4 ms·

Two dangers around this perspective seem evident to me: 1. Diagnosing others based on second hand information. Presumably not as a professional either. 2. Att

Two dangers around this perspective seem evident to me: 1. Diagnosing others based on second hand information. Presumably not as a professional either. 2. Attempting to define right and "wrong" behavior in a psychological context. On (1): you experience a vast minority of Trump's or Job's life (unless you know them personally). How can you possibly hold to those claims? You have no idea how either of them acted in non-public contexts. On (2): I would assume that establishing a proper range for "sanity" sits as one of the larger difficulties around the psychological field of study (although I do not know). Too narrow of a definition and you risk identifying everyone with something wrong. Too wide and you risk alienating those who could benefit from some kind of help. I completely agree with your categorization of mental health services as a "weak point" in society largely unaddressed. With that, I think individuals need to exhibit care throwing around 'diagnoses' casually outside of a proper psychological context.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
There's plenty of material out on the personal lives of Jobs and Trump. Steve exhibited a range of very odd behavior and some of it was clearly detrimental (see how he denied his paternity to the point of delusion). If we can't call that bad behavior than we have no stance on proper morals. Trump also projects as someone with a personality disorder. We have plenty of material to suggest that his behavior is in fact unhealthy and detrimental. My point wasn't to diagnose those two (you'll notice I did not), but to point out just two individuals which have signs of personality disorder. They may not in fact have any disorders, but how many Jobs wannabes do and that kind of behavior is not just tolerated but celebrated? That context is a real enabler for people with disorders.
- fasquoika 9y ago
  By claiming that public figures can be diagnosed by someone who doesn't know them personally, I get the impression you have no idea what is actually involved in a psychological diagnosis. For example, many mental health issues can be the result of physical health issues. In such cases the mental effects are considered part of the physical illness and a separate mental diagnosis is not given. This means that someone's full medical history is necessary for a diagnosis of mental illness. Clinical psychology isn't just running around throwing diagnoses at people who seem sufficiently "crazy", there's lots of specific rules. To get a sense of what is actually required for a diagnosis, reading sections of the DSM-V is invaluable. Here's a link: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_xpcySB9uWfejF1S0xlLU95Y2M/edit https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_xpcySB9uWfejF1S0xlLU95Y2M/...
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    Not diagnosing them, just saying there's something off and that may be linked to a personality disorder. That's not a controversial statement is it?
  - curun1r 9y ago
    You're absolutely right that there's a lot more that goes into a clinical diagnosis of a psychological issue. It's important in that setting because it informs the likely treatment and it's very important to use all the information at your disposal to arrive at the most complete diagnosis. But that doesn't mean that it's not valuable to use incomplete information to speculate on a diagnosis in other settings. Historians do this when they can use psychological theory to explain the actions of the people they're writing about. The example that stands out in my memory was Alice Miller's exploration of Hitler's possible psychological profile in "For Your Own Good." Just because she wasn't working from a complete medical profile doesn't devalue that exploration, it just means that the conclusions reached should be interpreted differently. Her diagnosis wasn't aimed at crafting a course of treatment for the individual since he was long dead. Instead, it was meant as a way to understand how a set of normal and understandable circumstances can yield an individual so far from normal that he could otherwise defy understanding. It seems quite natural that Steve Jobs would be psychoanalyzed in much the same fashion. He was someone who was highly successful and impactful, so to the extent that his psychological profile can be mined for traits and practices that led to that success, it should. And he was highly polarizing, so we can also find areas of his profile that current and future leaders should be aware being possibilities in themselves as well. But since Jobs is dead, the need for a clinical accuracy in the diagnosis is gone. A more probabilistic diagnosis that looks at what was likely going on rather than concluding what is going on is all we can do. Trump, while still alive, is also a candidate for this type of psychoanalysis. Like Jobs, no part of the diagnosis will lead to any course of treatment. In fact the most common diagnosis people seem to claim (narcissistic personality disorder) would mean that Trump would be very likely ignore any of that speculation, no matter how accurate it is. But where this type of analysis can be useful is in guiding the rest of us in how we respond to Trump's actions. Again, it's not important for us to be perfectly correct, it's only important to inform our actions based on the most likely diagnosis. Because the consequences of a "we can't know, so we shouldn't guess" are just too high. This is a man that can start wars, launch nuclear missiles or exercise any of the myriad powers granted to the US President. Even a limited understanding of the thought process of the man wielding those powers can be vital to opponents and allies in the US and other world leaders abroad.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

