I've probably deposed 50 psychiatrists/psychologists in my day, and consulted with probably an equal number. Doesn't make me a psychologist, but it does mean I know what a defensible diagnosis requires. And that's including diagnoses with the DSM-III, III-R, IV, and V.
There is a huge modern tendency to describe personality traits as disorders -- essentially lowering the standards for what actually constitutes a disorder. Mostly, it's done by lay people, or non-psychiatrists/psychologists, though pop psychiatrists/psychologists will do the same thing on occasion. Anyway, every single one of the 100 or so I've deposed/consulted with has said that a personal interview is mandatory if you want to have a reliable, defensible diagnosis. There are simply too many variables that cannot be determined otherwise.
Great points, imho. Thanks.
I certainly agree that there are tooooo many variables to be dogmatic about such a conjectured diagnosis without a face to face set of interviews and a test battery.
On the whole, I don't mind reasonable and mostly respectful diagnostic conjectures of public figures. The public figures hold themselves out as paragon examples to lead us . . . and, imho, . . . deserve some serious scrutiny.
Though I think the scrutiny needs to happen initially at the local levels when they start out on the political path.
Some, no doubt, get worse the more power they garner.
Certainly themes in a life, a personality are likely readily observable in public figures. And, those can be compared to diagnostic criteria. HOWEVER, THAT is a very flawed way to arrive at a conjectured diagnosis, imho.
It may be worth doing in the interest of informing the public, protecting the public from abject crazy/demonized behaviors and potentials on the part of public leaders. But it needs to be seen as and related to as a very flawed way to go about it.
I've often reflected on my Dissertation Chairman's comment about the MMPI. The MMPI--the granddaddy of all paper/pencil diagnostic instruments has many dozens--100's probably--of sub-scales. There's even an MMPI sub-scale to predict the success of back surgery--that turns out to be fairly accurate.
However, my Chairman could demonstrate that BASICALLY, the MMPI measures one thing--CRAZINESS. Period.
Diagnostic labels are shorthand. They enable professionals, insurance companies and courts to discuss problematic behavior with less words--without using a description of the behavior vs a label continually.
And, when shorthand labels are used, nuance, details etc. are lost along the way. Sometimes the details are hugely significant and sometimes, not so much.
I happen to think that the nuance details regarding Trump and his history and life are likely more important than
@Victoria33 seems to think they are. That's no huge biggy. Professionals often disagree. If something is critical, one usually gathers together a panel of experts known for objectivity to pour over the evidence and try and arrive at a consensus.
I think what sometimes annoys me about media pontificating professionals about politicos is that they largely seem to be at least AS influenced by political biases as they are diagnostic variables. Yet, they try and make it sound like 100% of their perspective is strictly professional diagnostic criteria. I'm
not saying
@Victoria33 does that but many do.
Imho, 95% or more of the upper level politicos in our current culture are narcissists to megalomaniacs to psychopaths. Maybe that's an exaggeration. Maybe not. Certainly the bulk of them are pathological liars with Shrillery and Dillbo chief among them on that score.
And another important issue that tends to get lost in such pontifications is the very critical issue of
DEGREE of malady. And that virtually always ranges from a little to at or near maximum. Soros, Klintoons, OThuga, Boxer, SKerry, et al take the cake. SKerry may not be clinically near the top in terms of abject craziness but he is sure out of touch with reality to a huge degree. Some of the others are psychopathic/sociopathic to a horrible degree, imho.
Anyway . . . I love discussions like this with folks who value civility.
I love and enjoy Victoria33 for a variety of reasons. She's an enormously experienced and well trained Christian professional. She tends to be thorough--even exhaustive in her research. She's brilliant. She's kind. She chooses her words probably much more carefully than I do. She's sensitive and perceptive. I value her opinions and feelings about such a lot--even when we disagree.
I prefer to have a sense of humor about snarky stuff until it gets personal about personhood, sanity etc. But actually, it would be better to be just left out of discussions totally.
imho.
