Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today we explore the wisdom of flinging two related insults at Donald Trump’s supporters–insults that fall under the general headings of “crazy” and “mental illness.” Let’s begin with the “crazy” insults.

The “Crazy” Insults

Attorney General William Barr announces DOJ found no evidence of fraud that would overturn the election results.

Trump, by all authoritative analyses, lost the 2020 election by approximately seven million votes, as well as an ample number of electoral votes. Despite this, he has, and continues to claim, he won by a landslide.

Moreover when he took government documents that he was not legally permitted to take, his lawyers had to have made clear to him this was a felony, the penalty of which is time in prison. Because a large majority of his supporters say they believe his claims and that he has done nothing wrong, many Americans think they have made sense of this by viewing his supporters as crazy. Is this wise?

“Crazy” is a concept used when people are puzzled about the actions of others or themselves. By using this type of name calling, it really doesn’t provide any clarification, but to some, they think it does. So, we might hear something like the following conversation:

“What’s going on with these Trump supporters who believe he won the election?”

“They’re crazy.”

“Yeah, that’s gotta be it.”

I understand a great many people are just fine with using the crazy concept. Nevertheless, I would like you to consider the following possibility.

Thinking crazy is really the explanation for why people believe as they do about Trump serves to reduce a degree of angst. Since angst can be experienced as uncomfortable, it makes some sense people might be motivated to reduce it. However, if instead, we adopt the choice to maintain this angst and come to experience it as pleasantly challenging and useful, it may lead to deeper insights.

The angst, when used in the pleasantly challenging manner, according to this theory, prods us to continue searching for understanding while keeping the door open for insights to drift in. The history of science validates the enormous progress that can be made by people who refused to let difficult problems be set aside by a nonsense concept posing as a reasonable answer.

Is the Mental Illness Concept Better than the Crazy Concept?

Trump’s supporters, in addition to being called crazy, have repeatedly been called mentally ill as a way to make sense of what seems to be irrational. Because the mental illness concept is supported by many doctors, including many psychiatrists and psychologists, some folks have been left with the impression that it must be a more sound, scientific concept than “crazy.” Is it?

Two Contrasting Opinions About One Particular “Diagnosis”

To explore this issue, let us first take a look at how the term was used against Trump in a January 11, 2021 article. It appears in Scientific American, was written by Tanya Lewis, and is titled, “The ‘Shared Psychosis’ of Donald Trump and His Loyalists.”

Dr. Lee

There we learn that psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee is affiliated with Yale University’s Department of Psychiatry, and has diagnosed those who are loyal to Trump as having the serious mental illness she calls “shared psychosis.” According to Dr. Lee, this refers to:

…the infectiousness of severe symptoms that goes beyond ordinary group psychology. When a highly symptomatic individual is placed in an influential position, the person’s symptoms can spread through the population through emotional bonds, heightening existing pathologies and inducing delusions, paranoia and propensity for violence—even in previously healthy individuals.

Although this may or may not sound plausible to you, framing it as a diagnosis based on sound scientific evidence has led to serious problems for Dr. Lee.

Dr. John Krystal

Shortly after her so called diagnosis, her boss at Yale, Dr. John Krystal, fired her. He had first provided her the following warning, “The recklessness of your comments creates the appearance that they are self-serving in relation to your personal political beliefs and other possible personal aspirations.”

A New York Post article titled, “Yale Psychiatrist Says She Was Fired For Calling Trump and Supporters Mentally Ill,” further develops this story. There we learn Dr. Lee has become embroiled in a lawsuit in an effort to regain her job.

“Since she was acting on a citizen’s duty to contribute her gifts to society … her speech is protected under the First Amendment,” her lawsuit claimed.

“Trump’s presidency represented an emergency which not only allowed, but required, psychiatrists in the United States to sound the alarms,” her legal team said of her “professional responsibility to protect society.”

“Trump’s mental health was affecting the mental health” of everyone in the US, “placing the country at grave risk and undermining democracy itself.”

Supporters of President Donald Trump hold signs as they attend a “Stop The Steal” rally.

Now, to be upfront about my own opinion about Trump, personally I disagree with him and his supporters about who actually fairly won the election. Moreover, there are a number of theories that I have been mulling over as I try to understand the reasons why his supporters have concluded his claims are true. At the same time, as a supporter of the principles of science, I recognize the importance of distinguishing my theories from facts. Dr. Lee’s theory, when couched as a doctor’s diagnosis, in my opinion, runs afoul of this principle.

Clarifying the Difference Between A So Called Psychiatric Diagnosis and The Cause For a Mental Health Concern

When psychiatrists use their mental illness classification system and call it a diagnostic system, they do so despite numerous scientific arguments about its shortcomings (see HERE for a full description of these). In brief, the “mental illness” concept is way too subjectively defined, and the vast majority of the specific mental illness labels, such as anxiety disorder, psychosis, etc., have insufficient reliability and evidence of validity to be considered scientific. Moreover, a diagnostic system speaks to etiology, that is, the cause, set of causes, or manner of causation of a disease or condition. These psychiatric labels do not come with any proof of what is the cause of what is being labeled.

To clarify what I mean by this, let us take a look at a condition with which we can all easily understand.

