I think this kind of research is rather unethical and farcical. Like the previous research, where they came to the conclusion that Putin was an autist, based so

I think this kind of research is rather unethical and farcical. Like the previous research, where they came to the conclusion that Putin was an autist, based solely on Youtube video's. http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2015/feb/07/putin-aspergers-story-stupidity-of-psychological-diagnosis-from-a-distance http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2015/feb/07... it seems like a clumsy attempt to discredit Putin, so that people don’t take him seriously. we’re just being given pure conjecture, dressed up as convincing scientific knowledge. This sort of practice doesn’t offer any useful scientific insight into, well, anything, and it misrepresents how science works, and what good quality scientific research looks like. I do understand that as a public figure one attracts more scrutiny. But I also thought that medical professionals, like neurologists, fall under Hippocratic Oath: Whatever, in the course of my practice, I may see or hear (even when not invited), whatever I may happen to obtain knowledge of, if it be not proper to repeat it, I will keep sacred and secret within my own breast. If a neurologist is allowed to dig up old KGB manuals to classify heads of state as gunslingers, I am allowed to say this has nothing to do with fast gun access, but everything with signalling stature through body language: People will pass you by at your swinging arm and not bump into you when you employ this gate. Either that or old habits really do die hard, and Putin carries a gun to summits.