The Personality Analyst

Libel in Fact: Aspiring to Rational Judgments Using DSM-I

John D. Mayer, Ph.D. — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:29:49 +0000

A 1964 poll Fact magazine invited members of the American Psychiatric Association to comment on then-Senator Barry Goldwater's personality. Last week, I continued my examination of the results of the poll, particularly focusing on the difference between, intuitive, automatic-seeming perceptions of personality versus logical, analytical reactions (see here).

An example of a likely intuitive reaction was a respondent's comment regarding the Senator: "He frightens the hell out of me."

In contrast to such intuitive reactions, diagnostic evaluations of Senator Goldwater ought to be more logical and analytical. Psychiatrists are trained in diagnosis, and to diagnose successfully requires both experience and expertise. Although the Fact poll did not specifically request diagnoses of the Senator, a number of psychiatrists volunteered their diagnostic impressions.

Today, psychiatrists diagnose mental disorders by using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, 4th Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). The DSM-IV and the edition before it, DSM-III, were developed in part to promote agreement as to when a disorder is present or not in a patient.

To attain reasonable agreement, the DSM-IV includes both definitions of disorders, and lists of specific symptoms for a disorder. The diagnosis for schizophrenia, for example, includes such manifestations as delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech, and affective flattening. Schizophrenia is diagnosed only if a certain number of symptoms are present in a combination specified by the manual.

Earlier manuals, such as DSM-I (PDF) and DSM-II had relied solely on carefully conceived definitions of each disorder, but without such symptom checklists. The manuals' authors had assumed that good definitions would be sufficient to attain diagnostic agreement. After the publication of those two manuals, however, researchers delivered a rude shock: Agreement as to diagnosis based on definition alone was quite low. By the mid-sixties, the implications of such findings were just beginning to be appreciated.

The psychiatrists who replied to the Fact poll were using the DSM-I (published in 1952). DSM-I represented an advance over earlier diagnostic systems in drawing together, defining, and organizing the psychiatric nomenclature of the time. Without symptom checklists, however, diagnostic agreement among those who used DSM-I was often poor, and patients were often misdiagnosed. The diagnoses offered for Senator Goldwater in the Fact poll reflected this issue as well: there were widely varying assessments.

Regarding Senator Goldwater, some saw him as normal: One concluded, "He is a sane man." Some psychiatrists ascribed only problematic disorders to him that were mild-to-moderate in severity: "...an anal character", or "...has a severe obsessive-compulsive neurosis...", or was "...a narcissistic character disorder with not too latent paranoid elements...".

A number of the psychiatrists were concerned about more serious issues such as paranoia; one remarked: "he is paranoid..."; others labeled Goldwater "...a paranoid personality..., compensated at present...", and "...a paranoid personality or a schizophrenic, paranoic type."

DSM-1 described paranoid personalities as marked by social withdrawal characteristic of Schizoids, but included as well: "an exquisite sensitivity... suspiciousness, envy, extreme jealousy and stubbornness." I wonder how typical this description might be of the average shy or introverted person without paranoia. Aside from the "extreme jealousy," many people are suspicious at times, experience envy, and could appear stubborn to those who disagree with them.

Still more severe diagnoses appeared in the poll as well: "I believe Goldwater to be suffering from a chronic psychosis...," "is grossly psychotic," or was a "...chronic schizophrenic...".

Psychosis refers to being out of touch with reality, to disorganized behaviors such as shouting or arguing with oneself out loud, or being entirely mute. DSM-1 defined psychotic reactions as:

...one in which the personality, in its struggle for adjustment to internal and external stresses, utilizes severe affective disturbance, profound autism and withdrawal from reality, and/or formation of delusions or hallucinations.

It seems incongruous that Senator Goldwater, then conducting a national campaign as the Republican candidate for US President, had a mental state in any way close to psychotic. Even Fact magazine's other coverage of the Senator (see here) failed to make a strong case for psychosis, in my reading.

DSM-I, although defining diagnoses, failed to provide the methods necessary to accurately perceive others -- methods which, at the time, were largely unknown. DSM-I's limitation in this area undermined the ability of mental health professionals to accurately diagnosis (or view as healthy) Senator Goldwater.

The Fact poll may not have provided a good sense of Senator Goldwater's true character, but some of the issues of judging personality are clarified by examining the published responses to the poll.

Intuitions may reveal some truths about a person, but it is useful to add a logical, analytic check as to the accuracy of one's reactions.

Even highly perceptive, empathic, and experienced psychiatrists require empirically valid methods and procedures when judging the personality of another person. Without good procedures and sound research, even very smart people may be readily led astray.

Notes

The definition of psychotic is from p. 12, and the description of paranoia is from page 36 of the Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics of the American Psychiatric Associaiton. (1952). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: Mental Disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

The psychiatrist's assessments all appeared in Boroson, W. (1964, September/October). What psychiatrists say about Goldwater. Fact, 1, 24-64. These included that, "He is a sane man." (p. 42), "...an anal character" (p. 42), or "...has a severe obsessive-compulsive neurosis..." (p. 37), or is a "...a narcissistic character disorder with not too latent paranoid elements..." (p. 26).
Paranoia was a common concern; for example, Goldwater was labeled:...a paranoid personality..., compensated at present..." (p. 27), "...a paranoid personality or a schizophrenic, paranoic type," (p. 55) and simply, "he is paranoid..." (p. 62)
Still more severe diagnoses appeared in the poll as well: "I believe Goldwater to be suffering from a chronic psychosis... (p. 38)" "I believe Goldwater is grossly psychotic" (p. 63) "I get the clinical impression that Goldwater may be a chronic schizophrenic...Covert-psychotics-which Goldwater probably is-never get picked up by superficial Armed Services tests..." (p. 57). Senator McCarthy...was a slowly decompensating paranoid schizophrenic. Goldwater's general views and behavior mark him as cut from essentially the same mold." (p. 41).

