Category: Observations

Not everyone buys into the idea that people have “personalities”. Sure, you may think that your friend acts in predictable ways. But you’ve also seen your friend change their behavior in different settings. In front of their parents they become someone else.

Heck, let’s not talk about your friend. Let’s talk about you. Do you adjust your behavior when you’re at work? (Have you ever peeled off your socks at the workplace and left them bunched on the floor?) Do you use different words when you’re with your parents versus when you’re with your friends? (If you text your parents, look at the emojis you use with them versus the emojis you use with your friends. Are they the same set?)

Maybe not so consistent and predictable, huh.

But for those who do believe in the concept of a personality—”a set of distinctive traits and characteristics“—then the idea of a “personality disorder” seems reasonable. It makes sense that people with personality disorders would have a set of “abnormal” traits and characteristics.

Over the past year(s) and maybe in response to the yesterday’s news, some have wondered if people in positions of power have personality disorders. Their rhetoric, policy decisions, and implementation of regime change via kidnapping—their emotional and behavioral characteristics—all seem abnormal. Our frowns do not turn upside down. They deepen with ongoing and worsening misbehavior.

It is imprudent to diagnose public figures with physical or psychological conditions. I don’t know these people; I will never be in a position to assess them. As an academic exercise, though, let’s look at what it means to have a “personality disorder”. This is how the most recent version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual defines a general personality disorder:

A. An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture. This pattern is manifested in two (or more) of the following areas:

1. Cognition (i.e., ways of perceiving and interpreting self, other people, and events).
2. Affectivity (i.e., the range, intensity, lability, and appropriateness of emotional response).
3. Interpersonal functioning.
4. Impulse control.

B. The enduring pattern is inflexible and pervasive across a broad range of personal and social situations.

C. The enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

D. The pattern is stable and of long duration, and its onset can be traced back at least to adolescence or early adulthood.

E. The enduring pattern is not better explained as a manifestation or consequence of another mental disorder.

F. The enduring pattern is not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or another medical condition (e.g., head trauma).

It is hard to argue that the elected leader of a nation has “impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning”. To achieve that level of power one must be able to navigate (nay, dominate!) social relationships and occupational duties. Maybe the methods they use seem “abnormal”, but “abnormal” and “impaired” don’t mean the same thing.

Consider the history of the United States. It includes ugly events—both distant and recent—of dehumanization, oppression, and exclusion. Aren’t these “expectations of the individual’s culture”? Are we witnessing any actual deviation from these expectations?

It’s true: We don’t know if these Very Important People experience “clinically significant distress”, even as they induce that in others. Maybe they have other medical, mental, or substance use disorders. We just don’t know.

“Personality disorders” are actual clinical conditions. They are not slurs. It’s okay to dislike the totality of someone’s emotional and behavioral characteristics. That doesn’t automatically mean, though, that they have a personality disorder. We can have low approval of someone with high status. They might simply be “a stupid, annoying, or detestable person“.

For your consideration, here are a few observations about the Trump-Vance-Zelensky argument in the Oval Office today from a psychiatrist:

Vice President Vance began attacking President Zelensky after Zelensky suggested that American diplomacy was not working. Vance started with: “What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy. That’s what President Trump is doing.” After some back and forth, Zelensky said: “But after that, [Putin] broke the ceasefire, he killed our people, and he didn’t exchange prisoners. We signed the exchange of prisoners. But he didn’t do it. What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about? What do you mean?”

The insinuation here is that if the diplomacy of Trump, the face of America, was effective, Putin would have not broken the ceasefire and killed people. Vance reacted to Zelensky without providing an actual description of diplomatic efforts. He instead immediately pivoted: “Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media.”

A couple things here: Zelensky’s body language prior to Vance’s reaction is open and engaged. He is leaning forward and making solid eye contact in Vance’s direction. He is making emphatic gestures. The tone of his voice when he asks, “What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about?” suggests disagreement, but not hostility.

