SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I've come across an article on The Atlantic that analyses Trump's personality:
Many questions have arisen about Trump during this campaign season—about his platform, his knowledge of issues, his inflammatory language, his level of comfort with political violence. This article touches on some of that. But its central aim is to create a psychological portrait of the man. Who is he, really? How does his mind work? How might he go about making decisions in office, were he to become president? And what does all that suggest about the sort of president he'd be?
It's a long, but very interesting read.
Here's a list of sentences the article itself highlights:
Combined with a gift for humor, anger lies at the heart of Trump's charisma.
Trump appeals to an ancient fear of contagion, which analogizes out-groups to parasites and poisons.
Narcissism in presidents is a double-edged sword. It is associated with historians' ratings of "greatness"—but also with impeachment resolutions.
Andrew Jackson displayed many of the same psychological qualities that we see in Trump.
Trump has never forgotten the lesson from his father: The world is a dangerous place. You have to be ready to fight.
And the final paragraph summarizes:
Who, really, is Donald Trump? What's behind the actor's mask? I can discern little more than narcissistic motivations and a complementary personal narrative about winning at any cost. It is as if Trump has invested so much of himself in developing and refining his socially dominant role that he has nothing left over to create a meaningful story for his life, or for the nation. It is always Donald Trump playing Donald Trump, fighting to win, but never knowing why.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday November 14 2016, @09:44PM
Now we all have our own bits of narcissism, unless we've had our ego completely beaten out of us by a miserable life. Me? I like to think I'm pretty smart and have a wide range of knowledge, even though the reality is that there are plenty of smarter people out there. Just like all but the most self-sacrificing martyrs have at least a little Machiavellianism.
But, narcissism as a dimensional personality measure is very much different from narcissitic personality disorder [wikipedia.org], which has a crippling need for attention and admiration and dangerous, threatening responses to criticism and negative attention.
Now, I'm not qualified to make a diagnosis like this psychologist is(though he's missing the interview required for a proper diagnosis), I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Trump(or at least his public image) is actually a slam dunk for all 9 diagnostic criteria, in a way that seems to me to be unprecedented in presidential history.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @10:40PM
I'm actually a physician qualified to make the diagnosis. Although, I won't pretend to do it based off of what the media portrays or what someone says in front of the camera. While you're probably not far off about Trump, Obama's narcissism is off the charts.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 14 2016, @10:45PM
Obama, either Clinton, at least one of the Bushes, Nixon, Carter... every last one was utterly convinced that they knew better than anyone else in the world how to run this nation. Narcissism is damned near a job requirement for holding public office.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday November 14 2016, @11:00PM
Again, yes, as a personality trait, the disorder I linked is different. They're two different things. When attention and praise becomes a need, you're starting to be in the NPD territory, whereas Obama and the others you list is more in the top percentile "high self image" category.
From the wiki(which in turn references DSM-V)
Obama might be an okay example of #9, and a real stretch for #5, but the rest would be super-reaching. He may be narcissistic, and may even have an extremely well-disguised case of NPD, but his public persona doesn't match those criteria. Not at all.
You gotta understand, this isn't just a smear where I think "the bad guys" who "oppose me" and thus have "bad trait". I, for example, sincerely doubt that Trump is a full-on psychopath, and he only exhibits baseline political candidate levels of that(except, of course, for the comorbid with NPD lack of empathy). But the need for praise, and the extreme anger at being criticized, and history of exploitative business relationships, and thinking everyone envies him, and absolute fixation on all 4 items in item #2 are just shoe-ins.
Again, I lack both the credentials and proper review to make a proper diagnosis, but you're bullshitting me with this "every politician is just as bad" nonsense.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 14 2016, @11:17PM
I think you're projecting what you want to see onto the former leaders and candidates. Obama hits every single one of those criteria except possibly 8. In spades. As have all on the list I posted earlier. I mean, really, it takes one fuckload of hubris to think you know better than anyone else what this nation needs. I'm amazed all Presidents don't ring the whole string of bells.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @11:24PM
I don't like Obama, I think he fucked us over with his hope for change shit. But Ikanreed is right, Obama has a much more level mental state than Trump, by a huge margin. From your "all Presidents" statement it is clear you are painting with too broad of a brush, stereotyping if you will. Pretty much every major candidate has shown a more stable personality than Trump, at least as long as I've been alive.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 15 2016, @12:58AM
More stable, yes. Less narcissistic, no.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @11:25PM
> I think you're projecting what you want to see onto the former leaders and candidates.
