Donald Trump’s behavior is so far outside the norm that many people (including mental health professionals) have suggested that he is mentally ill. The most common suggestions I’ve seen are that he suffers from narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), antisocial personality disorder (ASPD, also known as sociopathy), or a combination of the two (known as malignant narcissism). There is also widespread concern about cognitive decline.
I looked up the diagnostic criteria for NPD and ASPD, and it’s shocking how many of the boxes Trump ticks. Here are the criteria for NPD according to the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual, the DSM-5-TR:
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (301.81 [F60.81])
Diagnostic Criteria
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
- Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).
- Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
- Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
- Requires excessive admiration.
- Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations).
- Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends).
- Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
- Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
- Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.
I would argue that Trump meets all 9 of those criteria. Only 5 are required for an NPD diagnosis.
Here are the criteria for ASPD:
Antisocial Personality Disorder (301.7 [F60.2])
Diagnostic Criteria
A. A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
- Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
- Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.
- Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
- Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.
- Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.
- Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
- Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
B. The individual is at least age 18 years.
C. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a manic episode.
I’d say that Trump meets all of the numbered criteria except #4. Only 3 are needed for an ASPD diagnosis. He’s certainly irritable and aggressive, but I haven’t heard reports of any physical altercations. He meets criteria B and D, but I don’t know enough about his early life to comment on criterion C, which is Conduct Disorder.
Anyway, the point is not whether Trump would qualify for a formal diagnosis. Diagnosis or no, any person who meets that many criteria for both NPD and ASPD is manifestly unfit for office.
Allan Miller,
An evidence based view.
While I can find positive comments on your side Keiths is void of any. Question: You appear to lean liberal. Why is this?
Ironic that one of .my few positives – on vaccines – is one of your few negatives.
Because I believe in fairer distribution of wealth, respect for minorities, universal healthcare, welfare. And, I am repulsed by many views I see represented by the Right. Trump and his appointees are a particularly stark example of that, but it’s true in many countries. Even if socialist parties frequently disappoint, right-wing ones disappoint more thoroughly.
Allan:
I love Jonathan Pie! I discovered him during the pandemic, and I still remember the first video I saw, in which he invented a drinking game to play during Trump’s Covid press conferences.
He really deserves to be better known here.
ETA:
LOCKDOWN Episode 4
I don’t see how anyone could know that he was a “very good guy with solid character”. Sure, he was devoted to his family. And therefore — ? After all, Hermann Goering was devoted his wife Emmy and Joseph Goebbels was devoted to his Magda. Being devoted to family is hardly proof of anything. If we wouldn’t say that Goebbels is exonerated from his role in Nazi Germany just because he was devoted to his wife and family, we shouldn’t say the same of anyone else, either.
It’s easy for humans to display empathy towards members of their own ‘tribe’. We’ve been doing that for hundreds of thousands of years. What’s much harder, and a more precarious achievement, is having empathy towards people who don’t share our religion, race, gender, or national origin.
And on that score, Kirk was an abysmal failure. He was an awful person, and he didn’t deserve to die. And no one who affirms that he was an awful person is saying that he did deserve to die. Lots of people are awful and I don’t believe any of them deserve death. (But every US President should be in a prison cell in the Hague, alongside Netanyahu, Putin, and quite a few others.)
And, we don’t really know why Tyler Robinson killed Kirk. There’s some evidence suggesting that Robinson was deeply immersed in online gaming culture and could have been in proximity to the Groypers, who passionately despise Kirk for not being far-right enough. My own suspicion, which is not worth very much, is that Robinson did not have a worked-out or coherent ideology of any kind.
One thing we know for sure is that Robinson was not on the political left. So everyone who said “the democrats own this” or “this means war” have been hurriedly deleting their tweets.
keiths,
I’ve seen him live – excellent show. He is a tremendous actor; I’d love to see him in a movie (though he does very well with this character).
keiths,
“Any criticism of Trump whatsoever can be dismissed out of hand with three little words…”. The words weren’t acronymed as TDS – Orange Man Bad – but may as well have been. This from April 2020.
Erik, to colewd and petrushka:
Petrushka is often evasive and reluctant to state his positions straightforwardly, preferring vague, noncommital comments, so I don’t know if this applies to him. But in colewd’s case, I think his real fear isn’t of the disapprobation of his tribe, but of the pain of giving up his comforting illusions regarding the Dear Leader. More on this in a later comment.