Libel in Fact: Intuitive Judgments

John D. Mayer, Ph.D. — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:54:51 +0000

In recent posts, I have been examining a 1964 poll conducted by Fact magazine. The poll asked psychiatrists to comment on then-Senator Barry Goldwater's personality. The comments published in Fact provide some useful illustrations of how people judge one another.

In 2007, Arie Kruglanksi and Edward Orehek of the University of Maryland examined how "dual mode" theories are key to understanding person perception. Dual mode theories state that a person draws on two somewhat different mental systems when judging someone.

The first of the two systems is fast-reacting, and involves largely automatic recognition and quick categorizations of the individual who is being judged. This first system is sometimes called "automatic," "intuitive," "experiential" or, "System 1." We probably share this same system with other mammals. It evolved early, uses associative memory, involves pattern recognition, and it is responsible for our first impression of liking or disliking someone.

In the 1964 Fact magazine poll of psychiatrists, many of the psychiatrists' comments seemed to reflect this basic, automatic, feeling-pattern response:

"I believe that Barry Goldwater (like all peace-loving people) opposes war..."

"...He frightens the hell out of me..."

"NO psychiatrist of my personal acquaintance is less than alarmed at the Goldwater threat..."

"I'm scared and I'm fighting like hell against this damn fool."

According to dual-mode theories, there is a second, more logical system that begins its work as the first evaluative system responds. This second system applies a more probing, logical analysis that allows us to consciously and thoughtfully apply rational rules (and scientific rules, if we known them) to understanding and evaluating another person. This system is sometimes called "controlled" or "intentional," "rule-based," or "System 2."

Examples of the more analytic sort of comment that System 2 produces can also be found in the Fact poll, often buttressed by examples and rationales (albeit limited by the magazine format). For example, one respondent wrote that Goldwater exhibited:

"...distinct persecution feelings. For example, when Rockefeller repeated to the Republican Convention some of Goldwater's earlier remarks, Goldwater had a picture of himself distributed which showed an arrow in his back."

(The negativity of the respondents' comments reflects, in part, the overall bias of the Fact poll).

System 1 and 2 evaluatons can be separated experimentally in laboratory settings. Outside of the laboratory, however, it is harder to know the process behind a comment. (My examples are meant only to illustrate the concepts involved).

Person perception researchers believe Systems 1 and 2 work together within each of us to produce judgments of others (and sometimes, of ourselves). Ideally, both systems work well but sometimes they do not.

We may be justifiably scared and preoccupied about someone. If that happens, we may overgeneralize that frightening individual's characteristics to other people. Perhaps that was the case with this respondent:

"I witnessed Hitler's early rise with anxiety...Even the fact that psychiatrists recognized Hitler's power drive as they now recognize Goldwater's is comparable...Goldwater may for personal glory sacrifice the future of the world."

If our experiential System 1 perception is knocked off-course by an earlier real event, our automatic evaluations may mislead us.

System 2 can be impaired as well. If we are taught incorrect assumptions and inadequate procedures for understanding others, our logical analyses of what others are like will also be compromised.

For our perception of others to be most accurate, it helps to have accurate intuitions (System 1) and good assumptions and procedures for understanding others (System 2). When the systems are responding well and are integrated thoughtfully, we can be more secure in our judgments than otherwise.

So, what about the respondents to the Fact survey? I suspect that people's perceptions of their leaders are thrown off in times of great national turmoil by emotions such as fear and anger. Also, the logical assumptions mental health professionals employed in the 1960s to understand others were often very approximate, if not mistaken.

When both our intuitive and our logical systems of judgment are awry, the reality of others can be difficult to discern.

Notes

An excellent review of dual modes of processing are discussed in: Kruglanski, A. W. & Orehek, E. (2007); Partitioning the Domain of Social Inference: Dual Mode and Systems Models and Their Alternatives. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 291-316.
The quotes are all from: Boroson, W. (1964, September/October). What psychiatrists say about Goldwater. Fact, 1, pp. 24-64. ... : "I witnessed Hitler's early rise with anxiety..." p. 39; "...He frightens the hell out of me..." p. 51; "NO psychiatrist of my personal acquaintance ..." (p. 55); "I'm scared and I'm fighting like hell..." (p. 26). "I believe that Barry Goldwater (like all peace-loving people) ..." (p. 40); "I am highly fearful of Senator Goldwater's casually precipitating us into an all-out atomic war..." p. 30. "His statements and actions show distinct..." (p. 26)

A few edits: line edits, and, +4 days, to acknowledge (again, in this post) the bias in the poll overall.

Libel in Fact: When are Data Good Enough?

John D. Mayer, Ph.D. — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:20:55 +0000

When are data good enough?

Researchers and scholars often face this question. I face it as I examine responses from the 1964 Fact survey of psychiatrists.

Last week I described some "wild analysis" on the part of several psychiatrists who responded to the poll.

The psychiatrists were evaluating then-Senator Barry Goldwater's personality. The term, "wild analysis" refers to an evaluation of someone's personality based on unsubstantiated theory and/or implausible reasoning.

Mr. Warren Boroson, the former managing editor of Fact at the time commented on last week's post:

"The person who edited the letters from psychiatrists--not me--did not have an academic background, and condensed some comments and merged others. Which I relate in the interest of historical accuracy."

Fact magazine's publisher, Mr. Ginzburg, acknowledged in court during the libel trial against him and his magazine, that such editing took place.

In his book, Errors, Lies, and Libel, Professor Peter Kane describes how during the last two days of Senator Goldwater's case, the jury heard evidence against Mr. Ginzburg from the pretrial collection of materials and interviews with key individuals (the discovery process). During those two days, Kane opines:

"...the most damaging evidence was the contrast between materials in the questionnaires that had been returned to Fact and the quotations that appeared in the magazine. There were numerous phrases taken out of context, separate responses combined to appear as one, anonymous statements appearing to have identifiable sources, and even statements changed by Ginzburg to enhance or produce negative effects..."