You win today's award for least self-aware post.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:01AM
Oh please. Most anyone who thinks they should be leading the most powerful nation in the world has one hell of a god complex. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive to the point of willful blindness.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:17AM
> god-complex
You are really having a hard time comprehending the difference between NPD and narcissism, aren't you?
I wonder, are you a dictionary pedant and think the word has one and only one meaning, a meaning that you happen to be particularly invested in?
Or are you just doubling-down because your ego is too brittle to admit a mistake no matter how glaringly obvious it is to everyone watching you?
I'm sure your response will be unintentionally revealing all on its own.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:39AM
Run through the checklist on each of them from what is publicly known. Each and every one fit at least eight of the nine that were listed. Except Reagan. Guy was like Mr. Rogers levels of humble to the American people if not to the rest of the world. Yeah, he was an actor but he wasn't that good of an actor.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @04:38AM
Game. Set. Match.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @05:03AM
Proof by non-example.
In Buzzaro-world that's the strongest possible argument.
You really can't argue with that logic.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 15 2016, @11:46AM
Chuckles, I don't need to offer proof for what you can prove to yourself in seconds. Look at the list. Objectively rate each President. Now apologize for wasting everyone's time.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @07:50AM
The fact that they all look the same to you is a function of where you stand, not where they are.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 15 2016, @11:43AM
Where I stand on this is Nonpartisanville, Reality. How about you?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:01PM
> Where I stand on this is Nonpartisanville, Reality. How about you?
Lol. Do you hear yourself?
That's about as plausible as the MSM claiming they are non-partisan.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 15 2016, @08:56PM
Oh I know you're butthurt that I rip on your team more than the other one. That's only because the ones creating the progressive movement at the moment are anti-liberty hatemongers though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:30PM
No, you've got a pretty consistent pro-idiot slant, whether you assign that a party affiliation or not.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 15 2016, @08:53PM
That's funny coming from a "liberal" whose president has expanded pretty much every anti-liberty program Bush created/allowed. Are you even still a liberal if you're against the liberty that is your root word?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @11:05PM
I've been thinking about that a lot today. I think he's a people pleaser.
It started when Kellyanne Conway said that the most important qualification that Bannon and Priebus had for their new jobs is that they "have the ear of the boss." [politico.com] That seemed like it ought to be a function of the job, not a qualification for it. At most, a bare minimum requirement for consideration.
And then I started thinking about all the reporting that Trump values loyalty above all else. [liveuamap.com] How he kept Corey Lewndowaski on as his campaign manager long after it was obvious he wasn't helping. And how he kept him on the payroll even while he was employed as a commentator on CNN.
How when Putin's remark that Trump was a "colorful character" was mistranslated as "brilliant guy" and he fell all over himself to praise Putin in response. He even spelled out exactly why: "If he says great things about me, I'm going to say great things about him." [washingtonpost.com]
Then there were the reports that Trump's position on any issue was basically the position of whomever he most recently talked to. [vox.com] Which explains a lot of his contradictory statements and even his making-nice about Obamacare after talking to Obama.
And remember when he said there should be punishment for women who have an abortion? [politifact.com] That was so off the charts crazy that even most anti-abortion groups said that was taking it too far. He said that because he wanted to please the anti-abortion wing of the republican party and saw it as "if a little bit is good, a lot must be better."
Leslie Stahl did a bit today on the CBSN News streaming channel where the talked about interviewing him for 60 minutes and his reaction to finding out that people were being intimidated and attacked by newly emboldened racists. She said that by his demeanor it wasn't just news to him, but that the very concept of his rhetoric inciting violence against the vulnerable was new to him. He simply had not ever considered that might be a consequence. That the protestors were responding to the inherent threats of his campaign rhetoric was a surprise twist he just had not seen coming.
All together it paints a picture of a man with a giant gaping hole that he's constantly trying to fill with the validation of others. That what Trump values most is sycophancy. People who give him affirmation. And when he does not get affirmation, he lashes out.