AndrewEndowed24 said:
She is operating so far outside of the parameters of reasonable scientific controls that she cannot be the least bit confident that she isn't superimposing her experiences onto onto phenomena to which they don't apply. People are riled up, things aren't going well, it would make sense for a psychologists to read 'clinical disorders' into the faces of those they deeply hate. Is it normal practice in psychology to diagnose disorders to people you are biased against for political reasons? it seems like any reasonable psychologist (if such a thing exists) would step aside if they had a significant personal motive in showing that a patient is incompetent.
I beg you read the date the article was published- 2002. It was NOT a function of her "hating him" politically, which is something people throw up so readily as a rebuttal to objections to his specific actions. I find this weak and unworthy of argument. None of us know him personally, he might be fun to go fishing with or have an entertaining day hanging around with, but that has nothing to do with his qualifications as the leader of the free world. Why to I have to "hate him" to think he's incompetent? I "hate" the job he's doing- I don't know him as a person. Is that clear enough?
The paper is full of vague terms:
- Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity
- Grandiose behavior
- A rigid, judgmental outlook
- Impatience
- Childish behavior
- Irresponsible behavior
- Irrational rationalization
- Projection
- Overreaction
They are general enough to fit the bill for Dry Alcoholism but could clearly have many alternate causes. It is a laundry list of common place human behaviors, how can anyone possibly infer from those a specific disorder?
In case you are unaware, the field of psychology is in its infancy stages, there are simply no better tools available than grouping traits into categories to form profiles of disorders. EVERY psychological disorder is described thusly.
A problematic aspect is that these traits are likely to cause one another and thus it would be remarkably easy for someone to exhibit all or some of these traits without being a dry alcoholic because one need only develop one of them (for *some* reason) to potentially develop them all.
It's even worse than that- being a "dry drunk" actually has NOTHING to do with alcohol. You are right is assessing that one thing may cause another, and in this case, the attempt to describe the "dry drunk" is really an effort to describe the underlying mental defficiency that "drives one to drink". Obviously, there are many people with the same (as yet not fully understood) disorder who never choose to drink. Some carry out their behaviors in other excesses (like gambling or even sex addiction), while some do what we call "white knuckling", which means they overcome their urges with staunch self-control, but never really understand the driving force behind their desires to begin with.
Please understand, I am in no way calling this an absolute diagnosis, nor do I believe it was postured as such.
I also believe that EVERYONE has some of these symptoms in varying degrees, and that some degree of any of them can be completely normal. Since the study of the mind is not a numerical science, there are no absolutes and exact diagnoses that would satisfy the more numerically grounded mind. If that is our difference, we will just have to accept it. Nothing about psychology can be "proven" yet, but I think the value of exploration exists in that we may arrive there one day if we keep striving to do so.
Another problem is that all of these terms are completely subjective, they have more to do with one's relationship to a social group -ie. whether one's perceptions and statements match the perceptions and statements of his gorup- than one's relationship with reality. The fact that Bush appears to exhibit these could be a function of his cloistered situation within a sub-group that has very different values and expectations from this woman and most of us on this board.
Naw, I doubt it would just be his upbringing or everyone who lived a life of privelege would have the same personality quirks, but I understand where you're going. The terms ARE subjective, which is why it helps a little to understand what is meant by them. When language limits the exact expression of an idea, it is difficult to express in terms clearly understandable to persons outside the group for which they exist. In the rooms of AA, you'd see a lot of nodding heads, and this is because each of us has had to confront these things within
ourselves. Definitions become much easier then.
We also roll our eyes in unison when some n00b exhibits these symptoms and we mutter "untreated alcoholism" under our breath.
Think of it like trolling. Hard to describe, but you know it when you see it. What's the difference between an annoying member and a troll here? Kind of like the difference between a heavy drinker and an alcoholic. They look the same in a bar at happy hour though.
Finally, I strongly dislike the attempt to reduce legitimate intellectual tension to name calling.
And I resent the attempt to describe a psychological profile as a "name"! Is it "name calling" to call a schizophrenic what he is? Is it name calling to call a cancer patient that? This is absurd- trying to figure out what the fucking problem is is NOT name calling!
Bush's conservativism involves an 'us against them' attitude. This attitude may have been held by luminaries such as Edmund Burke, Thomas Hobbes and Plato, it is a philosophy -not a disease. This is the very concept of the nation state, that at some level it is us against them. This politcal philosophy was disagreed with by JS Mill and Locke, both of whom had the decency to assault it on its merits (or lack thereof) rather than simply screaming that anyone who isn't a nice liberal must have a mental disorder. Still, I would say that Bush's us against them is significantly less pronounced than the clear headed Kissinger's Real Politik version of 'us against them'.
a "kill or be killed mentality;" the tunnel vision;
"I" as opposed to "we" thinking;
the black and white polarized thought processes (good versus evil, all or nothing thinking).
Right, and you will find no small number of "experts" in the field of psychology who would call all of that a mentally deficient way of thinking. It's the very dependancy on duality that leaves one without tools necessary to handle the many situations in life that call for more options than two. Anyone who strives to become an adult will have found many times before reaching the age of majority that life is simply NOT black and white all the time. This kind of thinking is immature (as in underdeveloped) at best, and dangerous at worst.
You are free to call it "just another philosophy" if you like, but I'll be rolling my eyes and muttering "hogwash" under my breath.
His drive to finish his father's battles is of no small significance, psychologically
Right. Same cabinet, same enemy. I think it's fair to call this obsessive behavior, considering Saddam had nothing whatever to do with 9/11.
The first three are remarkable verbal abstractions, I have no idea how one could decide who those terms wouldn't apply to, I think that everyone I know exhibits these to a significant degree. The last line on the list can easily be explained by childhood experiences, it doesn't necessarily to have anything to do with alcoholism, but we should note that the plan to go into Iraq was developed far before Bush2. They were considered a potential threat by the neo-con foriegn policy advisers ten years earlier.
As I said earlier, it is only in
degrees that we could call this a syndrome. Does bush exhibit these characteristics more or less than the average person? How strongly do his decisions seem to be based on faulty logic? Is his behavior rash and uncompromising compared to other human beings in general? Yes, everyone has some negative behaviors and thinking patterns sometimes, the question is, how much of a person's life is influenced by these "character flaws"? It is my *opinion* based on observations of what little is available to the public, and on his public behaviors and decisions since 1999 that he has more of them than the average person.
This article did nothing but lower my opinion of the psychology in general. Our shrinks are the Jesuits of the 20th and 21st century, bridging the gap between heaven (our emotions) and earth (reality) with a complex series of meaningless phrases. I really don't see why we bother with this stuff, there is no wisdom to be found here, only pompous asses calling people they dislike sick under the guise of science.
You do rather nicely at name calling yourself, pal. Anyway, if you find it unworthy, why have you spent so much time on it? I find it interesting to study the workings of the mind, and accept the limitations of the tools we have as of today, in the hopes that continued discussion and study will take psychology to greater places as the field develops. We could have said the same thing of medical science in the dark ages, but if they'd given up, we'd have never found ways to cure the many diseases we have. I am personally very grateful that some people don't need absolutes to find worthiness in study. That would be very limiting indeed.