[HN Gopher] Psychiatry and politicians: the 'hubris syndrome' (2...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Psychiatry and politicians: the 'hubris syndrome' (2018)
        
       Author : jka
       Score  : 59 points
       Date   : 2022-02-26 08:43 UTC (14 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.cambridge.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.cambridge.org)
        
       | known wrote:
        
       | T-A wrote:
       | The mention of physical health reminded me of this story, which
       | briefly flared up a couple of years ago:
       | 
       | https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/6/kremlin-spokesman-d...
       | 
       | Even common painkillers can have bad effects on mental health:
       | 
       | https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20180206/do-otc-pai...
        
       | brnaftr361 wrote:
       | What is the first step in assuming a power role? I think in terms
       | of leadership you've got to somehow address the span of
       | authority. Even having a few people under limited authority is a
       | pretty substantial undertaking. But having counts in the tens of
       | thousands and having considerable power? I don't think there is a
       | way to reconcile that without detachment of one sort or another.
       | I know if I were in that sort of position, nothing would get done
       | lest some injury to even a single individual be precipitated,
       | thus making me morally culpable in their hurt.
       | 
       | It's funny, but most of the senior staff ripe for promotion that
       | I've had the pleasures of interacting with were _always_
       | disinterested in moving  "up" to a leadership position. I think
       | most people have an intuitive sense of the _real
       | responsibilities_ that one has to engage with. So the idea that
       | these people have some underlying pathology I don 't think is too
       | far from the mark. I've also considered the concept of pathogenic
       | careers, and the assumption of particular frameworks of
       | justification that need erected to assume certain roles. For
       | instance a surgeon takes life and death into their hands every
       | day, how they reconcile the high-stakes, the successes and the
       | failures, as well as the known- and unknown in the performance of
       | their duties may contribute to a conditioned pathology. I suspect
       | CEOs and politicians are no different. Of course this is all
       | speculative.
        
       | tgv wrote:
       | This
       | 
       | > The first example of Kennedy's lack of political skill was the
       | failed attempt to destabilise Fidel Castro in Cuba.
       | 
       | is presented without any evidence. The 'syndrome' itself is based
       | on highly biased, out of context judgement of third party
       | observations. Perhaps they should look up the classical concept
       | "projection."
        
       | wuschel wrote:
       | Interesting read, especially now that long term deficient
       | political activities show their symptoms in the form of Brexit,
       | Ukraine, etc.
       | 
       | Basically, look out for these clinical features of the hubris
       | syndrome when it comes to people in positions of leadership and
       | power:
       | 
       | 1/ sees the world as a place for self-glorification through the
       | use of power
       | 
       | 2/ has a tendency to take action primarily to enhance personal
       | image
       | 
       | 3/ shows disproportionate concern for image and presentation
       | 
       | 4/ exhibits messianic zeal and exaltation in speech
       | 
       | 5/ conflates self with nation or organisation
       | 
       | 6/ uses the royal 'we' in conversations
       | 
       | 7/ shows excessive self-confidence
       | 
       | 8/ manifestly has contempt for others
       | 
       | 9/ shows accountability only to a higher court (history or God)
       | 
       | 10/ displays the unshakable belief that he will be vindicated in
       | that court
       | 
       | 11/ loses contact with reality
       | 
       | 12/ resorts to restlessness and impulsive actions
       | 
       | 13/ allows moral rectitude to obviate consideration of
       | practicality, cost or outcome, and
       | 
       | 14/ displays incompetence with disregard for the nuts and bolts
       | of policy-making.
       | 
       | Don't vote for them. Remove them from power.
        
         | refurb wrote:
         | A number of these seem to nicely summarize a number of social
         | media influencers.
        
         | netizen-936824 wrote:
         | Sounds like most US politicians. Especially Republicans
        
           | refurb wrote:
           | "Yes we can"
           | 
           | Pretty sure that's the royal "we"
        
             | dane-pgp wrote:
             | There's a difference between wanting people in the country
             | to work together for a shared goal, and literally referring
             | to yourself with the pronoun "we".
             | 
             | > "All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states
             | to recertify, and we become president."
             | 
             | https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-rules-trump-can-be-
             | sue...
        
           | bilbo0s wrote:
           | It's pretty much all politicians. Not only American
           | politicians.
        
         | antattack wrote:
         | It seems to me that government needs more checks and balances
         | so people can recall their candidates if they misrepresented
         | themselves or their intentions.
        