There's plenty of material out on the personal lives of Jobs and Trump. Steve exhibited a range of very odd behavior and some of it was clearly detrimental (see how he denied his paternity to the point of delusion). If we can't call that bad behavior than we have no stance on proper morals. Trump also projects as someone with a personality disorder. We have plenty of material to suggest that his behavior is in fact unhealthy and detrimental. My point wasn't to diagnose those two (you'll notice I did not), but to point out just two individuals which have signs of personality disorder. They may not in fact have any disorders, but how many Jobs wannabes do and that kind of behavior is not just tolerated but celebrated? That context is a real enabler for people with disorders.

fasquoika 9y ago
By claiming that public figures can be diagnosed by someone who doesn't know them personally, I get the impression you have no idea what is actually involved in a psychological diagnosis. For example, many mental health issues can be the result of physical health issues. In such cases the mental effects are considered part of the physical illness and a separate mental diagnosis is not given. This means that someone's full medical history is necessary for a diagnosis of mental illness. Clinical psychology isn't just running around throwing diagnoses at people who seem sufficiently "crazy", there's lots of specific rules. To get a sense of what is actually required for a diagnosis, reading sections of the DSM-V is invaluable. Here's a link: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_xpcySB9uWfejF1S0xlLU95Y2M/edit https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_xpcySB9uWfejF1S0xlLU95Y2M/...
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Not diagnosing them, just saying there's something off and that may be linked to a personality disorder. That's not a controversial statement is it?
- curun1r 9y ago
  You're absolutely right that there's a lot more that goes into a clinical diagnosis of a psychological issue. It's important in that setting because it informs the likely treatment and it's very important to use all the information at your disposal to arrive at the most complete diagnosis. But that doesn't mean that it's not valuable to use incomplete information to speculate on a diagnosis in other settings. Historians do this when they can use psychological theory to explain the actions of the people they're writing about. The example that stands out in my memory was Alice Miller's exploration of Hitler's possible psychological profile in "For Your Own Good." Just because she wasn't working from a complete medical profile doesn't devalue that exploration, it just means that the conclusions reached should be interpreted differently. Her diagnosis wasn't aimed at crafting a course of treatment for the individual since he was long dead. Instead, it was meant as a way to understand how a set of normal and understandable circumstances can yield an individual so far from normal that he could otherwise defy understanding. It seems quite natural that Steve Jobs would be psychoanalyzed in much the same fashion. He was someone who was highly successful and impactful, so to the extent that his psychological profile can be mined for traits and practices that led to that success, it should. And he was highly polarizing, so we can also find areas of his profile that current and future leaders should be aware being possibilities in themselves as well. But since Jobs is dead, the need for a clinical accuracy in the diagnosis is gone. A more probabilistic diagnosis that looks at what was likely going on rather than concluding what is going on is all we can do. Trump, while still alive, is also a candidate for this type of psychoanalysis. Like Jobs, no part of the diagnosis will lead to any course of treatment. In fact the most common diagnosis people seem to claim (narcissistic personality disorder) would mean that Trump would be very likely ignore any of that speculation, no matter how accurate it is. But where this type of analysis can be useful is in guiding the rest of us in how we respond to Trump's actions. Again, it's not important for us to be perfectly correct, it's only important to inform our actions based on the most likely diagnosis. Because the consequences of a "we can't know, so we shouldn't guess" are just too high. This is a man that can start wars, launch nuclear missiles or exercise any of the myriad powers granted to the US President. Even a limited understanding of the thought process of the man wielding those powers can be vital to opponents and allies in the US and other world leaders abroad.