George W. Bush: Sociopath?

Over the course of the year, I've been hanging out on the blogs where there have been many comments about Bush's personailty, particularly his apparent callousness. So, on a hunch, I did a little digging and came up with a conclusion. Our President is a sociopath, based on characteristics described in a paper done in 1999.
Sociopathy can be recognized early in an individual.  Before the age of around 15 - 16 years, a child showing sociopathic traits is titled with conduct disorder.  Signs of this early stage of sociopathy might include immunity to parental punishment and pain.  Other signs may be the torturing of animals (emphasis mine), fire setting, vandalism, consistent lying, theft, or aggression towards others.  Nothing usually works in trying to change the behavior of this type of child. Therefore, the parent(s) usually give up, making the situation worse.  But it must be noted that many children with conduct disorder do not progress on to sociopaths.  After the age of 15 -16, those who continue to show sociopathic signs are then labeled as having sociopathy or antisocial personality disorder (Carter & Golant, 1998; Sabbatini, 1998).

It's well documented that Bush was a difficult child, who would blow up frogs with firecrackers.

Sociopaths are very egocentric individuals that lack a sense of personal responsibility and morality.  They may be impulsive, manipulative, reckless, quarrelsome, and consistent liars.  Sociopaths are usually unable to sustain relationships and have a total lack of remorse for their actions.  The sociopath may also be very prone to aggressive, hostile, and sometimes violent behavior. This aggression may or may not lead to criminal behavior and often takes the form of domestic violence. Along with these other actions, sociopaths often engage in self-destructive behavior such as alcoholism or addiction to drugs (emphasis mine). This, of course, usually worsens many aspects of the sociopathic behavior.  Despite these previous symptoms, the sociopath may be an excellent actor, always appearing charming, calm, and collected.  They usually have a normal or above normal intelligence level and good verbal fluency.  It is these qualities that sometimes place the sociopath in leadership positions within their social groups and often make it hard to spot their "black side".

One study suggests that such behavior could very well be inherited either genetically or environmentally.

A sample of 3687 twin pairs formed the starting point for this research. Teacher ratings for antisocial behaviour and psychopathic tendencies (i.e. lack of empathy and remorse) were used to classify the twins. Those who were in the top 10% of the sample for antisocial behaviour were separated into two groups - those with and without psychopathic tendencies.

Following analysis, the results showed that, in children with psychopathic tendencies, antisocial behaviour was strongly inherited. In contrast, the antisocial behaviour of children who did not have psychopathic tendencies was mainly influenced by environmental factors. These findings are in line with previous research showing that children with psychopathic tendencies are at risk to continue their antisocial behaviour and are often resistant to traditional forms of intervention.

As we all know, former First Lady Barbara Bush is well known to be cold, cruel and anti-social, and George was very much "her child".

I don't come from a pychiatric background, so I don't begin to claim expertise on the topic. Bush is certainly not our first sociopathic President (don't forget Nixon). But perhaps, given his stunted maturity and the influence of neo-cons around him who stoke his "black side" on a regular basis, he could very well be the most dangerous.

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

16 Comments

The Big Question Isn't Bush's Psychology
It's the political culture that treats him as normal, even a "man of character."

What you're pointing to is quite obvious, as is his long history of business failures and corruption (which extreme cronyism finally ended with the Texas Rangers, said cronyism is also routinely ignored).  But all of this has been rationalized.

So I would submit that it's the mass psychology of the political class that really needs careful diagnosis. Bush himself is an open-and-shut case.

Don't be fooled by the brevity of this comment. I am not being glib, flip or snarky.  The mass denial involved in suppressing the known facts around his failure to complete his national guard duty is just one example of the sort of behavior that cries out for diagnosis in clinical psychological terms.  There are many, many more examples.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-08-05 11:20AM | 0 recs
No offense taken
Perhaps vothers flock to him the way Ted Bundy was able to attract women.
by RandyMI 2005-08-05 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Question Isn't Bush's Psychology...
Demonize or criticize?

Oh yeah, 9/11 changed everything.  It's unpatriotic to challenge our Dear Leader.

by freedc 2005-08-05 03:50PM | 0 recs
different view
Funny how people see things differently.
You highlighted "torturing of animals"
and "alcoholism" as evidential.

I noted "consistent lying", "manipulative",
and "aggressive".

The larger problem, I agree, is that
59 million Americans are O.K. with it all.

by Woody 2005-08-05 12:59PM | 0 recs
Another example
of the same problem. So why is it okay for you to assign those attributes to Slick Willy, but when somebody says it about Gee-Dub you call it demonizing?
by catastrophile 2005-08-05 02:13PM | 0 recs
Nonsense.
I "demonize" both men enthusiastically, because both of them have f@cked over the country they claimed to be serving.

The big difference in my eyes is that the Reeps went after Slick Willy's petty offenses, because they were totally on board with his atrocities, while the Dems are actually backing away from their support for Gee-Dub's atrocities. Goddamn flip-floppers. How dare they change their minds, right?

