for extreme violence for which the evil-satan Russia and China must be destroyed as his violent mission from God?

In my opinion, a man who attacked his mother with a hammer and tried to stab a relative in the stomach with a knife due to pathological violent outbursts should NEVER be commander-in-chief of our military.

 

Why?

#1, you could do some actual research -- pull your transcripts, for example -- and get it right. Not very hard.

#2, you could just write what you know -- "A psychology class in, I think, my junior year" -- or something like that.

#3. You could even do something like "I think the class was named Perceptions 301".

But what would possess you to simply make up a class name, when you could easily check or say you don't remember precisely?

 

You really think this is important huh. Keep at it bloodhound guy.

 

I don't think this is super important, no. But I think the contortions people are willing to put themselves through to defend Carson are fascinating.

I oppose Carson because I think he's a nutjob who is clearly out of his depth and has no business even being considered for a major party presidential nomination, much less leading the pack. I want the GOP to nominate someone like Rubio or Kasich, because even though I disagree with many of their positions, at least they're not incompetent whackjobs.

 

More 50 year old crapola. Maybe we should re-visit White Water, Vince Foster, Chinagate and travelgate? I think I will.

 

He wrote his books 50 years ago?

 

Wow, the left is really scared of Carson.

If only they went through Dreams of My Father with such a fine toothed comb.

 

A classic logical fail. Criticizing someone, even harshly, isn't evidence of being 'scared'. Unless you think the entire GOP/conservative establishment is terrified of Hillary. Or Sanders. Or whomever their villain-du-jour is.

Uh ... they did.

 

And all criticisms are equal, correct? The people here who are pondering the ramifications of Carson's medical practice given these book passages were equally concerned of the president due to his own colorful literary fabrications. Right?

 

Not sure what that means.

*Shrug*. Don't know if it's the same people; probably not. Just like the people who were deeply interested in looking for "lies" in Obama's books aren't particularly interested in uncovering Carson's.

Point is, both are being subjected to similar levels of scrutiny.

 

It means you attempted to correct my alleged "logical fail" with flawed logic of your own. My conclusion was not drawn due to the fact that criticisms were made. It was drawn from the types of criticisms that were made and the words used to lodge those criticisms. The armchair psychiatrists here are very concerned about his "sick" and "delusional" state to the point they are even questioning his medical practice. All this because they uncovered a story from his past that they can't directly confirm with a quick google search.

Yeah.

That's how Obama was treated by the media. For sure.