Armchair Psychology: Examining The Madness Of Celebrity
Jul 13, 2017 11:10:51 GMT -4
kateln, Mutagen, and 1 more like this
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 11:10:51 GMT -4
The Goldwater rule is the informal name given to Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics, which states it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements.
This rule does not apply to those of us who have a degree in armchair psychology. So speculate away!
I'll start with the post that inspired this thread: chonies in Politics X: Dosvidaniya, Covfefe
For me, the question empathy for the older Trumpspawn is rooted in a version of the nature/nurture debate, and a mild curiosity about how they see the world, in the way I wonder how other people generally see things. Would they have turned out to be as complicit, willingly ignorant, grasping, and manipulative in other circumstances? What parts of their current existences were choices freely made, and what facets are so deeply rooted that they cannot see they made choices, or that by not making choices they still made choices (in this case, clinging like barnacles to a toxic, pitching ship). I don't know anything about Ivana in all this, so it's kind of a missing piece; Jr, Eric and Ivanka remind of me the Harlow monkeys.
That said, I have no problem agreeing they are truly terrible people, but like all awful people, and perhaps especially ones who show rare glimpses of humanity, I wonder how they came to be that way--obviously their parent/s were a huge part, but what about peers, biology, etc.? So, I guess my empathy is a filtered or restricted version, as in I'm interested in understanding what makes them tick, but I don't want to equivocate or share their feelings in a way I would, say, cultural relativity. I don't even want to give them a voice, let alone the privilege of agreeing to disagree.
Other people in this general category: Hitler, the occasional monarch, average citizens who end up charged with war crimes, irritating students, and sometimes it flips to people who come from terrible situations who become good or have other late-life quests for redemption.
That said, I have no problem agreeing they are truly terrible people, but like all awful people, and perhaps especially ones who show rare glimpses of humanity, I wonder how they came to be that way--obviously their parent/s were a huge part, but what about peers, biology, etc.? So, I guess my empathy is a filtered or restricted version, as in I'm interested in understanding what makes them tick, but I don't want to equivocate or share their feelings in a way I would, say, cultural relativity. I don't even want to give them a voice, let alone the privilege of agreeing to disagree.
Other people in this general category: Hitler, the occasional monarch, average citizens who end up charged with war crimes, irritating students, and sometimes it flips to people who come from terrible situations who become good or have other late-life quests for redemption.
