Neuroskeptic complains about the long distance analyses of President Trump’s behavior:
We don’t need these kinds of quasi-scientific analyses of Trump’s (or anyone’s) character. We should stick to describing and commenting on the behaviour that we can directly observe. If Trump is rash, then that’s it: he’s rash. It doesn’t matter what’s going on in his brain to make him that way. If he’s egotistic and selfish, then just say so – it adds nothing to the discussion to speculate about whether he meets criteria for ‘narcissistic personality disorder’, not to mention that such a diagnosis-at-a-distance is ethically questionable.
More broadly, as I’ve argued previously, neuroscience can answer questions about the brain but most political and social questions are about behaviour. Now, while all behaviour is the product of brain activity, it’s rarely useful to try to understand a behaviour in neuroscientific terms. If you’re thirsty, then you could make me understand your situation by saying “I’m thirsty”, and the solution would be a glass of water. A neuroscientific analysis of activity in your brain’s subfornical organ wouldn’t help anyone.
I see his point – but I can’t help but note that a damaged Executive can be removed from office. Without a proper medical extended examination, of course, it’s quite silly to speculate on it – but there it is, like a steaming pile of shit, the possibility that our President is filling an office while burdened with a disqualifying condition.
For that matter, how many folks would have voted for him if he was known to have a biologically based mental condition? Indeed, it’s a serious question – which conditions are disqualifying? For example, Minnesota Governor Dayton is an admitted alcoholic, the voters knew it when he was elected, as I recall.
And then we can dive into the question of illness vs neuro-atypical, which begins to question the very definition of a properly functioning brain (à la the late Dr. Thomas Szasz, author of The Myth of Mental Illness, which I found somewhat disingenuous – although I read that maybe twenty years ago, and honestly don’t recall much about it).
