News Flash: Psychiatrict Diagnoses Trump as a "Charismatic Psychopath"

[brewer]

Charismatic Psychopath is not a valid diagnosis but a description of observed behavior. This would fall under antisocial personality disorder diagnosis. 

The author is an LCSW, not qualified to make a psychiatric diagnosis, especially when based on what he sees in the media alone. 

The author's website: http://www.powercommunicating.com/services.html 

Not convinced in the least.

[Thal]

They lost me at "Charismatic."

[Angrboda]

If you like this sort of thing, here's an interesting analysis the U.S. government did on Hitler.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitl...index.html

[Rev. Rye]

That said, Trump (except for the evidence of Conduct Disorder, and in the absence of evidence of clinical Mania or Schizophrenia) really does seem to fit the DSM's definition of Anti-Social Personality Disorder.


Note only Three of these seven criteria need to be met, and yet he fits every one.

• failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest. Aside from reintroducing blatant racism into mainstream politics for the first time since George Wallace ran for president, he repeatedly flouts the law to the point that there is actually some argument that Trump has already done impeachable offenses BEFORE EVEN ASSUMING OFFICE.
  
• deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; A comprehensive bullet-point list of all of Trump's lies can easily fill a book the size of Atlas Shrugged. That said, though he's significantly worse than many other candidates, this is still kind of part and parcel for the political process.
  
• impulsivity or failure to plan ahead; Let's be realistic, does anyone really believe Trump thought his campaign through? Christ, he's still Tweeting like he wasn't even elected President. Also, his tendency to flip-flop on issues (like his proposed Muslim registry) really betrays this.
  
• irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; Is there any word that better describes Trump's campaign than Aggressive? And not just aggressive about some higher cause, I mean aggressive towards anyone who stands in his way, from his veiled threats against Hilary Clinton (to the extent that it actually took some time for me to find the tweet I mentioned below because he threatened her many other times) or his outright accusing Ted Cruz's father of assassinating JFK.
  
• reckless disregard for safety of self or others; Once again, he has suggested Hilary Clinton travel without a bodyguard and "see what happens to her," and doesn't seem concerned at all that his proposed border wall will A) Become the most expensive architectural boondoggle in American history, (though cost estimates range wildly from Trump's own $5-10 billion to the American Action Forum's $619 billion) B) NOT be paid by Mexico (and, no, making it taller won't make them pay it), C) have a disastrous effect on the economy in numerous ways, D) Displace many people, and E) Not even actually keep out illegal immigrants.
  
• consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations; JESUS CHRIST WHERE TO BEGIN? Well, apart from all the stuff I mentioned in this little list, there's the fact that Trump is insanely evasive about his tax returns, and what little information has been leaked (read: the first three pages of his 1995 Tax returns) points to the fact that he's hemorrhaging money.
  
• lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another. You want the short answer or the long answer? Short answer: CENTRAL PARK FIVE. Long Answer: In 1989, four black teens (and one Latino teen) were arrested for allegedly gang-raping a woman, despite their persistent denial. And Trump, for whatever reason, decided he had a horse in this race and took a strong anti-CP5 stance and even took out a full-page ad demanding the death penalty. Then, in 2002, the five were exonerated when the actual culprit confessed and DNA testing corroborated his account. And as recently as two months ago, he insisted they had to be guilty despite all of that.
  

He fits every single one of those seven criteria, and I'm sure someone who has enough time to do so could easily write a book-length piece about it. Granted, I'm not a certified psychologist and I've never met the SOB, but despite the link in the OP's low qualifications, the conclusion still appears to be valid.

[Minimalist]

Charismatic Psychopath is not a valid diagnosis but a description of observed behavior. This would fall under antisocial personality disorder diagnosis. 

The author is an LCSW, not qualified to make a psychiatric diagnosis, especially when based on what he sees in the media alone. 

The author's website: http://www.powercommunicating.com/services.html 

Not convinced in the least.

Drumpf's cabinet picks have convinced me completely.

[GUBU]

whether it means Neville Chamberlain screwing over the Czechs so the British Armed Forces can buy some time to rearm for a proper war against Hitler

Pity then that September 1938 was a far better time to go to war than a year later. Germany was behind the UK in every aspect but combined arms tactics (a fact that was true even in 1941, and the Germans lost the tactics edge because Hitler was unwilling to learn. Add in the fact that in 1938 the Germans would be attacking into the teeth of a technologically equivalent army whose defences they couldn't easily bypass, and you've got a sitation where Hitler would have denuded the Westerm defences to gain the immediate goal, allowing the French and the BEF to waltz in and take the Rhine without serious opposition. Chamberlain went appeasement not because of any want to strengthen his hand, but because he thought the UK could work with Hitler and because he was afraid of war.

[Minimalist]

More:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/three-pr...tally-ill/

Three professors of psychiatry call for ‘neuropsychiatric evaluation’ of Trump out of fears he’s mentally ill

In a letter addressed to President Barack Obama, three professors of psychiatry — including one from Harvard Medical School — expressed fears that President-elect Donald Trump’s exhibits signs he may not be mentally fit to assume the presidency.
In the letter, which can be found at The Huffington Post, Judith Herman, M.D. a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School — along with two professors who taught at the University of California, San Francisco — made the appeal to Obama based upon their “grave concern” after watching Trump’s antics.
“We are writing to express our grave concern regarding the mental stability of our President-Elect,” the letter reads. “Professional standards do not permit us to venture a diagnosis for a public figure whom we have not evaluated personally.”
“His widely reported symptoms of mental instability — including grandiosity, impulsivity, hypersensitivity to slights or criticism, and an apparent inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality — lead us to question his fitness for the immense responsibilities of the office,” it continues. “We strongly recommend that, in preparation for assuming these responsibilities, he receive a full medical and neuropsychiatric evaluation by an impartial team of investigators.”

Unfortunately, being sane is not a job requirement.

[CapnAwesome]

I'm pretty shocked that a Psychiatrist can go through all the school and not have heard of the Goldwater Rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_rule

The Goldwater rule is the informal name given to of Section 7.3 in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) code of ethics[1] which states it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined in person and obtained consent from to discuss their mental health in public statements.[2] It is named after presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.[3]

The issue arose in 1964 when Fact magazine published the article "The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater."[3][4] The magazine polled psychiatrists about American Senator Barry Goldwater and whether he was fit to be president.[5][6] In Goldwater v. Ginzburg Goldwater filed a libel suit in response to the article, he won $75,000 in damages.[3]

So in short, it is neither ethical, legal nor scientifically correct to make disagnosis of public figures you haven't examined yourself. The only reason anybody would give this any credence is because they already thought that about Trump. In which case who cares.

[Minimalist]

Drumpf is fucking crazy, man.  Deal with it.

[CapnAwesome]

Drumpf is fucking crazy, man.  Deal with it.

It could be, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he had Narcissistic personality disorder, but that psychiatrist (and you) wouldn't know, because he hasn't examined him. He's also explicitly violating APA guidelines and ethics, opening himself up to civil penalties. Trump could sue him and would almost certainly win, just like Goldwater did 50 years ago. He's also a dumbshit because he went through 8+ years of college and never heard of or didn't remember the Goldwater rule which I remember from an ethics in psychology class I took more then 10 years ago.