KN:
His text messages with his partner have been revealed, and the reason he gave was simply
Expect transphobes on the Right to make much of the fact that his partner is trans, though the partner had no idea of Robinson’s plans and was stunned by the news.
Allan Miller,
Thanks.
By fairer distribution of wealth do you have an example of a country where you think it is fair? How does England currently stack up against your expectations.
What issues on the right are you most concerned about?
keiths:
colewd:
You aren’t here to defend Trump? So when I show that he’s a malignant narcissist, a sexual predator, a pathological liar, and so on, you’re just going to meekly refuse to defend him? Some Trump supporter you are.
It’s not surprising that you would reach for this excuse. You can’t defend Trump, and it would be embarrassing to try to and fail — even more embarrassing than running away, which is what you’re currently doing. Best to just pretend that it isn’t your job to stand up for him and let us criticize him unopposed.
Not only are you failing to defend Trump, your’re failing to back up your accusations against us. Where’s your evidence that our claims are just liberal propaganda? Unsupported by evidence? Symptomatic of TDS? Where’s your evidence that anything I’ve said is dangerous and liable to incite political violence? Or that my statements make Trump look like a “choir boy” in comparison?
If it isn’t your job to oppose our criticisms of your Dear Leader, and if it isn’t your job to back up your own accusations against us, then what exactly is your job? What is your role in this discussion?
I keep asking you why a balanced view is necessary, but you never answer. If it’s legitimate to criticize Hitler without being required to say (or make up) good things about him, then why isn’t it the same with Trump? Are criticisms of Hitler and Trump false until we say something good about them? Is it false that Hitler murdered six million Jews unless I compliment his mustache? How does saying something good about him, or about Trump, suddenly transform my criticisms from false to true? It makes no sense.
What evidence of political bias? What have I said about Trump that isn’t accurate? Why make accusations that you can’t back up? (That’s a rhetorical question.)
I’m batting a thousand with my criticisms of Trump and you’re batting zero with your criticisms of me, and you’re claiming that my strategy isn’t working?
colewd,
I am now asking this for the sixth time: Are you truly unable to condemn the stoning of gay people?
Is Charlie Kirk’s approval of it consistent with your assessment of him as “a great kid”: and “a very good guy with solid character”? If so, why?
Channel 4 will tonight (UK) air a TV programme called ‘Trump vs Truth’. The blurb says:
“One of the characteristics of both of Donald Trump’s presidential terms is his disconnection from truth. To coincide with his second state visit to the UK, over several hours, Channel 4 examines a series of President Trump’s statements that are untrue. Drawn from interviews, social media, press conferences and speeches from the last eight months, each false claim will be followed by an analysis of the claim. The false claims might include misleading pronouncements, sweeping assertions without evidence, baseless claims, factual inaccuracies, and the sharing of fake or untrue social media posts”
The program starts at 10 pm UK time (BST) and lasts no less than 5 hours, until 3 am tomorrow morning.
Sounds like obligatory watching for participants in this discussion. It may perhaps be possible to watch it later on the Channel 4 App, I’m not sure.
Me, I will be sound asleep during the broadcast.
5 hours of Trump lies! That’s fantastic, and such an appropriate way to mark his visit. I would love to be in a room with colewd, watching a couple of hours of that show, just to observe his reactions and see how he would handle the cognitive dissonance.
keiths,
I am not here to defend Trump. I am here to discuss political alternatives.
keiths,
I don’t accept at face value any claim you make as you take most everything out of context to support your own ideology.
colewd,
As far as America is concerned:
-Gun fetish
-Hatred of non-whites
-Belief in tariffs
-Belief that Trump.is wise
-Hypocrisy over free speech
-Disproportionate inclination to be antivax
-Failure to rein in Israel and address genocide/war crimes
-Failure to rein in Putin and address attempted genocide/war crimes
-Opposition to universal healthcare.
-Obsession with binary gender
-Opposition to gay marriage.
-Abandonment of due process
-Suppression of dissenting voices
-Portrayal of the Left as ‘the party of murder’, in direct contradiction of the statistics.
faded_Glory,
I’d watch but 5 seconds of his rambling drawl, child-like vocabulary and bullying sends me fumbling for the remote, let alone 5 hours.
Allan Miller,
Thanks for the list. I do agree with some of the list although I would say it is a far right list do you disagree?
What if anything would you change on the left?
colewd:
At this point, that’s probably true. You gave up on defending Trump when you realized that you couldn’t defend Trump. Our criticisms of him are accurate, and after more than three full months of debate, I can’t recall a single instance in which you actually succeeded in disproving any of them.
Now, instead of defending Trump against our criticisms, you’re trying to argue that our criticisms are invalid because we’re biased, liberal, TDS-afflicted consumers of left-wing propaganda who parrot unsupported claims because of our ideology. It isn’t working. Just as you can’t defend Trump, you aren’t able to attack us successfully, because in both cases, the facts are on our side. We aren’t making this stuff up.
Even if you could show that we’re the unreliable critics you claim we are, it wouldn’t mean that you could dismiss our criticisms out of hand. If a TDS-afflicted person says something that’s true, it’s true. If a MAGA diehard says something that’s true, it’s true. If Kamala Harris says something that’s true, it’s true. If Trump says something that’s true, it’s true.
Do you see the pattern? Whether something is true depends only on whether it is true, not on who is making the statement. “Ad hominem!” is one of your favorite accusations, yet here you are engaging in it. If you want to discredit our claims, you need to show that they’re false, period. Proving any of your accusations against us, in the unlikely event that you succeeded, would not demonstrate that what we’re saying is false.
We’re showing that Trump is a horrible person and a terrible president, and you’re failing to show that our criticisms can be waved away without consideration.
keiths:
colewd:
A perfect example of the ad hominem fallacy. Discredit me in order to discredit my claim, without actually addressing it. What else can you do, given that my claim is accurate?
I’ve shown you the evidence, straight from Kirk’s mouth:
Stoning gays is part of “God’s perfect law”, according to Kirk, who believes we “must love his law”. It’s inescapable. It’s there in black and white. It’s there in Kirk’s own words. Do you agree with him? Is that something “a great kid” and “a very good guy with solid character” would say?
I hope to God (so to speak) that you really do disapprove of the stoning of gays, and that the only reason you aren’t saying so is because you don’t want to be seen disagreeing with Kirk. Please tell me that’s true. The alternative — that you, like Kirk, actually believe that God wants us to stone gays, is chilling.
I ran across this study a couple of days ago. The TL;DR is that if you’re malevolent, you’re more likely to be a Trump supporter. If you’re benevolent and empathetic, you’re less likely to be a Trump supporter.
Malevolent vs. benevolent dispositions and conservative political ideology
in the Trump era
Abstract
4.1. Conclusions & Implications
Yes, much of those would not be applicable to ‘centre-right’ thinking, although I do think they apply to the present administration. Make of that what you will.
I’d like to see our present administration go after the error of Brexit more vigorously. Because it was a cross-party issue (but mostly favoured on the Right), Starmer dare not go against it for fear of losing votes.
I’d also like to see more utilities back in public ownership.
I find it so interesting that Kirk misquotes Leviticus.
Firstly, the passage reads “do not lie with a man as one does with a woman; it is an abhorrence” (Leviticus 18: 22). This raises a nice question: just what exactly does “as one does with a woman” mean?
One possible interpretation (and indeed one widely accepted amongst Reform Jews, not that anyone cares) is Torah was written in a patriarchal culture in which women were more property than people and had no rights independent of men. (The punishment for rape, after all, is that the man has to marry the woman he raped. Her feelings in the matter are not taken into consideration.) Women had no right to refuse sex. So “as one does with a woman” means domination and coercion.
The “abhorrence”, in other words, is not consensual homosexual activity; it is male rape.
Secondly, Leviticus 18 does not specify what the punishment is for violating these sexual laws. But in Leviticus 18:24-30 make it pretty clear than the people who had lived in the Holy Land before the Jews had engaged in these practices, and that is why the Lord permitted the Jews to commit genocide against the Canaanites: because they engaged in sexual practices that were hateful to him, such as infanticide and male rape.
The implication, I take it, is that if the Jews were to engage in those hateful practices, then the Lord would permit another people to conquer the Jews, just as the Jews conquered the Canaanites.
The thing is, this is pretty clear from a straight reading of the text. Which, it seems, Kirk didn’t bother to do. He misquoted, whether from laziness or ignorance or whatever.
But, more importantly, Kirk didn’t bother to find out if he was quoting Leviticus correctly, and that’s because it just didn’t matter to him whether he was quoting it correctly or not. He just wanted to score cheap rhetorical points.
In other words, he was bullshitting.
Kirk’s “Just sayin'” makes more sense of the Stephen King tweet that earned such a backlash. He was echoing Kirk ironically, not merely pointing out a view he saw as problematic (though that was obviously a part of it).
KN:
Sounds like they’re attempting to whitewash the verse. If it were about coercion, why wouldn’t the author just say so? “As one does with a woman” strikes me as much more likely to be about penetration than about coercion.
True, but Leviticus 20 does. I commented on that earlier in the thread:
KN:
Yeah, and the whole thing is an example of something many Christians do, which is to cherry-pick Old Testament verses that fit with their views while rejecting those that don’t. I doubt that Kirk worried about mixing wool and linen, and I’ll bet he didn’t treat his wife as “unclean” for seven days during her period or insist that she take two doves or two pigeons to their pastor for sacrifice on the eighth day. Those requirements are in Leviticus too, but I guess in Kirk’s view some parts of “God’s perfect law” are optional. The ones that fit with Kirk’s homophobia — those are the important ones.
In addition to the 5 hour Channel 4 programme on Trump’s lies honouring his visit, an activist group projected images and quotes linking Trump and Epstein onto the walls of Windsor Castle. The group – Led By Donkeys – were arrested for ‘malicious communication’. But hilariously, in reporting the arrest, the BBC cheerfully showed several of the images. It seems very unlikely any charge could stick; it’s all public domain and true.
LBD started with a bucket of paste and guerrilla posters during the Brexit debacle (so fat lot of good that did!). They’re clever, using politicians’ own words against them.
Meantime Trump has been confined to the walls of Windsor Castle, to avoid the public. A trot round the grounds in a gold carriage, inspect the troops, big dinner with the King. The Royal Experience money cannot buy. It’s embarrassing.
Allan Miller,
Maybe half do.
What do you think the problem is with Brexit?
Nope. Full house. What countries do tick the boxes you think the present US administration doesn’t
We’ve gone from a position of influence to outsiders who still have to abide by the rules in order to trade. Rules we no longer have a say in. Many businesses have gone bust because they have gone from frictionless trade to a mountain of paperwork and delays. It was supposed to reduce immigration but has made problems worse.
I took a look at Trump’s defamation complaint against the New York Times, and it’s hilariously inept and too funny not to share excerpts from. No competent, self-respecting lawyer would write a complaint like this. I suspect Trump presented his lawyers with a laundry list of things to say and probably even dictated some of it himself, as he did with the embarrassing tariff letters.
If anyone still needs a demonstration of Trump’s pathological narcissism and insecurity, this is it.
On his election win:
Not just the greatest political achievement, which is already laughable, but the greatest achievement, period.
Yes, how dare the NYT endorse a political candidate (“in a location never seen before”!) and criticize her opponent. What do they think this is, a free country?
Someone doesn’t know the meaning of the word ‘paparazzi’. And even neglecting that, “with them appealing as crude works of paparazzi”?
Trump doesn’t understand that this kind of language makes people laugh at him. A healthy non-narcissist would say “Fercrissakes, tone it down! I don’t want to look ridiculous.”
Yes, how shocking that the NYT didn’t interview someone who declined to be interviewed. WTF? What were they supposed to do, hold Burnett at gunpoint until he agreed to an interview?
“Transcendent”, lol.
It whines about judge Arthur Engoron
Haha. That would be $1.8 billion. This is reminiscent of how Trump declared his penthouse to be three times as large as it actually is. Straight-up fraud, and yet MAGA types will label that court case as “lawfare” and a “witch hunt”.
Someone doesn’t know the meaning of the word ‘formulate’.
Can’t the president of the United States, who claims to hire “only the best people”, find lawyers better than this?
It doesn’t stand a chance in court, but it’s another sinister example of Trump’s battle against free speech and freedom of the press. This is what authoritarianism looks like, folks.
Allan’s list of problems with the Right in the US:
colewd:
Allan:
colewd:
I’m curious, Bill. Which of them apply to the Trump administration, in your view, and do you approve or disapprove of them?
Speaking of the statistics on political violence:
US justice department removes study finding far-right extremists commit ‘far more’ violence
The truth must be erased if it doesn’t fit Trump’s bogus narrative. Bill, do you think the country benefits from having a dishonest administration led by a pathological liar?