Such editing casts uncertainty over the valid reporting of individual psychiatric opinion in the survey. Increasing the negativity of a reported opinion represents neither good journalistic nor good survey methods (although it can be a thin line between editing to increase ease of reading, and editing to increase impact: mostly negative impact, in this case). From a legal standpoint, such editing established the possibility of malice.

That granted, the words were still those (mostly) of the psychiatrists. There were no accusations that substantial material was added to the original letters. Moreover, although some material was edited, many letters were reprinted as written, and others retained their original character: The five psychiatrists questioned in pre-trial depositions all said that their published opinions were accurate representations of their evaluations of Goldwater.

So the data are imperfect, and analyses should take that into account: An analysis that drew conclusions about the negativity of psychiatrists regarding Goldwater overall, or that drew conclusions about the quality of psychiatrists' writing styles, would be highly questionable.

Other analyses, however, that concern judgments of personality expressed by the psychiatrists of the time may be on firmer footing. The examination of connected sentences within a paragraph is probably worth carrying out as well. If multiple examples of a phenomena (such as "wild analysis") were present, they probably reflect something useful of the original material. Nonetheless, the unasked-for editing of the psychiatrists' responses is a reminder of the potential fallibility of all data.

Professor David Funder of the University of California, Riverside, has a set of informal laws about personality and how it is studied. Funder's third law concerns the collection of data. It states: "Something beats nothing, two times out of three." As he elaborates elsewhere: "The only alternative to gathering information that might be misleading is to gather no information. That is not progress."

The Fact survey and subsequent libel trial involved eminent political and scientific figures, over one thousand psychiatrists, important legal outcomes, new ethical standards, and a colorful historical story, all centered around the various ways personality is judged.

The psychiatrists' letters represent imperfect data as published - that is certain.

Because I believe the case to be important, I will proceed to examine the letters further albeit with some reservations. I'll take Funder's two-to-three odds that the "something" (the survey result) is more informative than nothing, and that thinking about personality judgments in the context of the trial represents progress that is admittedly uncertain and unknown right now, but that may become clearer later.

Notes

The quote from Mr. Boroson is from his comment of October 29th, 2009, on last week's post.

The quote "...the most damaging evidence..." and the testimony of the five psychiatrists were both from pp. 47-48 from Kane, P. E. (1992). Errors, lies, and libel. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern IIllinois University Press. I capitalized "Fact" in the quote as reproduced here, although it was lowercase in the original.

Funder's third law, and the quote "The only alternative..." are both from p. 21 of Funder, D. C. (2004). The personality puzzle (3rd ed.). New York: Norton.

Libel in Fact: Wild Analysis in the Fact Poll

John D. Mayer, Ph.D. — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:51:52 +0000

"Wild analysis" was Sigmund Freud's 1910 term for the misapplication of his psychological theories to a psychotherapy patient. It might occur if the analyst in question misunderstood psychoanalytic theory (Freud's theory), or didn't know the person being analyzed well enough, or misapplied the theory out of some personal motivation. Wild analysis also refers to communicating a conclusion without regard to therapeutic tact.

To update the concept a bit, one might say that wild analysis occurs when one person interprets another's mental life in a way that does not follow logically from observations of that person, or is based on an unsupportable theory, or makes claims that are too strong, or that is outlandish in some other way such as lacking tact.

Examples of wild analysis can be found in the 1964 Fact magazine poll concerning Senator Barry Goldwater's personality. (I have been describing the poll in recent posts). The poll by Fact asked members of the American Psychiatric Association to evaluate the character of the Senator, who was then running for President.

Although a number of the psychiatrists' comments were thoughtful and wise... a number included what I would consider wild analysis. One psychiatrist wrote of Goldwater:

"...Frequent temper outbursts and some profane utterances imply a defective ego that is unable to control primitive hostile emotional situations..."

I am not sure it is fair to speculate about a defective ego just on the basis of not-clearly-documented "frequent temper outbursts" and profane language. After all, Mr. Goldwater also possessed enough self-control to become a Senator and win his party's nomination for president.

Another respondent wrote:

"One could speculate further that Goldwater had a rigid toilet-training period. He seems unalterably opposed to controls and authority (except in his own hands, of course). His theme is "freedom" - but from what? Unconsciously it appears to be from his mother's domination."

It is common for a child to desire freedom from his mother's control from time to time. That said, shouldn't we guess that, by middle age, the Senator possessed the maturity to have formed adult opinions of political power and its uses?

A final example:

"Consistent with Goldwater's paranoid traits is his sensitivity to questions about his "honesty and integrity" - obvious unconscious substitutes for his masculinity ...".

No business person or Senator (Goldwater was both) would take kindly to having his or her honesty and integrity questioned. Why are honesty and integrity "obvious substitutes" for masculinity?

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Freud was said to have replied when asked about whether his own cigar was a phallic symbol.

Each of us has been misperceived, and each of us misperceives others. These examples, which I regard as involving wild analysis, provide a useful reminder that professional training cannot always prevent such human error from cropping up.

It is possible to conduct reasoned analyses of others' personalities, even from a distance. That said, people may not always use the methods necessary; they may veer over into unsupported, irrational conclusions. "I think," wrote another psychiatrist who was concerned as to what his colleagues might say, that:

"...the names of psychiatrists and psychologists who answer this should be made public so we can see which ones use crystal balls."

Some psychiatrists signed their names, and others responded anonymously. Some who wrote in acknowledged that their opinions were speculative, and others wrote with an air of certainty. Looking at these letters from 45 years ago provides some clarity through hindsight as to what made sense and what did not. It provides a reminder, too, that when we judge others (or fail to do so), our actions today may themselves be subject to judgments tomorrow.

Notes

All quotes are from Boroson, W. (1964, September/October). What psychiatrists say about Goldwater. Fact, 1, pp. 24-64. "Frequent temper outbursts...," p. 43; "One could speculate further that...," p. 61; "Consistent with Goldwater's paranoid traits," p. 50; "the names of psychiatrists," p. 29.

