Psychology as a factor in politics.

[LateForLunch]

There has been a lot of discussion of terms borrowed from the psychology lexicon, some of it used appropriately, some of it used inappropriately. In some circumstances it has been used licentiously and (forgive me) idiotically.

To kick of the thread I wanted to point out something that has been bothering me a lot, which is the tendency for people to "psychologize".

Charles Krauthammer is a well-known former psychiatrist who is now a political commentator/author. He was asked frequently to assess the psychological fitness/condition of Barack Obama and others over the last many years and he always refused.

He based his refusal on the fact that no reputable psychological professional would ever venture to make that sort of assessment about anyone from a distance. Even with the cooperation of the principle subject, it is pretty difficult to get an accurate, fair appraisal of their character and personality.

Most professionals who try to do that for a client will have them take some personality assessments in the form of test batteries( using some fairly technical metrics) and also engage the subject in interviews to get an idea of what they DO in addition to how they may feel or think about things.

What a person does in a psychological sense is generally demarcated into two categories: (1) overt behavior (actions) and (2) verbal  behavior (what they say or otherwise express in words.

The greater part of any psychological assessment of a subject is always their overt behavior, and that takes research and honest testimony not only by the  principle but also by those who know and interact with them over a long period of time (to exclude transitory affects).

So bottom line is that the best anyone can do to try to assess a person's psychological state (characterologically or otherwise) from a distance is make speculative conjectures. This process is so far removed from anything even remotely resembling ethical psychological examination or appraisal that the derogatory term "psychologizing"  has been developed to describe it.

Is so-and-so a Narcissist?

The only responsible answer to that question is, "Nobody really knows".

Any discussion of someone's comprehensive psychological state (character or "sanity") outside the context of understanding that one is discussing only a speculative conjecture bound to fail to say much intelligent or accurate about the principle, is far more likely to speak accurately only about the psychology, proclivities or character of the people doing the speculating.   

[Suppressed]

Psychiatrists won't comment because of APA prohibition on it, based on the 1964 Fact magazine incident, along with the damages awarded based on it.

But just because they won't comment doesn't mean any competent practitioners don't realize that NPD is at least part of Mr. Trump's pathology.

I'm not a mental-health professional, but I think it's only wise to face with open eyes Mr. Trump's behavior, its effects, and appropriate responses.

[LateForLunch]

Psychiatrists won't comment because of APA prohibition on it, based on the 1964 Fact magazine incident, along with the damages awarded based on it.

But just because they won't comment doesn't mean any competent practitioners don't realize that NPD is at least part of Mr. Trump's pathology.

I'm not a mental-health professional, but I think it's only wise to face with open eyes Mr. Trump's behavior, its effects, and appropriate responses.

I completely disagree. The 1964 Fact magazine issue and resultant legal case pertained to professional appraisals, not to personal opinions. The authors of the article represented themselves a making a professional appraisal, not expressing a personal opinion. Just as a lawyer who stated publicly in a professional publication on law, that someone was guilty of a crime ( not just expressing a personal opinion but stating it as a fact) could be held accountable by the Bar Association and be held liable for damages in civil court.   

The notion that psychologists who do not express an opinion (for whatever reason) are automatically in agreement with you is to say the least, a stretch. At worst it's ludicrous. Some who have not expressed opinions may agree with you about Trump having narcissistic tendencies and some may not. 

A term for expressing psychological opinions "from a distance" has been coined. That term is "psychologizing". Reputable mental health professionals don't do it. It's not a matter of legality but of morality and to some degree, dignity.

[Sanguine]

Of course we know if so-and-so is a narcissist, because it is defined and measurable:

A personality disorder is a pattern of deviant or abnormal behavior that the person doesn't change even though it causes emotional upsets and trouble with other people at work and in personal relationships. It is not limited to episodes of mental illness, and it is not caused by drug or alcohol use, head injury, or illness. There are about a dozen different behavior patterns classified as personality disorders by DSM-IV. All the personality disorders show up as deviations from normal in one or more of the following:
(1) cognition -- i.e., perception, thinking, and interpretation of oneself, other people, and events;
(2) affectivity -- i.e., emotional responses (range, intensity, lability, appropriateness);
(3) interpersonal functions;
(4) impulsivity.