You have trouble starting your car. You bring it to Fred, your friendly local mechanic. On hearing your concern, he provides an initial theory of what is causing this—perhaps your car needs a new starter. This is the initial “theoretical” diagnosis. Then, Fred inspects the starter and finds that it is in fine shape. Thus, his original theory of what is wrong proves incorrect. He then theorizes that your spark plugs are dirty. He takes a look and finds that they are indeed dirty. He cleans them up, puts them back in their proper place, and the car starts right up. In the end, he “diagnosed” what was wrong with your car—it had dirty spark plugs.

Now, let us say Fred, instead, had just asked you a few questions. Then, before finding out what was the cause of why your car had not been starting, he told you that the problem is that your car has “Major Nonstarting Disorder.” This statement is very different than “diagnosing” your car’s problem unless we want to dramatically expand the definition so it loses any precision.

The psychiatric mental illness diagnostic system is described in a manual published with the title, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). There it refers to itself as a manual for making diagnoses. This masks the difference between the following three types of statements:

1. “My theory is that the reason your car is not starting is that it has a broken starter.”
2. “The cause for your car not starting is it has dirty spark plugs.”
3. “Your car has ‘Major Nonstarting Disorder.’”

The first statement offers some theory for understanding the cause for what someone believes has gone wrong. The second statement indicates that the cause for what has gone wrong has been clearly established. The third statement just restates the expressed concern or concerns in some jargon. The only real diagnosis in the three statements is statement 2. Statement 1 is a theory of what the diagnosis may be.

The DSM does not claim its so called “diagnostic classifications” are just a theory of what the cause is for the expressed concern; it doesn’t even provide a theory. The manual’s developers explicitly say it is theory neutral. The DSM labels are just type 3 statements, that is, just statements that restate expressed concerns into medical jargon. Thus, the lack of reliability and validity for the DSM classifications and applying the word “diagnosis” to them in a misleading, imprecise manner are just three of its many serious principles of science violations.

Contrast psychiatry’s DSM “diagnosis” system with a diagnosis system used by other doctors. If someone comes to a virologist expressing a concern about being feverish, having difficulty breathing, and loss of taste, the doctor will label these as the patient’s medical complaints, rather then simply translating the complaints into medical jargon and then claiming the jargon constitutes the diagnosis. Instead, the virologist, after writing down the various complaints, will then look for the cause for these complaints. If it is found that there is the presence of the Covid 19 virus, the doctor will say the diagnosis is a Covid 19 infection.

Now, in Dr. Lee’s legal case, we learn that she goes beyond utilizing the DSM-like label of “Shared Psychoses.” She actually provides a theory of what her concern is regarding Trump supporters. However, she doesn’t clearly state that her theory is just a theory. Thus, when people put together that she is a doctor, along with her claim that she has made her “diagnosis,” unscientific conclusions are readily made by the public.

A Brief Story To Illustrate The Problem Of Using Mental Illness Terms As Explanations

On one fine spring day, I was sitting on a Central Park bench and two women were sitting one bench just to my right reading their newspapers. Suddenly, one of them cried out, “Sophie, can you believe this!  The story I’m reading here, oh my God!  This young boy, seventeen years old mind you, the same age as my Jonathan, he’s struggling with ideas about suicide.  Seventeen years old, his whole life before him and he wants to kill himself.  What would lead a boy to this?”

“Such a young boy, Bessie?”

“Yes.  My God.”

“He must have some type of mental illness.”

“Oh, you’re right, Sophie.  I just glanced at the next paragraph, and a psychiatrist explains that the boy has a mental illness called major depressive disorder.”

With that explanation, the two women nodded to one another, and continued on to another story, seemingly satisfied that they now knew why the boy was dealing with this issue.

Story Discussion

This notion that when a psychiatrist says someone has a mental illness, or some type of mental illness, that this offers a valid explanation for why the person is struggling with personal difficulties is, as far as I’m concerned, a bunch of nonsense. Just before the incident in the park, I had seen a performance of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, which tells the story of a boy about the same age as the one in the story Bessie was reading and is also struggling with feelings of committing suicide. As Shakespeare’s story unfolds, the audience is presented with a character that has motivations, conflicts, frustrations, disturbing situations and emotions. In the end, I left with some insights into why a character such as Hamlet might struggle with feelings of suicide.

In my opinion, even a play, which lasts but two or three hours, can only provide in its narrative a simplified account of what real life stories are all about. And yet, in today’s world, for many people a very different type of play is sufficient for providing the reason why someone is dealing with a challenging concern. This new type of play begins with the curtain rising. A character says to the audience he is struggling with feelings of suicide. A psychiatrist then proclaims the character has the mental disorder known as major depressive disorder, and then the curtain comes down.  That’s the whole play. And people walk away fully satisfied that an adequate explanation has been provided.

Conclusion

That said, I leave you with the following suggestion: If you have a theory of why people continue to support Trump and his continued claims that he won the 2020 presidential election by a landslide, let those with whom you want to share your theory know it is a “theory,” and forgo the mental illness name calling. By doing so, you may not get as many cheers from people who agree with you. Nevertheless, among people truly seeking to deepen their understanding of this difficult to understand phenomenon, you will be more respected. Moreover, for those who may disagree with your theory, they will appreciate your ability to distinguish fact from theory. You’ll come across, I theorize, as more open-minded and you will be modeling a higher level of discourse than what we have been hearing from many of our political leaders.

Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

conflict resolutionDonald TrumpDSMmental illnessTrump Supporters