For contemporary views of Freud's "Wild Analysis," see Schafer, R. (1985). "Wild analysis." Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 33, 275-299. Or, Meltzer, D. (1978). Routine and inspired interpretations: Their relation to the weaning process in analysis. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 14, 210-225. Berman, E. (2007). Call of the wild. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 67, 211-220.

Corrections/edits: I added the last paragraph +12 hours after posting.

Libel in Fact: Agreement in the Fact Poll?

John D. Mayer, Ph.D. — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:19:29 +0000

In past posts, I have been recounting the Goldwater v. Ginzburg libel trial. Fact magazine's September, 1964 issue was devoted to whether Senator Goldwater, who was then running for US President, was sufficiently mentally healthy to lead the nation. After losing the election, Senator Goldwater accused Fact's publisher and editor of defaming his character.

The libel trial that followed provided real-life examples of the challenges surrounding accurate personality judgments and the ethics and laws that apply to such judgments. One issue at the trial was Fact magazine's poll of psychiatrists as to Senator Goldwater's mental state.

Fact's polling methods were biased against Goldwater. Moreover, by the time the poll was conducted the psychiatrists, and the general public as well, were disenchanted with the Senator as a candidate.

Nonetheless, a number of diverse, strongly-stated psychiatric opinions were collected and reprinted. I am wondering what, if anything, the letters tell us about the Senator's character. Can we cut through the evaluative bias to something more accurate?

The English Moral philosopher R. M. Hare distinguished between the descriptive aspects of what we say about a topic, and the evaluative aspects. Hare said we could characterize a strawberry evaluatively by saying, "that tastes great," or "this one is delicious," or we could describe it more descriptively (and neutrally): emphasizing such facts as it is "pock-marked, large, red, juicy, and moderately sweet."

The same distinction between evaluation and description applies to characterizing people's personalities.

Professor Dean Peabody of Swarthmore College (JPG) has sought relatively non-evaluative dimensions of personality by which we might judge others. So much of judging is evaluative that it seems almost impossible to find non-evaluative approaches, but Peabody and his colleagues, I think, provide some insight as to how it might be done.

Peabody's approach begins with the observation that we often use positive and negative words for the same element of personality, depending upon whether we like the quality or not. For example, we might witness a person's behavior and call her "bold" if we like what she did, or "reckless" if we did not. In both instances we acknowledge a person took a risk, but the evaluations are different. Similarly, a risk-avoidant person might be labeled "prudent" if we think highly of her, or "timid" if we think less highly of her choices.

One can create a number of these word-pairs that describe the same quality from positive and negative perspectives: self-controlled and inhibited, relaxed and lethargic, alert and tense, open-minded and noncommittal, and steady and inflexible.

Using such word couplets, Peabody has arrived at four non-evaluative descriptions of a person that he believes are commonly used:

Assertive: people are confident, forceful, rough, and domineering.
Unassertive: people are modest, mild-tempered, meek, naïve, submissive.
Tight: people are orderly, economical, miserly, systematic and punctual.
Loose: people are social, happy-go-lucky, impulsive, and disorganized.

(Please note that the above four categories represent my simplification of Peabody's more nuanced approach).

I engaged in a very preliminary and informal application of Peabody's system to the Fact poll. To do so, I chose two pro- and two con-Goldwater letters, and listed how the psychiatrists characterized the Senator.

The positive letter-writers described Goldwater as possessing "emotional stability" "emotional control," and as being "aggressive," "active," "devoted to high principles," "realistic," "emotionally tense," "not aggressive," and someone who [can] "take a firm stand."

The negative letter-writers described Goldwater as "aggressive," "impulsive," "rigid," and [possessing] "poor hostility control."

Using Peabody's classification, it seemed to me that despite their contrasting views, the four letter-writers agreed that Goldwater was highly "Assertive."

There was less agreement as to "Loose." The pro-Goldwater letters were unconcerned about this, perceiving the Senator as emotionally controlled. The anti-Goldwater letter writers, however, rasied the issue (e.g., "impulsive," "poor hostility control"). So, I will assign the Senator a moderate "Loose" score (this seems consistent to me with other biographical information about him).

Peabody, with Professors Gerard Saucier and Fritz Ostendorf, has recently generalized his work across both English and German-language terms. The system seems careful, thoughtful, and an inventive method for being less evaluative and more descriptive.

Using the approach provided me with a possible way to cut through some of the strong opinions expressed in the Fact survey and arrive at what might be a more descriptive (rather than evaluative) analysis of Senator Goldwater's character.

I intended this analysis to demonstrate Professor Peabody's system rather than as any conclusive statement about Senator Goldwater's personality: My methodology is, at best, suggestive of what a better analysis might show.

That said, to carry the example through, the Senator appeared Assertive and (possibly) moderately Loose. Peabody's idea is that psychiatrists writing opinions for and against the Senator might nonetheless agree on some descriptions. Assuming this depiction of the Senator were borne out, it might explain something about the controversies surrounding his campaign for president.

The 1964 election was a moment in history when the possibility of nuclear war was very much on the public's mind. A candidate who appeared high in Assertiveness, with its qualities of dominance and roughness, combined with moderate Looseness, with its implications of impulsivity, might not have seemed at the time like a good choice for US President, particularly if the impulsivity-Looseness issue were emphasized.

The Fact poll of psychiatrists, biased though its methodology was, need not be entirely dismissed. Rather, by applying careful analyses, one might be able to capture some basic but informative descriptions of the Senator's personality.

Notes

The discussion of descriptive vs. evaluative comments come from p. 111 of Hare, R. M. (1952). The language of morals. Oxford, England: Clarendon.

Non-evaluative dimensions of personality were discussed by Saucier, G., Ostendorf, F., Peabody, D. (2001). Journal of Personality, 69, 537-582. And in Peabody, D. (1967). Trait inferences: Evaluative and descriptive aspects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph, 7 (4, Whole No. 644), as well as in other studies.

