I should note the final error of the previous year: The must-read American Injustice index is here, not where I said it was in yesterday's post.
Also, we should add one further observation to our summary of the life and works of Saddam Hussein: Y'know all those people he tortured and killed? Lot of 'em were communists. Which is why the torture and killing did not bother Americans at the time.
Finally, the commentary arising from the "Antisocial" post below prompts a few further words on the chic practice of diagnosing politicians "from afar."
The practice of what has been called psychohistory is controversial enough when applied to the dead; when applied to the living, a definite stench enters the nostrils. And yet...years ago, I read and learned much from Waite's now-classic psychological study of Hitler, The Psychopathic God. While Adolf was alive, the OSS hired Walter Langer to do a similar (albeit much briefer) study.
Perhaps we simply need a new word. The term "diagnosis" should be restricted to professional practice, except when the writer speaks in a metaphorical or very informal fashion. Surely, though, we can find some legitimate way of using the insights offered by psychology when writing about current leaders?
3 comments:
I agree that a new term is needed, diagnosis being set in our minds as a hands-on medical opinion. But I think this approach is valid in the hands of a competent psychologist/psychiatrist. We all use it every day, really, in evaluating persons we meet and do business with. We trust one person, not another. We may not know why, but a few courses in psychology would probably enlighten us as to our reasons. People 'give themselves away' in many ways: body language, demeanor, words, actions, etc. The book by Dr. Frank (?) about our current CIC is, by all respects a valid appraisal. I suppose it comes down to the credentials as well as the street-cred of the person doing the analysis.
fallinglady
Yes, we non-professionals should drop use of the professional DSM terms. (Besides, the term "diagnosis" is only useful if treatment is next up anyway.) Otherwise it’s anyone’s go, either side. And there is room for abuse. But, I think there is a difference between leaders and patients and that is the degree to which the private lives of public leaders are legitimately public, not so with private patients.
Still, we can and do make our own legitimate decisions on the mental health levels of politicians without using professional terms or even ratios of functional to dysfunctional. And sometimes, our decisions are based on only one incident. Use of the term "Macaca" by a politician is not enough to qualify for a DSM diagnosis but it is also not an appropriate characteristic of a leader in the free world. People took this one thing as enough indication of a problem and acted accordingly. One thing. It represented a lot. But that would never pass professional DSM muster.
So there’s really more power in the minds (and votes) of the people according to their personal DSM’s criteria (Deciding Someone’s Messed-up) than what the professionals and printed DSM offers.
I so wish there were videos/audios of Bush. Say, is prescription meds for Bush public information?
BTW, Happy New Year!
Miss P.
Wow!! Now I'm totally confused.
It is my (mis)understanding that few personality disorders have a specific, objective, diagnostic test. So the psychologist brings knowledge and experience to the process, but basically observes the subject, scanning for some of the traits as listed in the DSM. If a sufficient number of them are present and exert sufficient influence over the subject's behavior, the diagnosis is made on that basis. Since such traits might be shared by a number of disorders, two psychologists might each make a different diagnosis and both have substantial reason for doing so.The process incorporates both art and science.
Furthermore, the gathering of information by sessions or interaction between the psychologist and patient is quite artificial, formally speaking. The psychologist could probably do better being a "fly on the wall" if such a thing were possible. At least the behavior of the subject would be less guarded and disagreeable traits less concealed. Previous posts mentioned Ted Bundy. I was under the impression, perhaps wrongly so, that by most accounts he was uncommonly charming, to the extent that his intended victims felt no threat until it was too late. Certainly, Mr. Bundy would have turned on the charm and subtly avoided tracts that might expose his disease. (Both, I suppose red flags to those with mental health experience.) But, you can imagine that a psychologist could gather a lot of valid information about Mr. Bundy's behavior from family members and intended victims who escaped at the last minute.
A diagnosis gives us (the layman observers)some idea of what other personality traits are likely to come forward. But, I suppose it also validates the false impression that we can make sense out of something like "Dubya's" behavior.
Maybe we non-professionals should have an "Idle Speculation Manual".
Post a Comment