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html

[Idaho_Cowboy]

We don't need to get a preacher to figure out if someone is a liar. 

[LateForLunch]

Quoting from the DSM is psychologizing. Anyone with a sixth grade education can do that. That is so far removed from ethical, responsible psychotherapeutic technique that it is ludicrous.

I'm not going to turn over this thread to bitter posters grinding a personal ax.
There are other threads for that if people want to spend all of their time engaging in morbid fantasies believing that they are qualified to pass judgment on other people's sanity by speculating on public behavior.

The persona that people project in public life is not generally indicative of their totality.
For instance, Mick Jagger is known to be a fairly bookish, reserved character in his personal life.

Off topic stuff about people's opinions about Donald Trump is hijacking the thread. I don't do it when I post on other people's threads and I'd appreciate a little courtesy in not cluttering up this thread with endless vituperations disguised as "discussions" tantamount to reckless excursions into hate-fantasies.

We will see soon enough if all of the baroque, elegant, exaggerated fears about Donald Trump being a despotic lunatic are justified or not. Until then how about the Never Trumpers would give it a rest and stay on topic.

I get that some may believe that it is responsible, ethical and helpful to pronounce judgment on someone's psychological fitness from a distance, never having met  them, interviewed them, spoken with anyone who knows them personally or ever been closer that ttwo thousand miles to them.

I do not. We can agree to disagree but please accept my disagreement and don't feel that I am somehow obligated to agree with people just because they feel passionately about their own opinions (even if they have ZERO professional training in psychology, have never trained with professionals, have barely spoken with anyone who has nor have done any serious technical reading or study on topics of psychopathology).

[Sanguine]

Quoting from the DSM is psychologizing. Anyone with a sixth grade education can do that. That is so far removed from ethical, responsible psychotherapeutic technique that it is ludicrous.

I'm not going to turn over this thread to bitter posters grinding a personal ax.
There are other threads for that if people want to spend all of their time engaging in morbid fantasies believing that they are qualified to pass judgment on other people's sanity by speculating on public behavior.

The persona that people project in public life is not generally indicative of their totality.
For instance, Mick Jagger is known to be a fairly bookish, reserved character in his personal life.

Off topic stuff about people's opinions about Donald Trump is hijacking the thread. I don't do it when I post on other people's threads and I'd appreciate a little courtesy in not cluttering up this thread with endless vituperations disguised as "discussions" tantamount to reckless excursions into hate-fantasies.

We will see soon enough if all of the baroque, elegant, exaggerated fears about Donald Trump being a despotic lunatic are justified or not. Until then how about the Never Trumpers would give it a rest and stay on topic.

I get that some may believe that it is responsible, ethical and helpful to pronounce judgment on someone's psychological fitness from a distance, never having met  them, interviewed them, spoken with anyone who knows them personally or ever been closer that ttwo thousand miles to them.

I do not. We can agree to disagree but please accept my disagreement and don't feel that I am somehow obligated to agree with people just because they feel passionately about their own opinions (even if they have ZERO professional training in psychology, have never trained with professionals, have barely spoken with anyone who has nor have done any serious technical reading or study on topics of psychopathology).

Nonsense.  You asked:  "Is so-and-so a Narcissist?  The only responsible answer to that question is, "Nobody really knows". "

I answered that specific question.  Too bad it wasn't the answer that fit into your screed.

[Gefn]

Bookmarking.

[LateForLunch]

Nonsense.  You asked:  "Is so-and-so a Narcissist?  The only responsible answer to that question is, "Nobody really knows". "

I answered that specific question.  Too bad it wasn't the answer that fit into your screed.

Please don't be disingenuous.

You rudely dismissed my points by utterly ignoring them, steamrolled over my very substantive, politely-phrased objections and proceeded to launch into an (adolescent) psychologizing screed yourself quoting from the DSM as if you have any remote idea what you are talking about. I repeat, quoting from psychological lexicon or analytical text does not qualify anyone to make blanket pronouncements as if they are facts about the comprehensive psychological base state of another human being.