Sometimes this quality of alternate viewpoints is called "transvaluing." See, for example, Shawver, L. & Lubach, J. (1977). "Value attribution in group psychotherapy." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45(2), 228-236.

The positive letters were from Robert T. Dean (p. 45) and Carl F. Vernlund (pp. 39-40). The negative letters were from Name Withheld (Boston) and Name Withheld (Chicago), (both p. 47). All letters appeared in: Boroson, W. (1964, September/October). What psychiatrists say about Goldwater. Fact, 1, pp. 24-64.

Corrections/edits: I wrestled with the last two paragraphs for 30 min. after posting.

Libel in Fact: For All Its Flaws, Was the Poll of Psychiatrists a Good Idea?

John D. Mayer, Ph.D. — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:18:47 +0000

During the 1964 US Presidential election, Fact magazine had polled psychiatrists as to then-Senator Barry Goldwater's mental health, asking whether he was fit to be president. Whatever you might think of Fact's poll - whether you believe it was so slanted as to be libelous, or whether it was reasonably fair -- is the idea to assess the psychology of presidential candidates a good one?

Some of the responding psychiatrists found the idea repugnant. One M.D. from Richmond, VA wrote into the magazine:

"What type of yellow rag are you operating? I have never in my life witnessed such a shabby attempt to smear a political candidate. I would suggest that you change the name of your magazine [from Fact] to 'Fancy,' or better, 'Smear'!"

Others agreed the poll was a bad idea: Robert C. Murphy, Jr., M.D., another of the psychiatrists, opined:

"The sort of marriage between psychiatry and politics you are proposing is utterly grotesque. Psychiatrists have no more to contribute to judging a political candidate than do movie actors to one cigarette brand over another...[ellipses in the original]."

But Oscar Sachs, M.D., of the New York Psychoanalytic Institute thought that questioning the candiate's mental health was a good idea. He wrote in:

"Perhaps one day we will demand a standard of mental health in our representatives as we do in other spheres. Presidents of large corporations today demand psychological evaluations before hiring key executives. It would appear that running American businesses is more important than running the American Government."

I agree with Dr.Sachs that psychological screening is a good idea, even from afar. It just has to be fair and have some validity. The Fact poll left much to be desired in that regard, but there are attempts to do better.

In 1993, I suggested that those in the psychiatric community consider the existence of a "Dangerous Leader Disorder" (PDF). I proposed that dangerous leaders exhibited three central characteristics: "indifference toward people's suffering and devaluation of others," "intolerance of criticism," and a "grandiose sense of national entitlement." Each of these areas was characterized by more specific leader-behaviors.

For example, to meet the "indifference toward people's suffering..." criterion, leaders needed to meet several criteria from this group (I am abbreviating here, but you'll get the idea...)

"wholesale murder of advisors,"
"torture of citizens without trials,"
"the murder or imprisonment of family members or relatives,"
"targeted killings of particular groups within the state and (after invasions) beyond the state,"
"unrestrained and unapologetic attacks on the character or worth of other peoples (excluding opposition leaders), especially based on race, religion, or socio-economic status."

My colleagues Frederick L. Coolidge and Daniel L. Segal of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, also have examined dangerous leaders. They recruited citizens from a leader's country to fill out symptom checklists on the leaders. The symptom checklists were adapted from psychiatric questionnaires assessing personality disorders.

A wise teacher once told me that you can't stop people from trying to solve their problems, even when they are using methods that won't work. A better approach is to provide more effective ways for them to solve their problems.

I wonder whether the approaches employed by Coolidge and Segal, and in my own research, might improve the methods we have for assessing danger in leaders. If so, developing them further might better protect both citizens and leaders.

Had such assessments for dangerousness been around in 1964, perhaps the Fact poll would never have gotten started. After all, looking at today's checklists for dangerousness, I do not think Senator Goldwater would have come close to meeting the necessary criteria.

Having some agreed-upon standards for flagging potentially dangerous leaders might make us all safer -- citizens and senators.

Notes

"What type of yellow rag?..." (p. 50), "The sort of marriage..." (p. 48); "Perhaps someday..." (p. 47-48) all from: Boroson, W. (1964, September/October). What psychiatrists say about Goldwater. Fact, 1, pp. 24-64.

My article was: Mayer, J. D. (1993). The emotional madness of the dangerous leader. Journal of Psychohistory, 20, 331-348. The articles of my colleagues Coolidge and Segal are: Coolidge, F. L., & Segal, D. L. (2007). Was Saddam Hussein like Adolph Hitler? A personality disorder investigation. Military Psychology, 19, 289-299. See also: Coolidge, F. L., Davis, F. L., & Segal, D.L. (2007). Understanding madmen: A DSM-IV assessment of Adolph Hitler. Individual Differences Research, 5, 30-43.

The Fact Poll: Thoughtful Remarks from Respondents

John D. Mayer, Ph.D. — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 20:08:12 +0000

Libel is a form of defamation of character - a harsh and untrue vilification of another. Many politicians and others today accuse one another of libel. To better understand libel, I have been examining a legal case concerning the issue - one that that involved the mental health community and presidential politics, and that went to the US Supreme Court.

In that case, Goldwater v. Ginzburg, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater sued the publisher of Fact magazine who had, during Senator Goldwater's run for the US Presidency, conducted a psychiatric assessment of his character.

More recently, I have been focusing on a poll of psychiatrists conducted by Fact that asked psychiatrists whether Mr. Goldwater was mentally healthy enough to be president. The psychiatrists responded with a number of harsh comments, which Fact's publisher, Ralph Ginzburg, went ahead and published (see here).

