![]() Consider narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), the diagnosis most commonly invoked with respect to Trump. As Samuel Guze and Eli Robins (1970) observed in a classic article, valid diagnoses supply new information not afforded by behaviour alone. At the same time, his critique is overstated. The latter information, they insist, is a distraction.įrances is surely correct that many diagnoses impart less insight into politicians’ behaviour than most laypeople assume. Some prominent psychiatrists, such as Allen Frances, argue that we should focus on Trump’s erratic and irresponsible behaviour, not on his psychiatric diagnosis or diagnoses. Consequently, there are scant scientific grounds for a categorical ban on psychiatrists’ diagnoses from a distance.īut what, if anything, would a formal diagnosis of Trump tell us? Few authors in TDCDT broach this question. Plenty of data not discussed in the book indicate that informant (observer) reports are often more valid than the self-reported data on which direct interviews largely rely that the addition of direct interview data at times reduces rather than increases validity when plentiful behavioural data are available that interviewers are typically unable to detect interviewee efforts at impression management and that valid psychiatric diagnoses can often be made by interviewing people who know the target individual well.įurthermore, as a few TDCDT authors note, the Goldwater rule may have been sensible in the 1960s, but it is almost surely outdated in the modern era of Twitter and other social media forums, cable television, and the internet, which provide ample data from multiple sources on politicians’ behaviour. Nevertheless, as we ( Lilienfeld, Miller, and Lynam) observed in an article in Perspectives on Psychological Science, the empirical support for this “direct interview assumption” is negligible. Surprisingly, few authors challenge the evidentiary basis of the Goldwater rule several accept uncritically the cornerstone assumption that a direct psychiatric examination is a prerequisite for a valid diagnosis of a public figure. ![]() In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association responded to the Goldwater brouhaha by enshrining Section 7.3, now colloquially termed the Goldwater rule, into its ethical canon.Īcross TDCDT’s assorted chapters, numerous authors willfully ignore or blatantly flout the Goldwater rule, offering an occasionally engaging but just as frequently bewildering mix of analyses of the psychological sources of Trump’s behaviour, his early emotional development, and his probable diagnostic status. Two years later, Goldwater sued Fact for libel, and was awarded $75 000 in damages. Others maintained that he suffered from schizophrenia, paranoia, or other disorders. Many referred to Goldwater in derogatory terms: “emotionally unstable,” “immature,” “grossly psychotic,” “paranoid,” and “delusional,” among others. Of the 2417 who responded, 1189 deemed Goldwater unfit to serve as president. As the campaign drew to a close, the editor of Fact magazine, Ralph Ginzburg, sent a survey to 12 356 psychiatrists asking for their opinion of Goldwater’s mental health. The Goldwater rule emerged from the embers of the bitter 1964 US presidential election, which pitted the Republican candidate Barry Goldwater against Democrat Lyndon Johnson. ![]() This tome pulls together discussions about Trump and the Goldwater rule, which prohibits psychiatrists from commenting on the diagnostic status of public figures they have never personally examined (in cases where they have examined them, they must obtain permission from these figures to do so). These questions lurk incessantly in the background of a recent and widely discussed book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President (hereafter TDCDT). More than any person in recent memory, Donald J Trump has ignited fierce debate about the wisdom, or lack thereof, of weighing in on the mental health of public figures. ![]() These thorny questions have acquired renewed urgency in the wake of the stunning ascension of a certain flamboyant American politician. When, if ever, should psychiatrists and other mental health professionals be permitted to comment on the psychiatric status of public figures, including politicians? When, if ever, are their comments on public figures well advised? The rise of Trump has ignited fierce debate about the Goldwater rule, but what, if anything, would a formal diagnosis of Trump tell us? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |