Christine Ford and “not” Kavanaugh

It is being reported at teaparty.org that Ford called herself a psychologist in her testimony and years ago on a website, a title that is supposed to be reserved for people of proven qualifications and a license, which it now appears that she lacks.

Supposedly in the therapist’s notes Ford said that the attack took place in her late teens, but her more recent story is that it took place when she was 15.

Why would that matter?

Kavanaugh was about 2 years older than her and if the attack took place in her late teens, Kavanaugh may not have been in close proximity. So, in order to make the accusation against Kav more credible, the age at which it takes place must have been shifted, or so it is alleged by some.

I was talking with one of my favorite naturopaths on Saturday. I am more in favor of the Kav nomination and he is more doubtful or opposed. Maybe the guy is completely opposed and we simply did not get to a full hearing of his political view, on the nomination.

We’ve had 2 or 3 discussions of the credibility of Ford. I began to discuss with him memory amplification and the studies on memories done on veterans . . . and I found that that he had this idea that a memory of a trauma was going to be solid, accurate and reliable.

I believe and I believe it can be proven objectively that people misremember traumas, either with wrong details and also that some of them invent whole traumas and consider them a memory.

The guy, our favorite naturopath, is a medical doctor and he has more years of formal education than I do . . . but I don’t think they taught him or that he remembers or is aware of the research.

There are people who are challenging Kav’s accuracy and honesty. I get emails from the nation and they had a piece prior to the publication of the allegation, alleging falsehood and/or dishonesty in his testimony to the Senate.

I grew up in the LDS church and left at the age of almost 25. A lot of people would conclude that Joseph Smith the lds leader had an overactive imagination that he believed in or experienced in a way that he seemingly believed. It could be from demons or imagination or psychic ability or whatever, but some people seemingly “believe” in falsehoods they have themselves created.

Some people seem to be alleging that he drank more or more frequently than he implies.

anyway, it appears that Christine Ford was breaking California law for years and did so as well in her Senate testimony. It is alleged that her colleagues who are researchers abstain from calling themselves a psychologist.

I think that the nation article before the allegation publicization may have proven dishonesty or deception by Kavanaugh, but I also think that re the Christine Ford allegation, things are overwhelmingly in favor of no Kavanaugh involvement.

Ford may have been abused by someone at some point, dad, brother, uncle, high school student, date guy, college guy . . .

but the evidence continues to accumulate that it was not Kavanaugh.

The naturopath and I then discuss a personality type he called narcissistic. I had been describing a certain dead relative without using a psychological label, and the guy says, “That is narcissism,” or something similar.

The Washington Post ran a headline that simply read, “Christine Blasey Ford, psychologist,” The Atlantic’s headline read, “Christine Blasey Ford, A Psychologist, Testifies to Congress,” Slate‘s headline read, “Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony combined her own expert analysis of the situation,” The New Yorker‘s headline read “Christine Blasey Ford is Serving As Both A Witness And An Expert,” and the Wall Street Journal ran with “Ford’s Testimony Reminds Us That She’s A Psychologist.” As of Friday morning, Ford’s Wikipedia entry also identified her occupation as “Psychologist.” According to California law, all of these are false. Ford is not a psychologist.

I just did a search on the topic of narcissistic personality disorder, a condition that includes actions and emotional manifestations manifested by my certain dead relative.

According to the DSM, it is about 1% of the population that has “narcissistic personality disorder.” The thing to ask, for and about the narcissists, is, how often does lying or a distorted imagination feed the narcissism?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *