Dan P. McAdams, a professor and chair of the Department of Psychology at Northwestern University, is the author of numerous books, including a widely-read biography of President George Bush, fils.
He did his best this month to dissect the personality of Donald Trump in a really readworthy article at The Atlantic.
I was impressed that McAdams astutely focused on Andrew Jackson as the American president most like Donald Trump in temperament. I agree in certain senses, the irascibility, the ability to hold grudges and so on. But let's not forget that Jackson lived a military man's life. He understood what a life of service was. I think Trump has always had the luxury of never having to know what "a life of service" is. Trump's life has been infinitely more self-serving than the life of Andrew Jackson (his clear faults notwithstanding) ever was. Jackson felt himself the victim of a great snobbery and he was probably justified in those feelings. His wife suffered horribly from that snobbery and his genuine and abiding love for her meant this pain and pique was felt vicariously (and keenly) by Jackson. Not that men could trade in their wives for trophy wives in those days, but even if they could have, Andrew Jackson was not the sort of man who would do something like that. There's another big difference between Trump and Jackson. Trump's core loyalty seems to be only to himself and perhaps his children. Not even wives are in that select loyalty club. This is almost certainly attributable to his sexual rapacity, which is doubtless attributable to his narcissism. I would argue that this is emotional immaturity, but I have no doubt Trump himself would tell us that we don't understand how winners are all about that "piece of ass" (to use one of his favorite, mediagenic phrases). Also sprach Zarathustra. I'm guessing Trump might speak lovingly of this painting and that he might see it art fit to decorate one of his gaudy casinos.
Another minor quibble I would have with McAdams' otherwise fine article (and vivisection) would target that moment where, in discussing the five core personality traits, he asserts that people who rank "high" in the neuroticism category are predisposed to mental illness. ("By contrast, higher scores on neuroticism are always bad, having proved to be a risk factor for unhappiness, dysfunctional relationships, and mental-health problems.") Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Isn't that "post hoc ergo propter hoc?" At best, it's a tautology. I think the display of neuroticism we see in (some) individuals is precisely the result of mental illness. If you want to examine that quality in light of how it functions in the constellation of those five personality traits, yes, let's do that. But to assert that it's some a priori quality which can cause mental illness in an individual seems a really fanciful fiction to me. I realize it's a common practice in many forms of psychoanalysis to postulate "governing abstractions" (for example, Freud's trinity of id, ego and superego) and then begin to reason from there, as if these qualities have an objective, verifiable existence. It's a bit quixotic. I think the neurochemistry and the cognitive wiring come first. I think many people were "born that way" or socialized to be that way so early that they might as well be considered "ab ovo neurotics." But even the concept of neuroticism seems a somewhat passe, twentieth-century notion. Can't we be more scientifically precise at this point? We don't call women hysterics anymore. Should we still be calling people who suffer from a wide array of psychic disturbances with many degrees of differing particularity neurotics?
He did his best this month to dissect the personality of Donald Trump in a really readworthy article at The Atlantic.
I was impressed that McAdams astutely focused on Andrew Jackson as the American president most like Donald Trump in temperament. I agree in certain senses, the irascibility, the ability to hold grudges and so on. But let's not forget that Jackson lived a military man's life. He understood what a life of service was. I think Trump has always had the luxury of never having to know what "a life of service" is. Trump's life has been infinitely more self-serving than the life of Andrew Jackson (his clear faults notwithstanding) ever was. Jackson felt himself the victim of a great snobbery and he was probably justified in those feelings. His wife suffered horribly from that snobbery and his genuine and abiding love for her meant this pain and pique was felt vicariously (and keenly) by Jackson. Not that men could trade in their wives for trophy wives in those days, but even if they could have, Andrew Jackson was not the sort of man who would do something like that. There's another big difference between Trump and Jackson. Trump's core loyalty seems to be only to himself and perhaps his children. Not even wives are in that select loyalty club. This is almost certainly attributable to his sexual rapacity, which is doubtless attributable to his narcissism. I would argue that this is emotional immaturity, but I have no doubt Trump himself would tell us that we don't understand how winners are all about that "piece of ass" (to use one of his favorite, mediagenic phrases). Also sprach Zarathustra. I'm guessing Trump might speak lovingly of this painting and that he might see it art fit to decorate one of his gaudy casinos.
Another minor quibble I would have with McAdams' otherwise fine article (and vivisection) would target that moment where, in discussing the five core personality traits, he asserts that people who rank "high" in the neuroticism category are predisposed to mental illness. ("By contrast, higher scores on neuroticism are always bad, having proved to be a risk factor for unhappiness, dysfunctional relationships, and mental-health problems.") Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Isn't that "post hoc ergo propter hoc?" At best, it's a tautology. I think the display of neuroticism we see in (some) individuals is precisely the result of mental illness. If you want to examine that quality in light of how it functions in the constellation of those five personality traits, yes, let's do that. But to assert that it's some a priori quality which can cause mental illness in an individual seems a really fanciful fiction to me. I realize it's a common practice in many forms of psychoanalysis to postulate "governing abstractions" (for example, Freud's trinity of id, ego and superego) and then begin to reason from there, as if these qualities have an objective, verifiable existence. It's a bit quixotic. I think the neurochemistry and the cognitive wiring come first. I think many people were "born that way" or socialized to be that way so early that they might as well be considered "ab ovo neurotics." But even the concept of neuroticism seems a somewhat passe, twentieth-century notion. Can't we be more scientifically precise at this point? We don't call women hysterics anymore. Should we still be calling people who suffer from a wide array of psychic disturbances with many degrees of differing particularity neurotics?
No comments:
Post a Comment