It is clear that some would like to dehumanize Donald Trump but like it or not, he is a human being and due minimal consideration as such. However one may feel about him, his distant past overt behavior or his recent verbal behavior, DJT is not some sort of object to be brutally vivisected under a cold-blooded microscopic (or telescopic) examination. 

It is notable within the context of this discussion, that Joseph Stalin utilized a very similar technique as a method of last resort to stultify and attack political adversaries ( whom he regarded as enemies) to wit; those whom he personally or otherwise strongly disliked. They were labeled not just wrong on policy or ideology, but insane.

I cannot easily believe that anyone of normal intellect, or good conscience would want to further a tradition of political engagement which traces that sort of trajectory for very long.

[Sanguine]

Please don't be disingenuous.

You rudely dismissed my points by utterly ignoring them, steamrolled over my very substantive, politely-phrased objections and proceeded to launch into an (adolescent) psychologizing screed yourself quoting from the DSM as if you have any remote idea what you are talking about. I repeat, quoting from psychological lexicon or analytical text does not qualify anyone to make blanket pronouncements as if they are facts about the comprehensive psychological base state of another human being.

It is clear that some would like to dehumanize Donald Trump but like it or not, he is a human being and due minimal consideration as such. However one may feel about him, his distant past overt behavior or his recent verbal behavior, DJT is not some sort of object to be brutally dissected under a cold-blooded microscopic vivisection.

It is notable within the context of this discussion, that Joseph Stalin utilized a very similar technique as a method of last resort to stultify and attack political adversaries ( whom he regarded as enemies) those whom he personally or otherwise strongly opposed. They were labeled not just wrong on policy or ideology, but insane.

I cannot easily believe that anyone of normal intellect, or good conscience would want to further a tradition of political engagement which traces that sort of trajectory for very long.

Nope, I was only addressing the one point in my original comment and will continue to do so. 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Quoting from the DSM is psychologizing. Anyone with a sixth grade education can do that. That is so far removed from ethical, responsible psychotherapeutic technique that it is ludicrous.

I'm not going to turn over this thread to bitter posters grinding a personal ax.
There are other threads for that if people want to spend all of their time engaging in morbid fantasies believing that they are qualified to pass judgment on other people's sanity by speculating on public behavior.

The persona that people project in public life is not generally indicative of their totality.
For instance, Mick Jagger is known to be a fairly bookish, reserved character in his personal life.

Off topic stuff about people's opinions about Donald Trump is hijacking the thread. I don't do it when I post on other people's threads and I'd appreciate a little courtesy in not cluttering up this thread with endless vituperations disguised as "discussions" tantamount to reckless excursions into hate-fantasies.

We will see soon enough if all of the baroque, elegant, exaggerated fears about Donald Trump being a despotic lunatic are justified or not. Until then how about the Never Trumpers would give it a rest and stay on topic.

I get that some may believe that it is responsible, ethical and helpful to pronounce judgment on someone's psychological fitness from a distance, never having met  them, interviewed them, spoken with anyone who knows them personally or ever been closer that ttwo thousand miles to them.

I do not. We can agree to disagree but please accept my disagreement and don't feel that I am somehow obligated to agree with people just because they feel passionately about their own opinions (even if they have ZERO professional training in psychology, have never trained with professionals, have barely spoken with anyone who has nor have done any serious technical reading or study on topics of psychopathology).

Person B: Look a bird
Person A: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Person B: Now see here, my good man are you a biologist?
Person A: Well, no; but I no a duck when I see one...

[LateForLunch]

Person B: Look a bird
Person A: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Person B: Now see here, my good man are you a biologist?
Person A: Well, no; but I no a duck when I see one...

hah hah that's a good one!! Know doubt about it.

[Suppressed]

Quoting from the DSM is psychologizing. Anyone with a sixth grade education can do that. That is so far removed from ethical, responsible psychotherapeutic technique that it is ludicrous.

Who was talking about psychotherapeutic?  This is evaluation, not treatment.  (For that matter, you don't seem to know the difference between psychology and psychiatry, judging from your OP.)

I'm not going to turn over this thread to bitter posters grinding a personal ax.
There are other threads for that if people want to spend all of their time engaging in morbid fantasies believing that they are qualified to pass judgment on other people's sanity by speculating on public behavior.

