{"id":1227,"date":"2017-02-12T17:47:38","date_gmt":"2017-02-13T01:47:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.stevenreidbordmd.com\/?p=1227"},"modified":"2017-02-12T17:55:44","modified_gmt":"2017-02-13T01:55:44","slug":"diagnosing-donald-trump","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/blog.stevenreidbordmd.com\/?p=1227","title":{"rendered":"Diagnosing Donald Trump"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>On January 31, 2017, the\u00a0Psychology Today<\/em>\u00a0editorial staff\u00a0published<\/a>\u00a0a well-balanced summary of the debate over whether to declare President Trump mentally ill. While the debate focuses on mental health professionals such as psychiatrists and psychologists who are credentialed to make such diagnoses, the question clearly goes further. \u00a0Public commentary following this and\u00a0other<\/a>\u00a0articles\u00a0expresses outrage \u2014 not only at the behaviors and policies of Trump himself, but also at any suggestion that diagnosis is off-limits as a form of political criticism. \u00a0We\u00a0want<\/em>\u00a0to be able to call public figures crazy when we don’t like them. \u00a0We defend our right to do so.<\/p>\n

Criticizing a person’s character, not the content of their arguments, was recognized by ancient Greek philosophers as a logical fallacy:\u00a0argumentum ad hominem<\/em>. \u00a0Yet the character of powerful politicians\u00a0seems vitally important. \u00a0Does our president have integrity? \u00a0Is he trustworthy? \u00a0Will he stand by what he says? \u00a0There is no avoiding questions of character when global war could result from a leader’s imprudence, irritability, or petty\u00a0revenge.<\/p>\n

Our armamentarium of terms of disapproval is large. \u00a0Some are purely moral, terms like “bad” or “evil.” \u00a0Some highlight impaired intellect: “shortsighted,” “foolish,” “idiot.” \u00a0Some take aim at undue self-interest and self-aggrandizement: “selfish,” “cold-hearted,” “narcisssist.” \u00a0There is no clear distinction between putdowns that derive from psychological concepts and those that derive from\u00a0religious\u00a0morality\u00a0and other roots. \u00a0It is as legitimate to criticize Trump as\u00a0narcissistic\u00a0as it is to say he’s too hot-headed (or inexperienced) to be President. \u00a0And it is equally legitimate to argue against these criticisms, if one happens to support him.<\/p>\n

Using\u00a0psychiatric\u00a0diagnoses \u2014 not just psychologically derived adjectives \u2014\u00a0adds rhetorical weight to one’s critique, particularly,\u00a0but not only, if the speaker is a mental health professional. \u00a0A diagnosis, e.g.,\u00a0Narcissistic Personality Disorder, connotes a carefully considered conclusion based on scientific research \u2014 far more than a mere personal opinion. \u00a0There is an implied consensus: unbiased experts would concur if they looked carefully at the data.<\/p>\n

Critique-by-diagnosis also unfortunately capitalizes on\u00a0prejudice\u00a0against the mentally ill, tarring the target with a label that diminishes him and sets him apart from the rest of us. \u00a0Diagnosis would not serve as political disapproval if it primarily called forth pity and\u00a0generosity. \u00a0It is offered as\u00a0disqualification, hardly the thing mental health advocates would want associated with, say, a\u00a0personality disorder.<\/p>\n

The “Goldwater Rule” instructing psychiatrists not to diagnose public figures was promulgated by the American Psychiatric Association to protect its brand. \u00a0Psychiatric diagnosis was, and is,\u00a0already fraught. \u00a0Some who are opposed to psychiatry reject diagnosis on principle, while many others\u00a0fear\u00a0its negative impacts. \u00a0The authority to pass judgment on the mental functioning of others is not to be taken lightly. \u00a0By analogy, society would not grant police officers the right to make arrests if they did so for political expediency or to express a strongly held personal opinion.<\/p>\n

Little is gained by arguing that\u00a0President Trump meets criteria for a DSM-5 psychiatric disorder. \u00a0Other terms of disapproval can be just as powerful, without the liability of adding to psychiatric stigma, dulling the tools of our trade, and popularizing the use of psychiatric terms to\u00a0double<\/a>\u00a0for everyday personality descriptions.<\/p>\n

It also makes no practical difference. Diagnosis is mainly for treatment, clearly not the point here, and Mr. Trump’s character is what it is. \u00a0(And lest we forget, many people like it.) \u00a0The public will continue to use terms like “liar” and “idiot” and even “narcissist”\u00a0for disliked politicians. \u00a0As private citizens we mental health professionals may do so as well \u2014 with the added advantage that we’re more apt to use psychological terms accurately, and can sometimes extrapolate character style to predict future behavior. \u00a0But all this is different than diagnosis proper. \u00a0Diagnosis is a sharp instrument\u00a0for\u00a0helping patients, but only a blunt weapon\u00a0in political discourse.<\/p>\n

Reposted<\/a> from psychologytoday.com.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On January 31, 2017, the Psychology Today editorial staff published a well-balanced summary of the debate over whether to declare President Trump mentally ill. While the debate focuses on mental health professionals such as psychiatrists and psychologists who are credentialed to make such diagnoses, the question clearly goes further. Public commentary following this and other […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,7],"tags":[70,32,44],"class_list":["post-1227","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-events","category-psychiatric-diagnosis","tag-current-events","tag-psychology-today","tag-stigma","odd"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.stevenreidbordmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1227","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.stevenreidbordmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.stevenreidbordmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.stevenreidbordmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.stevenreidbordmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1227"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"http:\/\/blog.stevenreidbordmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1227\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1234,"href":"http:\/\/blog.stevenreidbordmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1227\/revisions\/1234"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.stevenreidbordmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1227"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.stevenreidbordmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1227"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.stevenreidbordmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1227"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}