You, on the other hand, are eager to rush to the defense of one and hurl petty insults at the other.

Now, I don't know for sure whether you honestly believe that you were making a point there, or you just pulled that out of your @$$, but the totality of your posts paints you as a shameless Reep apologist, which makes it easy to decide which one I think is the case . . .

by catastrophile 2005-08-05 04:50PM | 0 recs
And I take it
you're a truly free-thinker. That's adorable. Other than your implicit assumption that you represent a paragon of free thought, this statement is so obvious as to be meaningless.

I just find it amazing that your "free thought" so closely parallels the prefab opinions circulated in the Reep talking-points memos and press conferences.

For the record, I don't fault you for buying into the crap that these people spew. Millions of people do. Heck, there's a whole industry devoted to manufacturing bull$#!+ for your consumption.

"must be nice... to be so sure of reality."

I'm not sure what this is supposed to reference. I'm telling you what I think. And in that spirit, I'll tell you that this comes off as nothing more than a snide dodge.

Anything you'd like a more substantial response on, I'd be glad to oblige.

by catastrophile 2005-08-05 05:48PM | 0 recs
Growing up Bush
For the next seven months, Robin was in and out of the hospital. When she was in remission, they spent the time in Midland. The Bushes also decided not to tell Junior that his sister was dying. "We hated that, but we felt that it would have been too big a burden for such a little fellow," Barbara recalled in her memoir. "On the other hand, there could be no more roughhousing since leukemia patients easily hemorrhage, so we had to keep a close watch on them when they were together." [. . .]

After a memorial service in Greenwich, Connecticut (the Bushes donated her body to research), the bereaved couple rushed back to Midland. They didn't want Junior to hear about his sister's death from anyone else. [. . .]

Barbara confessed later that she and her husband "felt devastated by what we had to tell him." Typically inquisitive, he initially asked several questions, but then began beating the car seat and crying uncontrollably when he realized they had hidden the truth from them about Robin's terminal illness for the past several months. [. . .]

Years later,when he was running for reelection as governor of Texas, George W.'s parents acknowledged that their eldest son's "back-slapping, wisecracking, occasionally teasing style" was developed as a child of seven, when his sister died, and he felt it was his responsibility to try and lift his parents out of their grief.

--J.H. Hatfield, Fortunate Son

by catastrophile 2005-08-05 02:08PM | 0 recs
A monster? No.
Screwed-up and insincere? Definitely.

The boy's got major issues, and he's been putting up a front to hide the truth for quite nearly his entire life.

In other words, a born politician.

I highly recommend the book, by the way. It's not a polemic, but rather an objective analysis, written by a Reep, which was suppressed heavily by the Bush clan. It explains an awful lot.

by catastrophile 2005-08-05 04:56PM | 0 recs
And this man has accomplished . . .
?
by catastrophile 2005-08-05 05:50PM | 0 recs
Also known as
a career politician and tool of the chickenhawk neocon faction. You could come up with the same preposterous bull$#!+ list in support of Slick Willy; do you offer him the same abject devotion and worship as your Reep messiah?

Anybody with $200,000,000 dollars, a good speaking style, and the support of the corporatist community can get elected President.

As for the clobberations of Afghanistan and Iraq, don't count your freedoms before they're hatched. The deceptive way each war was pitched and administration micromismanagement and cronyism have placed the outcome of each campaign in doubt.

Restructuring Social Security, huh? Well, I suppose if you consider the eradication of all social welfare programs a laudable goal, you might consider Gee-Dub's program a step in the right direction.

National energy strategy: See the above comments on Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't consider corporate welfare to be an "energy strategy," whatever they happen to title the bill. You think anybody would support the "Up America's @$$ Act" if that's what they named it?

Don't believe the hype. And if you must believe the hype, at least have the decency not to parrot it.

by catastrophile 2005-08-07 06:59PM | 0 recs
best available candidate?
And you concluded Bush was better than Gore or Kerry?
by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-08 11:29AM | 0 recs
what makes a quality candidate?
What made Bush a quality candidate?
by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-08 02:47PM | 0 recs
hot mike
Didn't Kerry make the same mistake calling the Bush Republicans a bunch of liars?
by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-08 04:55PM | 0 recs
Just out of curiosity,
what was it about Clinton that disappointed and demoralized you?
by catastrophile 2005-08-08 02:13PM | 0 recs
Bush is just a bully
From his frog exploding days to his brandings of pledges at Yale to the present, Bush has been a sadistic little bitch who keeps pushing the envelope because no one ever confronts him. He is a classic spoiled rich brat who delights in tormenting what he considers to be lesser humans. He is also a gutless eunuch. If during the debates Kerry would have looked at him and said, "You're wearing that receiving device that makes you look like Quasimodo because you lack the balls to debate like a man," Bush would have melted like Margaret Hamilton in The Wizard Of Oz.
by georgewturd 2005-08-05 04:58PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------