Counter-Narcissist Intelligence in Action

vs. The Mental Health Logical Fallacy - Sam Ray © 2023

“Break on through to the other side”

It has been really pleasing to see the crucial Psychiatry and Psychology are Failing Democracy analysis get some new traction and appreciation. It has risen from near the bottom in views to #4 in popularity in a day. It is also very reaffirming when Emmy winner Heidi Siegmund Cuda aka Bette Dangerous who specializes in exposing propaganda and is recommended on Substack by Ruth Ben-Ghiat endorses this foundational CNI piece.

The reason we are here is a subscriber disagreed with the entire premise so instead of burying the responses in the comments section, I thought other subscribers could find the answers useful for tough questions about the ethical use of psychology in politics.

Notes: I want to be clear that I am not saying Joseph’s challenges or questions are narcissistic. They are not. Here at CNI we have amazingly united people from the far left to the far right with a mutual interest in counter-narcissist psychology. What else has done that? Therefore, everyone starts off with the benefit of the doubt when coming at issues from a reasonable psychological perspective.

i.e. Any political attack on any subscriber is greatly frowned upon unless well-earned, but we have a no-trolls policy so most toxicity will likely be removed quickly anyway. Here, Joseph’s questions are fair and constructively put but they are also the same smoother and refined arguments and attacks I and others have been hearing since we started bringing up trump and the Republican Party’s dangerous psychology starting in 2015.

Interestingly, the old version of this argument played hard on liberal heartstrings by saying everyone with a mental illness would avoid mental health treatment due to stigmatization if psychology was ever used in politics, but here it has been reduced to only concern for conservatives avoiding treatment. Interesting change in message.

This piece is called Counter-Narcissist Intelligence in Action because while I believe Joseph’s thoughts are sincere, talking-heads who propagate this pro-Goldwater Rule thinking in conservative political circles and media are examples of flying monkeys likely on a narcissist’s payroll and/or highly narcissistic themselves, and want to keep their dark pathologies in the shadows. Therefore we will take some CNI Action to bring clarity and sunlight to the self-serving logical fallacy they sold so many well-intentioned people like Joseph.

Joseph, no hard feelings if you still disagree after hearing my perspective, but from my perspective, this argument is ancient and long ago resolved deja vu.

“Appreciate your writing Sam, but I really disagree with this. I think breaking the Goldwater rule would inevitably politicize psychology and lead to less trust in the existing psychological establishment. Psychologists becoming more focused on denouncing republican politicians (genuinely) psychopathic behavior would probably hurt conservatives mental healthcare the most. A politicized psychology can only effectively serve half the country, and I think it’s better for psychologists to bite their tongues to better serve the millions of conservatives with treatable psychological issues.

Second point: I don’t think the American public is unaware of how narcissistic the average politician is. This is anecdotal, but when I ask any random person about Donald Trump, they list all the characteristics of a narcissist whether they know much about the term or not. Furthermore, I think Trump’s most ardent supporters like how psychologically damaged he is; the cruelty is the point for them. Vocally denouncing Trump as a narcissist will not reduce their support for him; they support him because he is a narcissist.

So I see a major downside in making conservatives less likely to seek psychological care and not much upside to more officially denouncing politicians as narcissists.

Anyways, I appreciate your writing and would love to get your perspective on this.”

Thank you for your tough questions Joseph. My perspective is the Goldwater Rule has itself politicized psychology in the opposite and more dangerous direction since it came into effect in 1973 by silencing virtually all psychological expertise and questions in politics and media. This is proven by the fact that a major political party has been taken over by narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths, so in fact I think there is a lot less trust in the psychological establishment than you are inferring.

Personally, I watched psychological experts be wrong about my little sister’s mental illness my entire youth, which gives me a healthy skepticism of the “establishment.” Additionally, narcissism psychology was the missing ingredient in my own strong yet imperfect political science, international relations and business equations, and thus exposed a need for what I do here, because narcissist psychology answers almost all the toughest questions societies keep asking but never seem to get answered.

Your belief that the status quo is better than allowing responsible psychological analysis by the experts in the field collapsed after America endured a traitorous grifter “President” with NPD at a minimum, and have conscienceless GOP leaders who leave in power someone like George Santos, because current GOP narcissistic owners who wine and dine Supreme Court justices are all about self-serving power.

The only things that dissuades or stops narcissists are firm barriers (like exposure and consequences). With imposed psychological silence on experts and in the media, most true exposure now is minimal or fleeting at best. If few wealthy narcissists face any real consequences for their actions, they will never stop compulsively pursuing what they crave, no matter the consequences to others because the only consequences they care about are the ones that come from getting caught.

In Santos' case, he is so far off the narcissism deep end he doesn’t care about exposure at all. Still, his near certain disorder is rarely mentioned and has yet to face any consequences that will bother his non-conscience.

What you apparently do not know is that once elected, the trump administration told the American Psychiatric Association that if they liked their government funding, they better make the Goldwater Rule even more restrictive. i.e. Conservatives claiming victimhood about the politicizing of psychology when they did it for four years under trump is classic projection.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder like sociopathy and psychopathy can be moderated on the margins but have no really effective long-term treatments. The best that usually can be done is to convince them that not being so selfish is in their own self-interest. In fact, most experts agree that therapy does not work because narcissists don’t think anything is wrong with them. More disturbingly, research usually shows the only thing narcissists get out of therapy is learning how to manipulate people and the system better via psychology.  

On the 2nd point:

Agreed, much of the public now realizes being a politician requires higher levels of narcissism (but most do not understand the differences between healthy vs. unhealthy narcissism).

Agreed, most know the behaviors but not the word narcissism (but that keeps many from tying it all together).

Agreed, many know trump is damaged and like him that way (because many are similarly psychologically damaged).

This meme existed long before QAnon made it real

As noted, psychological care rarely works for narcissists so them being dissuaded from ineffective psychological care seems a societal wash at best. Most pathological narcissists have been and will want the opposite of goodness, kindness, truth, justice, and democracy, and sadly they can’t help it until science learns how to alter their genes, undo their trauma or grow consciences and empathy in human brains that lack them.

When I explain it this way to most psychology professionals and mental health advocates, they quickly agree with me that society needs to be warned about threats like trump who are threats to our very existence, but they are professionally blocked from doing it themselves, and have been conditioned to mostly stay silent in politics regardless.

If you don’t see how nearly all psychological experts and the media being forced to stay silent as obviously dangerous predators gain political positions of power, I don’t know what to tell you. If given the choice between saving democracy and conservative mental health suffering a little bit by their own choice, that is not a complicated calculation, is it? Is not saving democracy itself enough “upside” to giving psychology in politics a higher priority?

I also agree that denouncing trump as a narcissist will do little because the word itself is not very useful. It is too abstract. If you haven’t read trumpism is Narcissism, you should. It will better explain current trumpian group psychology. Again, I wouldn’t need to write about dangerous disorders in politics, business and society if most experts were not being blocked or hurt professionally by doing so themselves.

In my calculus, the threat of ignoring predators of democracy seeking power in a still mostly free society by following the Goldwater Rule is suicidal and an exponentially greater threat than some conservatives not seeking mental health treatment because their feelings got hurt when trump or anyone is declared a pathological narcissist. Everyone’s mental health dramatically suffers under authoritarianism, and we will likely not even have a mental health system if we lose civil society to the fascism narcissists want (See the Russian mental health system).

Result: Thanks to Joseph’s open-mindedness and an apparently persuasive CNI argument, he gave me the amazing gift of affirmation with the purchase of a year subscription. Three Cheers for Joseph being such a good sport and showing appreciation for the work.