When Vance responds, Zelensky’s body language immediately shuts down: He sits back and crosses his arms. He looks away. His eyebrows do heavy lifting here; he looks perplexed. His mouth hangs open a bit. Perhaps he is restraining himself from saying things he will later regret. Vance, for his part, gets pointy, both in his speech and with his index finger.

There is little that is respectful in Vance’s statement of “Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media”. To criticize a leader’s character in front of cameras is not respectful. To physically point and wag the pointing finger at the president is not respectful. Just because you say “with respect” doesn’t make it respectful. Whenever speech and behavior contradict each other, behavior is more likely to convey the true sentiment.

President Trump began to attack President Zelensky after Zelensky used the word “feel”. Here’s the exchange:

Zelenskyy: “First of all, during the war, everybody has problems, even you. But you have nice ocean and don’t feel now. But you will feel it in the future. God bless –”

Trump: “You don’t know that. You don’t know that. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.”

It’s not even clear what feelings either man is talking about. Zelensky tries to elaborate by saying “You will feel influenced.” Trump immediately disagrees: “We are going to feel very good and very strong.”

Let me get pedantic here: “Influenced” is not an emotion. Neither is “very good” or “very strong”. In reading context clues, my guess is that Zelensky was trying to convey that the United States would feel “threatened” (which is not an emotion, either; fear is the emotion that underlies threats). Trump, whose behavior consistently reveals that he is obsessed with status, can’t tolerate the idea of feeling fear. He seems to believe that feeling fear means you are a beta.

Furthermore, Trump likely views Zelensky as having lower status than him. How dare someone who is “lower” than him tell him how he is going to feel! And in front of cameras! You are not the boss of me!

Maybe I am reading too much into Trump’s reactions to “feelings”, but…

President Trump gets red in the face as they continue to talk about feelings. They don’t linger on feelings for long; soon the conversation shifts to the metaphor of playing cards.

Trump becoming red in the face at this point is noteworthy because once Trump and Zelensky are talking at and over each other, Zelensky’s body language opens up. He uncrosses his arms, drops them to his lap, and makes some gestures. His eyebrows return to heavy labor; he again looks perplexed and ultimately looks away. These changes in body language indicate an effort (maybe nonconscious, though Zelensky has a history as an actor) to de-escalate the situation. What we learn here is that Zelensky is showing some deference to Trump that he did not show to Vance. Trump either doesn’t recognize or acknowledge Zelensky’s efforts to re-establish rapport. He gets red in the face, his voice gets louder, and he becomes more animated. What button did Zelensky push? Was the button labeled “feelings”?

President Trump settles down after Vice President Vance intervenes. What breaks the cross-talk between Trump and Zelensky is Vance asking Zelensky, “Have you said thank you once?”

I wonder if Vance has learned when to intervene to uphold Trump’s perceived status. Maybe Vance knew that, if this interaction continued, Trump would say or do something foolish that would result in an undeniable drop in his status in front of cameras. Zelensky’s body language was beginning to match Trump’s, suggesting that his deference from moments before was disappearing. What better way to artificially elevate one person’s status by coercing the other person to say “thank you”?

Among pro-social people, saying “thank you” is a gracious way to promote and sustain social bonds. We say “thank you” because it is an expression of cooperation, not conflict. However, some people view the phrase “thank you” as an act of submission: YOU are thanking ME because I bestowed something on YOU which means I have more power than YOU.

Following this cue, we hear Trump make comparisons to elevate his status because Zelensky does not say “thank you” to Trump; he does not submit. Trump says Biden is “not a smart person” (implying that he is); Trump asserts that “Obama gave sheets, and Trump gave Javelins”.

Zelensky, ambushed and outnumbered, looks resigned: His shoulders droop, he slowly rubs his fingers over his clasped hands. His eyebrows can no longer do all the work, so the worry spills all over his face.

---

What we witnessed today, like so many days in the past month, was ugly and cruel. Cowards only jeer when they are playing at home.