Is Donald Trump a Narcissist?

Donald Trump isn’t a narcissist, because we shouldn’t be calling anyone a “narcissist”. It’s an ableist slur.

Whether or not you are supposed to call him a narcissist doesn't change whether he is a narcissist.

Not calling him a narcissist doesn't make him not a narcissist.

This piece is bad. That (and this post in general) is, of course, my lay opinion about the piece. But then, we are having a lay discussion about a lay opinion piece. So, the piece is bad. Perhaps the claim it makes has merit, but I find the piece itself unconvincing and thus don't find the actual claim particularly persuasive either.

First, an initial annoyance. While I found myself at least initially compelled by the argument that to call someone a narcissist could be considered a harmful slur, I won't be censoring the term "narcissist" in my thoughts here. This is because the author has established by convention in this piece (title and content) and others on the same blog (I'll come back to this) that, in contrast to other slurs, it is acceptable to use that term uncensored in at least some cases. In this piece that convention seems to be that it's acceptable to use the term when it isn't directed towards a person, and perhaps for initial "establishment" purposes. That said, the other slurs are censored. Maybe that's because they aren't related content, and that's fair, but I feel that if you're comparing the badness of two words, and you won't even say one of them, that's the worse word..

And about that other content. One might imagine that, after reading a piece about how it's never acceptable to use the term narcissist directed towards an individual, that "we don't use those words," it would be inconceivable for the author to directly identify a specific individual as a narcissist, regardless of a diagnosis or lack thereof. Unfortunately, that's not the case. That Maui (the character from the movie Moana, identified in the linked post as a narcissist) is a fictional character is not lost on me, but it would certainly be inappropriate for me to call him the n-word simply because he's not a real person and his skin happens to be a shade other than alabaster. Moreover, the Donald Trump piece argues that it would be improper to attempt to label someone as a narcissist (more specifically that it would be improper to attempt to diagnose him thusly) because he's a celebrity, and one we only get a narrow view of through the lens of "wacky media hijinks." What, then, is a Disney movie? To argue (implicitly) that it's alright to use the term "narcissist" to refer to a specific individual in some cases entirely erodes the argument that it's a critically harmful slur. Can it be used in offense? Of course, but "You're just a woman, you wouldn't understand" is an offensive statement too, but it doesn't make "woman" a slur. Anyways, I've rambled about this particular annoyance for WAY too long already.

Next, there's the title of the thing. If the goal of a piece is to change minds, this is a bad way to go about it. While it's impossible to set aside the bonfire that any post about Trump will attract, such an obviously provocative title is sure to kindle the flames under any reader even before they begin. Those who support him are probably not going to open the thing, or will almost surely bail after the first few lines in any case. And those who don't are going to be annoyed that a significant portion of the piece seems to be spent largely defending him against the label being applied, and thus disregard the actual arguments being laid out regardless of merit.

I'd also like to comment on the claim the piece makes about it being improper to diagnose Trump. More than half of the whole post is spent elaborating on the particular nuances of whether it's appropriate for trained professionals to make statements about whether Trump. That's well and good, but isn't really relevant to the question the piece presents. The question of whether clinicians can use clinical terms in a clinical context to refer to someone isn't an open one. The post makes the compelling argument that clinicians can't ethically comment on the specifics about a patient whom they've not examined. However, the piece seems to intentionally misrepresent the actual standard explained by the referenced materials. First, the Goldwater Rule does not contain any exemption that would permit psychiatrists to "rebuke" claims about a specific individual. The Wikipedia page linked in the piece is explicit about this in the section about Donald Trump specifically. Second, the comments about Allen Frances "speak[ing] out against diagnosing Trump" link to two sources where Frances specifically comments on Trump having narcissistic personality traits, but for a few (potentially) missing criteria. The sources do not really indicate what the piece purports that they do, and the combined error is egregious.

The piece goes on by detouring into a discussion on the morality of who is allowed to make comments on topics, vaguely implying that the only moral interaction one can have about a narcissist's behaviors is the interaction between a clinician and patient. The only healthy and acceptable interaction towards those with NPD is help, acceptance, and sympathy. Oh, and also it's totally fine to think that Donald Trump should be harmed "to the fullest extent" or shot.

This piece is bad. It's not convincing, and probably does more to hurt its cause then to help it. A more compelling piece would have, amongst other things, probably spent literally any time at all on how one can healthily describe narcissistic traits without being harmful to those with NPD. But, that would necessitate a situation wherein we're allowed to criticize narcissists without it being portrayed as us unfairly assuming that all of them are evil abusers. And alas, the piece is bad. And now, having spent the last several hours drafting this response, I can put it aside.

