The Donald Trump phenomenon has led some to question his psychological state and whether he would be an effective president. My analysis is this: Donald Trump is likely not psychologically normal, in the sense that he has a hyper-memory temperament that may paradoxically serve him well in some ways as a leader, though not the kind many of us would want. Hyper-memory also explains many of his weaknesses.
First, let’s put aside some simplistic notions. He is not a narcissist, because the term doesn’t mean anything scientifically. It was a metaphor invented by Freud a century ago. It is not a scientific hypothesis. To the extent that it can be studied scientifically, the concept of “narcissistic personality disorder” has been disproven in scientific studies. Experts recognize that it is empirically weak. It is not “valid,” meaning that it does not stand apart from other personality disorders as a real diagnosis. (In fact, the DSM-5 Personality Disorder Task Force recommended that it be removed from the official diagnostic manual, but the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees rejected that scientific recommendation. That’s another story.)
When people say Trump is a narcissist, they simply mean that he has high self-esteem and that they don’t like him.
However there is a psychological condition associated with high self-esteem, which can be very high at times, and it has been scientifically proven much better than narcissism.
Think about it: He sleeps four hours a night, about half the biological rate. Yet he is extremely energetic, creative, and talkative. He talks about having not only high physical energy but also high sexual energy. The question of his sexual behavior has become central to the campaign in recent weeks. If we take him seriously, and if these reports are true, all of these symptoms reflect an acceleration, above the normal range, in one’s feelings, thinking, and movement. That is the definition of “manic” symptoms. (This doesn’t mean you have to be delusional and think you’re Jesus Christ, just as being “depressed” doesn’t mean you want to shoot yourse
By his claims, Mr. Trump’s description of himself psychologically translates into hypomanic symptoms, technically called “hypomania.” This is not a psychiatric diagnosis; you won’t find it in a psychiatric diagnostic manual. Rather, it is a personality condition, biologically linked to manic-depressive illness. It is not normal.
Now, on some level, this is like saying he is tall, or that someone else might be thin. These are normal physical and psychological traits, and some of us are at the upper or lower end. Mr. Trump is at the upper end of energy, creativity, openness, and what psychologists call “openness to experience.” All of this happens with hypomania.
The severe manic symptoms occur in manic-depressive illness, which I am not saying he has. However, some conclusions can be drawn based on scientific studies of the condition. Hypomanic symptoms are associated with increased creativity, which bodes well for Mr. Trump in many ways as a leader, and which is consistent with much of his business success. Hypomania is also associated with resilience in the face of traumatic experiences; People with hyperthymesia are less likely to develop PTSD after a major trauma. That bodes well for the high stresses of being president.
There are some drawbacks, too. People with manic symptoms show less empathy for others than people with depression, who have increased empathy. You can probably conclude from this observation about some of Mr. Trump’s policies, depending on your political viewpoint. Manic symptoms are also associated with impulsivity and an inability to back down when you need to, which many commentators have noted in Mr. Trump’s debate performance as well as other aspects of his life, such as his sexual behavior.
So how does it all stack up? Does he have the “temperament” to be president?
Is he “fit” to be president?
Asked this way, it’s a dangerous question, one that has led the American Psychiatric Association to try to ban all psychiatrists from offering any insights on the subject. (See below.)
I would put the question another way: Does Mr. Trump’s psychological profile enhance or weaken his ability to serve as president
The answer to this question is twofold: First, there is more than one temperament that might make you fit to be president. Second, it depends more on your political preferences, and on what is going on in the world.
Related : If Donald Trump Is a Narcissist…
A few years ago, I published a book, First-Class Madness, in which I argued that manic-depressive illness has some positive benefits. In particular, many of our greatest leaders in times of crisis, such as Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill, suffered from a version of this condition. By contrast, some of our worst leaders, such as Neville Chamberlain, were stable, charismatic, and mentally healthy. Being “normal” is a disadvantage in leading in times of crisis, and in times of great change. But in times of peace and prosperity, “normal” leaders do better because all that is required is moderation and caution in leadership. Churchill was a dismal failure in the British cabinet during the peacetime prosperity of the 1920s, while Chamberlain was a great success. When war broke out, the opposite was true.
There is a dynamic between crisis and non-crisis, between being mentally healthy/normal and being somewhat abnormal. Manic-depressive leaders perform best in times of crisis, but mentally healthy/normal leaders perform best in times of peace and stability.
The question of whether Trump is the right man for this age is not really whether he is psychologically “normal” but whether we are in a time of crisis where the hyper-memory leader is best. One might argue that 2016 is not a time of crisis as much as 2008, amid the Great Recession and multiple wars in the Middle East. If things are more stable than many think, then the hyper-memory leader may cause more trouble, like Churchill in the 1920s, than solve the problems we are facing. In that case, Trump would be the wrong man for this time, and Hillary Clinton, with her greater confidence and stability, might be a better leader.
Such questions are often discussed with a stigmatizing attitude. The idea here is that “mental illness” is bad or harmful; therefore, if you don’t like Trump, you question his sanity. If you like him, you resent any attempt to label him as ill. Ironically, the psychiatric profession shares this discriminatory attitude; some argue that we shouldn’t “diagnose” public figures, presumably because we are criticizing that person. We psychiatrists feed into the public’s stigma against mental illness.
What few people realize is that mental health can benefit a leader, as I describe in my book, First-Class Madness. Research studies find that depression is associated with realism and empathy and that manic symptoms (fast thinking, high energy, and activity) are associated with creativity and resilience in the face of stressful events.
There is no known evidence that Trump has suffered from periods of clinical depression. If this is true, then all of the above benefits of high mood have one downside. Depression is associated with increased empathy for others; Obsession is the opposite, with decreased empathy for others. The weakness of hyperthymesia can be decreased empathy, especially for those who are not in the silent majority, such as Muslims (myself included), or those who have not been in the halls of power, such as women.
Will Trump be a great leader? Maybe, if you want to follow him where he wants to go. Maybe not, for everyone else.
Note: If you’re concerned about whether my comments conflict with the “Goldwater Rule,” the American Psychiatric Association’s statement that psychiatrists should not “diagnose” public figures, I don’t think they do. Moreover, I think the Goldwater Rule is ethically and scientifically questionable. See my posts on the subject here and here, and listen to my discussion of the topic on NPR this summer. Moreover, next year, at the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting in May in San Diego, I’m proposing a panel, including three former presidents of the association, to discuss whether the rule is legitimate and/or should be revised.