There was also considerable wisdom in some responses to the poll. These, too, merit consideration. Some involved judgments by psychiatrists of themselves and their colleauges. As one put it:

"If most psychiatrists do not prefer Goldwater, it is certainly no surprise. Psychiatrists have a strong tendency to be "do-gooders"...Since I am a practicing psychiatrist I feel free to criticize my profession. Among MD's, we are the most psychologically disturbed of the group. That is what motivates us to be interested in other people's problems."

The question of whether psychiatrists are any more or less psychologically disturbed than others (or were in 1964) is an empirical one beyond the scope of this post. One of my ongoing points in these posts is that psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, along with the rest of humanity, are often judgmental. The Fact survey, which mixed psychiatry and politics with little guidance to the respondents, encouraged strong judgments.

In addition to commenting on Senator Goldwater or their colleagues, some psychiatrists raised important points regarding observing others.

One example concerned the following letter from a psychiatrist who pointed out the importance of context:

"...It is an axiom that persons who make exaggerated statements (remarks) become very moderate when they have to assume the responsibility of their decisions and performances."

"Mr. Goldwater would probably be no exception to this rule."

Another line of argument was to acknowledge the then-Senator's alleged mental health issues but note that many people get on successfully with their lives even with such challenges.

"...If Mr. Goldwater is selected it will simply mean that those of us who are really struggling with the human predicament-I know a number of them, and there must be a good many millions more-will simply have to work a little harder. And there is no catastrophe in that, only joy, and discovery."

"I know that not all of my colleagues are going to see the meaning of your inquiry [i.e., "is Goldwater fit...?"] as I do and that some of them will respond to it at face value, exactly as you ask. But their doing so will seem to me shortsighted and utterly wrong, and I am writing you this letter so that you may have at least one statement of a valid opposing viewpoint."

Several letter-writers echoed this point citing specific examples of presidents who succeeded in spite of - or because of - their own psychological difficulties. Psychiatrists wrote in from Colorado Springs, Colorado, Wilsonville, Oregon, and Sioux Falls, South Dakota to point out that President Abraham Lincoln had suffered from psychiatric issues, and what a tragedy it would be if Lincoln had been prevented from becoming president as a consequence. This raises the issue that not any psychiatric illness ought to disqualify a president, perhaps only some more specific constellations of problems - if any should at all.

Another example includes a psychiatrist who made the point, implicitly, that analyzing someone in isolation makes less sense than a fairer and more reasonable approach of comparing someone to his or her peers:

"Goldwater shows more stability than [then-president] Johnson..."

Another psychiatrist wrote in to raise the issue of whether it was better to first gain someone's permission before proceeding to analyze them. I'll close this week's post with this letter. The writer replied to the editors:

"If you will send me written authorization from Senator Goldwater and arrange for an appointment, I shall be happy to send you a report concerning his mental status."
"The same goes for you."

Notes

"If most psychiatrists do not prefer Goldwater..." (p. 29); "...It is an axiom that persons" (p. 34); "...If Mr. Goldwater is selected it will simply mean that those of us who are really struggling with the human predicament...: (p. 48); Psychiatrists wrote in from Colorado Springs, Colorado, Wilsonville, Oregon, and Sioux Falls, South Dakota... (pp. 52-53); "Goldwater shows more stability..." (p. 37); "If you will send me written authorization..." (p. 50)all from: Boroson, W. (1964, September/October). What psychiatrists say about Goldwater. Fact, 1, pp. 24-64.

The Fact Poll: What Were the Psychiatrists Thinking?

John D. Mayer, Ph.D. — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:35:08 +0000

In 1968, Senator Barry Goldwater's libel suit against the publisher and managing editor of Fact Magazine, Ralph Ginzburg, went to trial. During Senator Goldwater's run for US president in 1964, Fact had published two lengthy articles critical of the Senator's character. Goldwater had sued Fact, alleging that its special issue was a plain instance of defamation of character.

A key part of the Goldwater v. Ginzburg libel trial was that Fact conducted a poll, in which, according to the magazine, "1,189 psychiatrists said Goldwater was unfit to be president."

Last week, I described how Mr. Burns Roper, a polling expert of the time (1968), leveled a powerful critique of the magazine's survey methods. Beyond that, however, is the question, "What were the psychiatrists thinking?", when they described the Senator as negatively as many of them they did.

Most of the comments sent to the magazine were both very critical and accurately reproduced.

To be sure, Mr. Goldwater's attorneys identified that Fact's publisher, Mr. Ginzburg, had injected some bias into the editing process regarding the comments he had received. Mr. Ginzburg had acknowledged on the witness stand that on one occasion at least he had "plucked" material from one anonymous letter and included it in another, and that in another instance he had condensed a letter, summarizing its contents. Some letters printed as "name withheld" were actually unsigned in the original; printing them as "name withheld" suggested more commitment from the letter-writer than intended. Those exceptions acknowledged, the quoted comments from the psychiatrists often appeared to reflect what those professionals had in fact written.

Before the start of the trial, some psychiatrists who responded were deposed and all recognized their own comments and acknowledged them.

For example, G. T., (I will use initials here) M.D., the Director of the Glen Cove, NY, Community Hospital Mental Health Clinic, had responded to the poll by writing:

"Senator Barry Goldwater gives the superficial appearance of solidity, stability, and honesty. However, my impression is of a brittle, rigid personality structure, based on a soft-spoken continuous demand for power and authority and capable of either shattering like crystal glass or bolstering itself by the assumption of a paranoid stance and more power over others..."
"In allowing you to quote me, which I do, I rely on the protection of Goldwater's defeat at the polls in November; for if Goldwater wins the Presidency, both you and I will be among the first into the concentration camps."

So, what was going through Dr. T.'s and others' minds when they wrote in? Dr. T. had been asked just that question in the deposition.

On May 20th, in the third week of the trial, the defense read comments from five of the doctors. According to the New York Times, all of the five represented their own comments as a "personal and political opinion," as opposed to one that was professional.

Dr. T., when asked by the defense counsel to explain if he really meant that final part about being "first into the concentration camps," responded, "It was written more as a quip." He then added "If I really believed it, I would be somewhat paranoid."