           | bilbo0s wrote:
           | We can recall our leaders. (At least in the US we can.)
           | 
           | Of course, you have to get enough people to _agree_ with you
           | that the leader should be recalled. You can 't recall him/her
           | because _you_ want to recall him /her. You can only recall a
           | leader if _we_ want to recall him /her.
        
         | johnsimer wrote:
         | Can anyone explain what's wrong with using the royal "we" in
         | conversations?
        
           | daniel-cussen wrote:
           | Wework for example. Adam Neumann was always about "we".
           | 
           | So what it means at a basic level is speaking on behalf of a
           | group that is united against the opposing "I", basically a
           | team or gang versus an individual.
        
           | imranhou wrote:
           | I think he is talking about him/her referring to his/her self
           | (singular), using "we".
        
         | matthewmorgan wrote:
         | Complete drivel to compare the invasion of Ukraine to brexit
        
           | dane-pgp wrote:
           | Do you not see the consistent psychology behind:
           | 
           | * Make America Great Again - we've been cheated by the
           | globalists
           | 
           | * Make Britain Great Again - we've been cheated by the EU
           | 
           | * Make Russia Great Again - we've been cheated by the West
           | 
           | * Make Germany Great Again - we've been cheated by the Jews
           | 
           | ?
        
             | refurb wrote:
             | I dont see the connection between self-determination and
             | invading another sovereign country?
        
               | wuschel wrote:
               | If the politician makes a decision in his interest but to
               | the detriment of his people, one could very well make
               | they connection. A simple example is distraction from
               | critical domestic problems the political party/politician
               | is not able,ready or willing to solve by focusing on
               | international politics.
        
               | dane-pgp wrote:
               | You're absolutely right that there is an enormous
               | difference in the policies implemented by the various
               | governments, I'm just saying that the policies were
               | partially driven by a common psychology.
        
               | bobthechef wrote:
               | Pathologizing your political opponents is a two way
               | street[0]. Your opponent might be insane, yes, but it can
               | also be all too easily deployed to dismiss your political
               | opponents and a lost opportunity to learn something, if
               | not in the substance of what they're claiming, then at
               | least about the causes. Even assuming that the various
               | conspiracy theories peddled by both the Left and the
               | Right are bogus (and they are), the fact remains that
               | their exists widespread, politically useful grievance
               | that makes them attractive to many people. If you just
               | say "oh, they're all just mentally ill", you haven't
               | learned anything, even if the grievance is simply a
               | manifestation of envy and ressentiment. Even if they are
               | all mentally ill, you haven't learned _why_ they 're all
               | insane. Maybe you don't care, and that's fine, but
               | someone has to care because unlike the occasional
               | neighborhood eccentric, these things are political
               | gunpowder. So first we debate, and only later do we
               | embark on something like psychoanalysis.
               | 
               | W.r.t. Putin, I think that flippantly accusing him of
               | mental illness is lazy and shows a lack of political
               | imagination. That's only a conclusion you reach after
               | you've exhausted all other options. Historically,
               | Americans have been notoriously bad at understanding
               | Russian political motives and the Russian political mind.
               | If you contextualize what's happening in the geopolitical
               | context, it's unclear, at least to me, that what Putin is
               | doing is through-and-through insane. All evil is insane
               | in the final analysis, but in the immediate sense, there
               | may be a method to the madness. If you don't know the
               | aim, and you don't know the constraints, you can't really
               | understand the means. I'm not interested in cocktail
               | party conjecturing or the pretense of knowledge.
               | 
               | [0] https://americanmind.org/salvo/woke-ideology-is-a-
               | psychologi...
        
               | dane-pgp wrote:
               | For what it's worth, I generally agree with what you're
               | saying here (and I vouched for your comment, because I
               | thought it was an insightful contribution to the
               | discussion).
               | 
               | I should clarify, though, that the "psychology" I am
               | talking about applies more to the supporters of these
               | political movements than to the politicians who lead
               | them. It's completely possible for an intelligent
               | manipulator to spout some narrative that appeals to the
               | public's psychology, without them believing it
               | themselves.
               | 
               | Your point still stands, though, that it's not enough to
               | simply say "the leader is a liar, and their supporters
               | are mad", because that reductionist framing is more
               | likely to shut down any attempts at further understanding
               | than to open the door to learning that there might be
               | legitimate grievances that are leading to this "madness".
               | 
               | As for Putin, I think he is dangerously sane, but that's
               | not to say that a psychoanalysis wouldn't reveal a
               | helpful understanding of his motivations and weaknesses.
               | For example, it seems that he spent his early life
               | believing in (and working for) the greatness of his
               | country which was destined to conquer the world (as if it
               | were a game of chess played out across a world map), only
               | to watch helplessly as that was all ripped away from him
               | by the West. That could be psychologically devastating
               | and create a trauma that has stayed with him for his
               | whole life. I could well imagine that from his
               | perspective, if he doesn't take back control of Ukraine,
               | his whole life has been for nothing.
        