Allan Miller,
-Gun fetish
-Belief in tariffs
-Belief that Trump.is wise
-Opposition to universal healthcare…. Not really
Here are the issues I agree are true. Health care in the US for less privileged is handled partially by the states.
colewd,
So if the rest don’t apply to the present administration, which present ‘far-right’ administrations (or aspiring administrations) do they apply to?
Allan Miller,
They can apply to certain people in the administration. In the case of free speech the Attorney General was talking about dealing with “hate speech” but will most likely not get consensus as the first amendment has a strong president and the AG is getting big push back on legally challenging “hate speech”.
Ironically Charlie Kirk was a strong advocate of free speech.
colewd,
He was indeed. Many MAGAs are totally hypocritical about it, though. eg crowing over the cancelling of Kimmel when he spoke no word of a lie (and even if it had been a lie: free speech)’. It appears the Administration may have had a hand in this. Certainly, they are not hiding their glee.
Scratch a ‘free speech absolutist’, you’ll find some of the worst opponents of it.
Allan Miller,
Kimmel did not have his facts right and him getting fired for an inappropriate conversation is not unprecedented on either the left or right wing media. Not a first amendment issue. The executive branch does not have direct jurisdiction over the three major networks but may have influence.
colewd:
What did he say that was factually wrong? Here’s the relevant segment of his monologue (link to video):
When I read that, I don’t see anything factually inaccurate. What am I missing?
keiths,
He had no affiliation with Mega and despite his parents political views had become left leaning over the last few years. This evidence has been reported from the FBI and local authorities.
colewd:
Kimmel didn’t say that Robinson was MAGA. Read his words more carefully:
He’s right. MAGA folks did immediately try to characterize Robinson as anything other than one of them, and they did try to score political points from it. The responsible thing would have been to wait for the evidence instead of immediately concluding that he was left-leaning.
Kimmel did not say that Robinson was MAGA.
Here’s an example of the sort of irresponsible political point-scoring Kimmel was decrying (link to video):
Nancy Mace:
Reporter:
Mace:
Reporter:
Mace:
There’s a bunch of cross-talk at this point, and then the reporter asks:
Mace:
Yeah. How dare you bring up my hypocrisy when I’m trying to score some political points!
Mace knew absolutely nothing about the shooter at that point, but that didn’t stop her from blaming the Democrats “100%”. And even if she’d actually had knowledge that the shooter was a “raging leftist lunatic”, it would have been irresponsible to blame the Democrats. Democrats aren’t responsible for every raging leftist lunatic any more than Republicans are responsible for every raging right-wing lunatic.
Kimmel was right to call out that kind of bullshit.
colewd,
Speaking of irresponsibility, here’s a reminder for you:
Still waiting.
Discussion mental illness by mechanical “engineers’ is like discussing plumbing with a bakery man….
colewd,
This is a prime example of seeing what you want to see. Kimmel said MAGA were desperately trying to portray the shooter as not one of them. This is completely correct.
Having failed to acknowledge a single Trump.lie (despite our Channel 4 making a 5 hour programme out of them), you join in with the MAGAs who cannot understand simple English.
“The Maga Gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it”
Do you think MAGA have not been trying to distance themselves, or score points? Extraordinary.
J-Mac:
The real question is “Can a well-informed non-plumber talk intelligently about plumbing?”, and the answer is yes.
Do you dispute that Trump matches most of the criteria listed in the OP for NPD and ASPD? Does it require a PhD or MD to assess whether Trump is excessively grandiose, or a compulsive liar?
And?
And?
Evidence for ‘leftism’ rests on
1) A whole semester at university. Desperate.
2) A trans partner. Desperate.
3) ‘Fascist’ on a bullet. Trump called Harris a fascist; is he a lefty?
4) MAGA Governor Cox reporting MAGA mom. We don’t know what she thinks of as ‘left’, nor if a leading question was asked. If everything was reversed, someone killing Sanders or whoever in California and Gavin Newsom said his mom had said he was ‘rightist’, I guarantee it would not be ‘well, that’s good enough for me’ from MAGA.
J-Mac:
You keep arguing that only a professional can comment on Trump’s mental health, and I’m asking why.
I’ll repeat the questions:
J-Mac,
Or you trying to discuss virology.