Dr. L. R. S., M.D., of Westport, CT, had taken a different approach in his letter, writing:

...Goldwater suffers from a kind of social and political infantilism in his complete failure to grasp the economic and political realities of the modern world. Playing "cops and robbers" may seem like fun for the John Birchers and reactionaries who support him, but to put at the helm of our nation a bespectacled, grey-haired man with the social comprehension of a four-year-old (who solves problems by going "bang bang" at the bad guys) is as dangerous as putting a child of that age at the controls of a jet airliner.

In his deposition, Dr. S. accused Mr. Goldwater's attorneys of badgering him and intimidating him so as to limit his free speech. Mr. Robb (Mr. Goldwater's attorney), asked, "Are you intimidated?" "Yes, I am," Dr. S. responded. -- People not only judge, but those who judge are, in turn, subject to being judged themselves. That can be troubling -- even intimidating.

The psychiatrists' comments include considerable jargon associated with psychiatry: "brittle, rigid personality structure," "paranoid stance," "infantilism," and "social comprehension," as well as some of the logic associated with 1960s psychodynamic and developmental psychology. Most readers, in my opinion, could fairly assume some professional judgments were behind these remarks, albeit the psychiatrists who were deposed said otherwise.

Some psychiatrists did question the validity of the enterprise, some quite thoughtfully (more on this next week).

At least a few others psychiatrists, however, were simply aggravated by the questions. One wrote:

"Your questionnaire is one of the most asinine, insulting documents I have ever been confronted with through the U.S. mails...,"

Senator Goldwater might have had little to fear from the 2,417 psychiatrists who responded to the poll if they were no more accurate in their judgments than the just-quoted letter-writer. That respondent's conclusion regarding the survey was:

"I can assure you that no self-respecting, clinically-minded, and sincere physician or psychiatrist will answer it."

Notes

The letter by G. T. is on p. 24, by L. R. S. is on p. 28, and "Your questionnaire..." is on p. 44 of Boroson, W. (1964, September/October). What psychiatrists say about Goldwater. Fact, 1, pp. 24-64.

Mr. Ginzburg's acknowledgement of editing was in Burks, E. C. (1968, May 18). Goldwater rests libel suit, charging malicious editing. New York Times, p. 27.

Correction: +7 days: a phrase ("self-respecting, clinically-minded, and sincere physician or") had been omitted inadvertently from the closing quote; it was added. Some adjustment of the wording around the quote also was made.

Why Emotional Intelligence Matters

John D. Mayer, Ph.D. — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:33:48 +0000

This is the second of two posts on Emotional Intelligence, written for Charaktery magazine, a Polish language publication. It is now on-line in Charaktery and is cross-posted here for readers of the Personality Analyst Blog. The first post is here. This week's regular Personality Analyst post on the Fact magazine libel trial is here.

Why Emotional Intelligence Matters in Intelligence Research

In 1993, John Carroll proposed a three-stratum model of intelligence to describe the most comprehensive study of cognitive abilities available at the time. At the top of Carroll's model was g or general intelligence. G, in turn, could be broken down into 8 categories, including fluid intelligence (spatial and logical on-the-spot reasoning), crystallized intelligence (vocabulary knowledge, reading comprehension and the like), and five more areas including broad memory, broad speediness, broad visual analysis, broad auditory intelligence, and the like. Carroll and others made the point that g relied on a broad number of subsidiary intelligences. One fair conclusion from Carroll's work was that g was far broader than most our current intelligence tests measure.

Fifteen years after Carroll's work, I foresee that there is a further group of second-stratum intelligences beyond the surprising new abilities that Carroll himself had catalogued. These new abilities, which escaped Carroll's attention because they were too infrequently measured up to that time, are what I refer to today as hot intelligences -- hot because they deal with personally-relevant, meaningful, and often pleasurable or painful information: information about whether we are hot lovers or hotly tempered, hotly defensive, or warmly open. These hot intelligences include emotional, social, and practical intelligence among others.

How Emotional Intelligence Helps Influence Life Outcomes

The hot intelligences provide us with a more complete picture of information processing, but they also enhance our ability to predict many life outcomes. Recent reviews, for example, suggest that emotional intelligence - the most heavily researched of the group -- predicts a number of key social outcomes. Those high in EI have more rewarding relationships with friends, and more successful relationships at work. These predictions are above and beyond what can be made with other personality variables such as the cognitive/cool intelligences.

Can Emotional Intelligence be Enhanced - and Does it Matter?

So, should you try to raise your emotional intelligence? First, a quibble: Psychologists mean something very specific about "raising an IQ" - they mean raising your capacity to carry out accurate information processing in a given area. I think what most people mean when they ask about raising emotional IQ is more like, "Can people improve themselves by acquiring knowledge about emotions?" The answer to the "raise your EIQ" question is unknown, but the answer to whether it is worth acquiring knowledge about emotions is surely yes (although I am speaking a bit ahead of the research curve here).

People develop their knowledge of economics, baseball, foreign languages, algebra, what-have-you all the time. So, I don't think it is at all controversial to say that you can learn about emotions. Moreover, there are now many sources of reliable information about emotions ranging from magazine articles to emotions textbooks. And will this help your life? That is a trickier question.

If you are interested in emotions, learning about them will satisfy your curiosity. If you depend upon emotional knowledge in your job, learning more about emotions would likely help. Whether learning more about emotion will improve your social relations to the degree obtained by those higher in EI is uncertain. The research is ongoing; its conclusions unknown.

Meanwhile, it may be enough to learn about whether your EI is high or low, and to adjust accordingly. If the idea that emotions convey information is new to you, read up a bit on the topic and see if emotions interest you. If you don't care, let it go and develop some other mental capacities: as Carroll's work, and the theories of others indicate, many mental abilities make up intelligence and you may prefer to learn about what interests you most. That could involve something other than emotions: It could be learning about spatial relations, verbal comprehension, or social reasoning. You are likely to sustain your interest and learning in an area that interests you, which is more likely to bring you gains over the long-term.