             | krona wrote:
             | You would have to contextualise a slogan like _Make America
             | Great Again_ to give it a negative connotation; on its face
             | it is objectively normatively positive.
             | 
             | The Brexit slogan was _Take back control_. Again,
             | normatively positive.
             | 
             | Same for _Black Lives Matter_.
             | 
             | The psychology behind successful political slogans is that
             | people are generally in favour of positive things.
        
               | dane-pgp wrote:
               | > The psychology behind successful political slogans is
               | that people are generally in favour of positive things.
               | 
               | Are there any examples of negative political slogans?
               | "Don't vote for us, we're losers"?
               | 
               | I don't think it's very informative to point out that
               | these slogans are positive. What's more informative is
               | that the messaging came with an idea of an insidious
               | enemy, and of betrayal, and a desire to return to a
               | former, previously great, and deserved status.
               | 
               | For what it's worth, I don't think "Black Lives Matter"
               | had those same connotations.
        
               | ramphastidae wrote:
               | Mussolini's party slogan was "Believe, obey, fight." I
               | don't know if that's negative but it doesn't feel
               | positive.
        
               | ben_w wrote:
               | > For what it's worth, I don't think "Black Lives Matter"
               | had those same connotations.
               | 
               | Really? The impression I had[0] was that this slogan was
               | a cry for equality in the eyes of a police force which
               | acted as though black lives did not matter -- the
               | mistreatment being very much insidious, very much a
               | betrayal of "protect and serve", and while I wouldn't
               | call the BLM slogan itself it a "return to a former,
               | previously great" status, it is clearly a desire to have
               | a _deserved_ status (of having one's life matter).
               | 
               | [0] caveat: I'm caucasian British, the closest I got to
               | this was having an American partner a few years ago
        
               | krapp wrote:
               | Your interpretation is correct. Unfortunately, as with
               | everything else to do with Black and progressive activism
               | in the US, the right wing has been very successful at bad
               | faith redefinition of terms.
        
               | nopenopenopeno wrote:
               | The purpose of the slogan was to preempt class war with
               | race war. History has and will continue to confirm this.
        
               | tiahura wrote:
               | When Mario Cuomo ran against Ed Koch his slogan was "Vote
               | for Cuomo, not the homo."
        
         | hprotagonist wrote:
         | _The Orders are composed of persons all hung up on authority,
         | security and control; i.e., they are blinded by the Aneristic
         | Illusion. They do not know that they belong to Orders of
         | Discordia. But we know.
         | 
         | - The Military Order of THE KNIGHTS OF THE FIVE SIDED TEMPLE.
         | This is for all the soldiers and bureaucrats of the world.
         | 
         | - The Political Order of THE PARTY FOR WAR ON EVIL. This is
         | reserved for lawmakers, censors, and like ilk.
         | 
         | - The Academic Order of THE HEMLOCK FELLOWSHIP. They commonly
         | inhabit schools and universities, and dominate many of them.
         | 
         | - The Social Order of THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR CONCERNED
         | CITIZENS. This is mostly a grass-roots version of the more
         | professional military, political, academic and sacred Orders.
         | 
         | - The Sacred Order of THE DEFAMATION LEAGUE. Not much is known
         | about the D.L., but they are very ancient and quite possibly
         | were founded by Greyface himself. It is known that they now
         | have absolute domination over all organized churches in the
         | world. It is also believed that they have been costuming
         | cabbages and passing them off as human beings.
         | 
         | A person belonging to one or more Order is just as likely to
         | carry a flag of the counter-establishment as the flag of the
         | establishment-- just as long as it is a flag.
         | 
         | Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton._
        
           | rtkaratekid wrote:
           | If, like me, you had no idea what this was...
           | 
           | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Discordia
        
       | chiefalchemist wrote:
       | > The hubris syndrome has great appeal to psychiatrists, partly
       | because it is a new concept.
       | 
       | New? That's hard to believe that its taken this long to construct
       | such a syndrome.
       | 
       | In any case, while hubris might be an issue for some (minority?),
       | being generally disconnected from those they serve seems to be
       | the current state of leadership.
       | 
       | Look at Congress, all or nearly all are millionaires. CEOs and
       | other C Level executives are paid record amounts (as a ratio of
       | what staff compensation). Those in charge of The Fed? When was
       | the last time any of them rubbed elbows with the victims of their
       | system?
       | 
       | Hubris is a problem, and evidently a new one. But ignorance is
       | more common and far more damaging.
        