I didn't realize you owned this thread.

I get that some may believe that it is responsible, ethical and helpful to pronounce judgment on someone's psychological fitness from a distance, never having met  them, interviewed them, spoken with anyone who knows them personally or ever been closer that ttwo thousand miles to them.

So you have absolutely no judgement on the psychological fitness of Charles Manson or Ted Bundy?  Really?

(even if they have ZERO professional training in psychology, have never trained with professionals, have barely spoken with anyone who has nor have done any serious technical reading or study on topics of psychopathology).

You should realize that not all of us are as ignorant or untrained as you assume. 

Likewise, some of us know those who've had business dealings with Mr. Trump.  Believe me, they were far more Never Trump than anyone on TBR!

Feel free to put on blinders and live in a fantasy world.  That doesn't mean the rest of the world has to.

[Emjay]

Quoting from the DSM is psychologizing. Anyone with a sixth grade education can do that. That is so far removed from ethical, responsible psychotherapeutic technique that it is ludicrous.

I'm not going to turn over this thread to bitter posters grinding a personal ax.
There are other threads for that if people want to spend all of their time engaging in morbid fantasies believing that they are qualified to pass judgment on other people's sanity by speculating on public behavior.

The persona that people project in public life is not generally indicative of their totality.
For instance, Mick Jagger is known to be a fairly bookish, reserved character in his personal life.

Off topic stuff about people's opinions about Donald Trump is hijacking the thread. I don't do it when I post on other people's threads and I'd appreciate a little courtesy in not cluttering up this thread with endless vituperations disguised as "discussions" tantamount to reckless excursions into hate-fantasies.

We will see soon enough if all of the baroque, elegant, exaggerated fears about Donald Trump being a despotic lunatic are justified or not. Until then how about the Never Trumpers would give it a rest and stay on topic.

I get that some may believe that it is responsible, ethical and helpful to pronounce judgment on someone's psychological fitness from a distance, never having met  them, interviewed them, spoken with anyone who knows them personally or ever been closer that ttwo thousand miles to them.

I do not. We can agree to disagree but please accept my disagreement and don't feel that I am somehow obligated to agree with people just because they feel passionately about their own opinions (even if they have ZERO professional training in psychology, have never trained with professionals, have barely spoken with anyone who has nor have done any serious technical reading or study on topics of psychopathology).

Scuse me?? You post a thread and then say you're not gonna turn it over to posters you don't like and that you consider bitter?

Who are you to decide if we're bitter or not? Isn't that psychoanalyzing us?  Maybe we're just having fun and you think it's bitter.

[Frank Cannon]

Is so-and-so a Narcissist?

The only responsible answer to that question is, "Nobody really knows".

Any discussion of someone's comprehensive psychological state (character or "sanity") outside the context of understanding that one is discussing only a speculative conjecture bound to fail to say much intelligent or accurate about the principle, is far more likely to speak accurately only about the psychology, proclivities or character of the people doing the speculating.   

This is nothing but long winded masturbatory bullshit. Bottom line: Donny is a narcissist. We don't need a Doctor to tell us that because most of us have experienced them before. They make themselves very evident. We don't have to follow any Doctors code of conduct either because we are all free thinking humans. We size people up according to certain behaviors and classify them. It's a process as old as man himself.

[LateForLunch]

This is nothing but long winded masturbatory bullshit. Bottom line: Donny is a narcissist. We don't need a Doctor to tell us that because most of us have experienced them before. They make themselves very evident. We don't have to follow any Doctors code of conduct either because we are all free thinking humans. We size people up according to certain behaviors and classify them. It's a process as old as man himself.

That whole spiel comes close to being complete bombastic, adolescent screed-vomit, so it's not worthy of a serious refutation. Your posts are usually much better than that, Frank. WFT!?! Besides, that is not the topic of the thread anyway, so you're being rude. The topic of the thread is psychology and politics, not Trump's alleged narcissism. I don't go over to your threads and try to hijack them by demanding to talk about what I want to talk about instead of the original topic. I suppose that you will defend the right to be rude as some sort of libertarian issue as well. 

And since we're already far off topic, you need to think about changing your diet, Frank. You look TERRIBLE.