Yes.

I'd rather read a seven page essay on how triangles aren't real than endure this God awful "article".

What is this drivel, and why are you trying to share it?

The article is talking about "health problem" in its last paragraph. But Narcissism isn't a mental disorder or a mental illness; it is a personality disorder. (The narcissist is not suffering from the disorder; it's the surrounding people who are.) The whole text is based on the author's wrong understanding of the fundamentals of the subject, which renders the whole article useless.

From Wikipedia:

1. High self-esteem and a clear sense of uniqueness and superiority, with fantasies of success and power, and lofty ambitions
2. Social potency, marked by exhibitionistic, authoritative, charismatic and self-promoting interpersonal behaviours
3. Exploitative, self-serving relational dynamics; short-term relationship transactions defined by manipulation and privileging of personal gain over other benefits of socialisation

I think we can put big checkmarks on all three of those for Trump. We don't need a professional psychologist for that.

Which may be partially beside the point and argument the article is trying to make, but I still want to point these out.

I don’t want to be an enabler of the drivel, so without posting the full URL to that article that’s reachable in the open free world, I will just say that medium.com links should never be publicly shared outside of Cloudflare’s walled garden. I realise aussie.zone is also in Cloudflare’s walled garden, but please be aware that it’s federated and reaches audiences who are excluded by Cloudflare.

The medium.com portion of the URL should be replaced by scribe.rip to make a medium article reachable to everyone. Though I must say this particular article doesn’t need any more reach than it has.

Anyone who just wants the answer: see @souperk@reddthat.com’s comment in this thread.

Well, that's one exception to Betteridge's Law.

I think the more interesting question on this topic is whether and when calling people narcissistic is fine or not. Is it a slur? I don't think so. Is it an insult? I certainly don't think it categorically and always is. It depends on context.

But this article isn't that.

Yes he is, and I read 2 sentences of this article, skipped to the end, and it reads like word salad or something written by someone who is drunk. Or they got copilot to rewrite the article.

Thank you for sharing this. I completely agree!

As someone with axis 'disorder' friends a lot of trauma based reactions leading to diagnostic criteria or various very understandable synptoms get reated very poorly and it both angers and upsets me.

I do not currently have the energy to argue or correct the others in this thread. So I'd just like to say thank you for at least attempting to bring this to other's attention, we need more of this.

Donald Trump isn’t a narcissist, because we shouldn’t be calling anyone a “narcissist”.

I don't see how that makes sense. Whether or not you should be calling anyone a narcissist doesn't change whether they are one. If you want to make an argument about labeling or unfounded labeling or unqualified labeling it would be better to do that, not claim them to be wrong (which is ironic because you argue only a medical professional should be able to determine whether or not it is the case; but I assume that's not the spirit of what you meant here).

Regarding diagnosis; Wikipedia has separate articles on Narcissism and Narcissistic personality disorder. Only the second has mentions of diagnosis and references the ICD and DSM (professional diagnosis criteria you can check yourself). Now I wonder whether professionals can and do even make diagnoses on narcissism and whether it's on the same kind of arbitrary conditions as anyone/the public.

People label people because it's useful. You don't have to be a professional psychologist, medical professional, or judge to make judgments on character and disorders. We don't have to wait for a court ruling before we label what we see and can assess. I think it's an interesting argument, but this is not a good way to present it.

I don't consider it a slur. Wikipedia qualifies it as a continuum with possibly common and healthy sections.

Moving on to what makes a Narcissist; From Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

Narcissism exists on a continuum that ranges from normal to abnormal personality expression. While many psychologists believe that a moderate degree of narcissism is normal and healthy in humans, there are also more extreme forms, observable particularly in people who are excessively self-absorbed, or who have a mental illness like narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), where the narcissistic tendency has become pathological, leading to functional impairment and psychosocial disability.

Narcissism is a self–centered personality style characterized as having an excessive preoccupation with oneself and one's own needs, often at the expense of others.

Two primary expressions of narcissism have been identified: grandiose ("thick-skinned") and vulnerable ("thin-skinned").

1. High self-esteem and a clear sense of uniqueness and superiority, with fantasies of success and power, and lofty ambitions 2. Social potency, marked by exhibitionistic, authoritative, charismatic and self-promoting interpersonal behaviours 3. Exploitative, self-serving relational dynamics; short-term relationship transactions defined by manipulation and privileging of personal gain over other benefits of socialisation

Yeah, I think we can confidently put a big check mark on all three of those points.