       | steve76 wrote:
        
       | someweirdperson wrote:
       | I don't have any personal experience with politicians.
       | 
       | But it all sounds very familiar when reading it as "Psychiatry
       | and Architects (or any other technical persons voted into power
       | by management)".
        
         | jackcosgrove wrote:
         | I have some experience. During college I had an internship with
         | a county planning agency. I was staffing the welcome table
         | where they hand out nametags at a conference the agency was
         | sponsoring.
         | 
         | A smartly dressed woman walked up to me and said nothing. I
         | welcomed her and asked what her name was so I could give her a
         | nametag. She gave me a weird look, then stepped back and
         | conferred with what looked like a retinue. I heard her say,
         | "Who is that there?" (referring to me) "What is going on here?"
         | 
         | My supervisor rushed up and saved the day, handing her the
         | appropriate nametag and explaining that I was an intern. Turns
         | out she was some elected county official. Of course I should
         | have known her name.
         | 
         | This was a county, the little leagues.
        
           | throwawy5777 wrote:
        
           | tiahura wrote:
           | Yes and no. County politics and politicians can be a little
           | unintuitive. Because there's almost no reporting of things
           | that get done by county government - and there's so little
           | accountability, compared to city state and fed, an
           | unbelievable amount of corruption and patronage occurs.
           | Therefore personal connections are more important and ego
           | plays a disproportionate role (where the baseline is already
           | overinflated egos).
        
       | throwawy5777 wrote:
       | Interesting that two of the cases discussed mention a
       | prescription of amphetamines, which they describe as harmful. Did
       | these differ substantially to the doses we prescribe for ADHD
       | nowadays?
        
         | CoastalCoder wrote:
         | FWIW, I have ADD and sometimes take (prescribed) Adderall, i.e.
         | amphetamine salts.
         | 
         | They absolutely have an unwelcome impact on my mood and
         | thoughts. I judge the tradeoff to be worthwhile, but it's a
         | close call.
        
           | throwawy5777 wrote:
           | Me too, and also I think the trade-off worthwhile, which is
           | why I ask this question. I hope in the future people will
           | have found a better treatment for ADHD. Maybe they'll look
           | back at the medications currently used in a similar way as
           | this article does.
        
         | briHass wrote:
         | I would wager the amphetamine doses given in those 2 examples
         | were quite different than what is typically prescribed by
         | (responsible) Drs treating ADHD today.
         | 
         | In Eden's case, it mentions that he was actually using
         | Dexamyl[1], which is actually a amphetamine mixed with a
         | barbituate. Though the dose isn't given, I'd imagine it was 'as
         | needed' and largely uncontrolled. Uppers + downers tends to
         | lead to bad results.
         | 
         | In JFK's case, he was treated by Max Jacobson a.k.a. 'Dr
         | Feelgood'[2,3], and it wasn't just amphetamines; he made up
         | injections of all kinds of vitamins, steroids, and speed.
         | Again, it was 'as needed' and likely overdosed. Dr Jacobson
         | would ultimately lose his medical license.
         | 
         | For ADHD, the maximum daily limit for amphetamine salts is 60mg
         | in adults, and the recommended dose for ADHD is no more than
         | 40mg/day. At those levels, there isn't a ton of evidence of
         | deleterious effects, certainly not psychosis, as long as sleep
         | isn't overly impacted. A carefully controlled max dose of
         | 40-60mg a day is a far cry from the days of 'poppin' bennies'
         | ad libitum.
         | 
         | As a side note, one has to wonder if the last, and almost
         | certainly the current, US Presidents were/are prescribed
         | stimulants. President Trump speaks for himself, but even
         | President Biden seems to range widely in his level of energy
         | and lucidity. With a job so important, where appearances
         | matter, and with a team of doctors that can give you whatever
         | they want, I think it would be naive to think they don't write
         | Adderall scripts.
         | 
         | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexamyl [2]
         | https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/john-f-kennedy-ma...
         | [3] https://www.historynet.com/jack-kennedy-dr-feelgood/
        
         | amanaplanacanal wrote:
         | I don't have an answer to your question, but I will point out
         | that the effects of stimulants on someone with adhd are
         | different from the effects they have on a neurotypical person.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-02-26 23:01 UTC)