Is Don Trump fit to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of America?

I agree w/ you to an extent. We all exhibit a personality which indicates a consistency of how we feel and think, and act. It becomes apparent around the age of 3; is shaped my multiple inputs from many others; becomes consolidated in our early 20's; and by the 3rd decade becomes relatively fixed. One in 8 persons exhibit a disordered one.
If interested I have a published article on this topic. You can request a copy by contacting me " [login to see] ".
Rich

SSgt Richard Kensinger - I will happily take you up on that. Perhaps we can continue the debate once I've had a chance to review it.

So, I read both of your articles. Let me first say that both are very well written, and I learned something about the terminology and methodology of your area of expertise on this subject from them. To try and dispel your conclusions academically would require competing studies, not to mention a few more letters after my name :) In lieu of that, please allow me to offer my general, layman's theories on personality... independent, but relevant to, the current debate on President Trump. I assert that people's personalities change often, and not infrequently... more dramatically, the older they get. I've known outgoing, vivacious, extroverted people in their forties, who turned into withdrawn, sullen, introverts in their seventies. I've seem people exhibit what you would likely call borderline PDs in their twenties... who blossomed into stable, balanced personalities by their mid-thirties. There have been monsters born of otherwise "normal" childhoods, and saints born from abusive and chaotic backgrounds. "Anti-social" behaviors may be as much a factor of repeated exposure to negative social interactions (such as high-stress work environments, highly competitive careers, or volatile relationships), as they are any other factors... and may "make sense" as survival responses under those circumstances. My personal opinion on Donald Trump is that he strikes us as an "odd-duck" as a politician precisely because he isn't one. Rather, he's a career businessman, used to having near autocratic control of his companies, practiced in the arts of making deals... as opposed to routinely acting within strict boundaries of procedural minutia. To some extent, everyone who voted for him did so precisely because we intensely dislike, distrust, and therefore reject the bureaucratic nature of government. I will admit there are some risks entailed in that choice, as it is the procedural "red tape" that is "supposed" to prevent tyranny. On the other hand, once a collective of career politicians master said systems... it is logical to infer that these very safeguards can be manipulated to serve their own interests. In closing, it seems no less "anti-social" to routinely abuse governmental processes to increase one's own profits, use procedure to avoid meaningful debate, or obsessively pursue any and all who challenge that established norm. I'm certain a mental health expert could have a field day with most members of the established government.

Goldwater rule - professional code holds that if they haven't performed an in-person evaluation, psychiatrists should keep quiet on the mental character of public figures (unless of course they have that person's permission to speak out).

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/08/13/489807468/psychiatrists-reminded-to-refrain-from-armchair-analysis-of-public-figures