Notes (Part II): John Carroll's three-stratum theory of intelligence is summarized in this chapter: Carroll, J.B. (1997b). The three-stratum theory of cognitive abilities. In D.P. Flanagan, J.L. Genshaft, & P.L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 122-130). New York: The Guilford Press. The original factor analytic work was in book form: Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytical studies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Other important works on expanding what g includes are by Howard Gardner and Robert J. Sternberg. A recent article in the Boston Globe outlines current work on bringing emotional education into the classroom. Bennett, D. (2009, April 5). The other kind of smart. Is it time for schools to try to boost kids' emotional intelligence? The Boston Sunday Globe. Ideas Section, pp. K1-K2. For a recent scientific review of what EI predicts, see Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507-536.

What Emotional Intelligence Is and Is Not

John D. Mayer, Ph.D. — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:06:56 +0000

Dear Readers,

This is the first of two special posts on Emotional Intelligence, written for Charaktery Magazine, a Polish-language publication. Charaktery's article just appeared and is cross-posted here for readers of the Personality Analyst Blog. (This week's regular Personality Analyst post, the latest installment on the Fact libel trial, was posted earlier and can be found here).

* * *

Does emotional intelligence exist - and if so, is it of any importance? It first helps to know what emotional intelligence is and is not.

What Emotional Intelligence Is

My colleague Peter Salovey (now Provost of Yale University) and I introduced the theory of EI and a demonstration of how it might be measured in two 1990 journal articles. Emotional intelligence, as we described it, is the capacity to reason about emotions and emotional information, and of emotions to enhance thought. People with high EI, we believed, could solve a variety of emotion-related problems accurately and quickly. High EI people, for example, can accurately perceive emotions in faces. Such individuals also know how to use emotional episodes in their lives to promote specific types of thinking. They know, for example, that sadness promotes analytical thought and so they may prefer to analyze things when they are in a sad mood (given the choice). High EI people also understand the meanings that emotions convey: They know that angry people can be dangerous, that happiness means that someone wants to join with others, and that some sad people may prefer to be alone. High EI people also know how to manage their own and others' emotions. They understand that, when happy, a person will be more likely to accept an invitation to a social gathering than when sad or afraid.

Does Emotional Intelligence Exist?

To test whether EI exists, my colleagues Peter Salovey, David Caruso, and I developed a number of ability measures of EI. Dr. Caruso had trained in intelligence research and had joined our group in 1995. Our team wanted to see if we could measure emotional intelligence abilities, if they improved with age (a characteristic of intelligence generally), and if EI abilities together formed a cohesive intelligence. If all of those conditions were met, EI arguably would be an intelligence.

One sort of test question we developed asked test-takers to identify the emotions expressed in a photograph of a face: for example, to know that sadness might be indicated by a frown. Another kind of question asked people how emotional reactions unfold. For example:

George was sad, and an hour later, he felt guilty. What happened in-between? (Choose one):

A. George accompanied a neighbor to a medical appointment to help out the neighbor.
B. George lacked the energy to call his mother, and missed calling her on her birthday.

High EI test-takers recognize that alternative B, the missed birthday phone call, would better account for George's change in mood from sadness to guilt.

The ability to answer such questions correctly seems to improve as children grow older. In addition, such questions cohere as a group: People who do well at some items tend to do well on others as well. For these reasons and others, EI is now believed to exist and is considered by many to be an established intelligence.

What Emotional Intelligence Is Not

Emotional intelligence is often claimed to be many things it is not: journalistic accounts of EI often have equated it to other personality traits. Emotional intelligence, however, is not agreeableness. It is not optimism. It is not happiness. It is not calmness. It is not motivation. Such qualities, although important, have little to do with intelligence, little to do with emotions, and nearly nothing to do with actual emotional intelligence. It is especially unfortunate that even some trained psychologists have confused emotional intelligence with such personal qualities. My colleagues and I recommended in a recent American Psychologist article:

...groups of widely studied personality traits, including motives such as the need for achievement, self-related concepts such as self-control, emotional traits such as happiness, and social styles such as assertiveness should be called what they are, rather than being mixed together in haphazard-seeming assortments and named emotional intelligence (p. 514).

Is EI a Better Predictor of Success than IQ?

Journalistic accounts have propagated yet another misconception about EI: That it is the best predictor of success in life. EI is certainly not the best predictor of success in life - as was once suggested on the cover of TIME magazine in the United States. My colleagues and I never made such claims. Those claims arose, instead, from a flurry of journalistic accounts between 1995-1998. My colleagues and I carefully examined such journalistic claims and it became clear they were based on misunderstandings of psychological science. (A local newspaper covered my concerns about a popular book on the topic: The newspaper's 1995 headline read: "UNH Prof Who Pioneered Work on Emotional Intelligence Calls Claims in Book Outrageous." I penned quite a few more critiques thereafter (see here, for one).

That said, I believe EI is quite important: It expands our notions of intelligence, it helps us predict important life outcomes, and it can be used to help people find the right work and relationships for themselves.

In my next post I will examine more about why EI matters.

Notes:

The two 1990 articles on emotional intelligence mentioned above were:

Mayer, J. D., DiPaolo, M. T., & Salovey, P. (1990). Perceiving affective content in ambiguous visual stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 772-781.

Salovey, P. & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9(3), 185-211,

Two comprehensive and recent reviews of the EI area are:

Mayer, John D.; Salovey, Peter; Caruso, David R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63, 503-517.

Mayer, J. D., Barsade, S. G., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507-536.

The article, "UNH Prof..." was: Rose, D. (December 9, 1995). Exploring the emotional landscape. Fosters Daily Democrat, p. 3, 11.

Corrections/edits: Minor copy edits and reformatting to the "Dear Reader" section +4 hours after posting.