-Caveat Lector- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:23:49 -0700 From: Teresa Binstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [COUNCILFIRE] is Bush a psychopath?
Dear Dr. Chernus, I appreciate your columns in CommonDreams (eg, http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0127-08.htm). My primary field is biomedical aspects of autism. I've published in neuroanatomy, molecular genetics, immunology, and several related fields. I've long realized that were Dubya's word-use mistakes evaluated at a diagnostic clinic such as the Child Development Unit of a Children's Hospital, he would merit a diagnosis within the general ballpark of learning disabled. That his verbal errors indicate that type of disability suggests that his decision-making process is not fully informed by memory. A professor intending to write a book about Dubya's errors noticed an important fact (as reported in Toronto Star, 11.28.03), an observation that has increased the specificity of Dubya's potential diagnosis. Dubya's errors tend to occur in positive contexts and not to occur in negative and aggressive contexts. Dr. Miller concluded that the patterning in Dubya's gaffs is consistent with similar patterns found in sociopaths (10). Needless to say, I was intrigued. Analysis of linguistic patterns is a recognized diagnostic tool often accompanied by genetic testing (eg, for Fragile X syndrome), brain imaging (eg, MRIs), and brain-wave testing (eg, MEGs & EEGs). A Medline search (within databases of National Library of Medicine) led me to a number of related studies published in peer reviewed medical literature, studies that focus upon language use by sociopaths and psychopaths and, relatedly, upon observable alterations in brain function. An initial bibliography is presented below (1-9). I have perused these articles and, as a result, have become more concerned about the likely validity of Dr. Miller's initial observation. Diminished empathy is associated with the psychopathic personality. He or she (usually he) does not react normally when perceiving emotional expressions of others. These differing reactions can be perceived via MRI and EEG and can differentiate normal people and non-psychopathic criminals from psychopaths. Furthermore, aside from his verbal gaffs, Dubya's public-policy choices and pronouncements regarding Iraq, the environment, and health care are consistent with diminished empathy. He does not give sufficient weight to the expressed opinions and feelings of others. For instance, several months ago Dubya et al made "factual" pronouncements about Iraq. Quickly, the CIA and FBI announced disagreement with the Dubya team's statements. But that disagreement did not register as important to Dubya. 'Twas an annoyance to be brushed aside. Similarly, Dubya seems to have no real feelings for the environment nor for the tens of millions of people who want a cleaner environment and who want to preserve natural areas. Now, I'm not saying that he or any other politician can't have a position different from pro-environmentalism, but Dubya's stance is too often that of the neighborhood bully for whom a victim's cries of anguish have no meaning. He appears to have impaired empathy that manifests as political *decrees* imposed without the give-and-take even of Congress. Conclusion: Although further consideration is needed by others versed in neuroanatomy and psycholinguistics, I believe we ought take seriously Mark Crispin Miller's observations about Dubya's sociopathic personality as indicated by patterns in his language (10). The U.S. government may never have had a sociopath as President. The nearest parallel is Adolph Hitler -- who also was elected to high office before revealing his heart's innermost ambitions. Dubya is frighteningly similar. And many sociopaths are known to be bright and to have kept the darker side of their personality hidden for years. Let's consider another parallel for its instructiveness about perception and time. Ted Bundy was a serial killer of women. Most of us learned about him and his personality *after* his arrest. Thus we knew the evil that lurked in his heart. But consider victim #4 (or #7, whatever) when she was just meeting Mr. Bundy. He was a good looking young man, and he must have had a fair amount of charm -- and that's how he set the stage whereon his deeper motives played forth. If, as Dr. Miller has suggested, President Bush indeed has a sociopathic personality, we as observers would (as in the case of Hitler) have been fooled for a long time prior to his innermost self showing forth clearly. And now that Dubya has been in office for slightly more than two years, most of us are no longer fooled. As prompted by Dr. Miler's preliminary observation. dubya's sanity and the underlying basis of his motivations and decision-making merit intense scrutiny. This letter and its citations are a preliminary step, one that furthers the observations offered by Dr. Miller. Sincerely, Teresa Binstock Researcher in Developmental & Behavioral Neuroanatomy References: 1. Rieber RW, Vetter H. The language of the psychopath. J Psycolinguistic Res 23.1.1-28 1994. 2. Williamson S, Harpur TJ, Hare RD. Abnormal processing of affective words by psychopaths. Psychophysiology. 1991 May;28(3):260-73. 3. Patrick CJ. Emotion and psychopathy: startling new insights. Psychophysiology. 1994 Jul;31(4):319-30. 4. Stevens D, Charman T, Blair RJ. Recognition of emotion in facial expressions and vocal tones in children with psychopathic tendencies. J Genet Psychol. 2001 Jun;162(2):201-11. 5. Swartz S. Issues in the analysis of psychotic speech. J Psycholinguist Res. 1994 Jan;23(1):29-44. 6. Patrick CJ, Cuthbert BN, Lang PJ. Emotion in the criminal psychopath: fear image processing. J Abnorm Psychol. 1994 Aug;103(3):523-34. 7. Levenston GK, Patrick CJ, Bradley MM, Lang PJ. The psychopath as observer: emotion and attention in picture processing. J Abnorm Psychol. 2000 Aug;109(3):373-85. 8. Day R, Wong S. Anomalous perceptual asymmetries for negative emotional stimuli in the psychopath. J Abnorm Psychol. 1996 Nov;105(4):648-52. 9. Kiehl KA et al. Limbic abnormalities in affective processing by criminal psychopaths as revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biol Psychiatry. 2001 Nov 1;50(9):677-84. 10. Bush Anything But Moronic, According to Author: Dark Overtones in His Malapropisms by Murray Whyte, November 28, 2002 by the Toronto Star http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1128-02.htm Toronto Star cid=1035774887712 When Mark Crispin Miller first set out to write Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder, about the ever-growing catalogue of President George W. Bush's verbal gaffes, he meant it for a laugh. But what he came to realize wasn't entirely amusing. Since the 2000 presidential campaign, Miller has been compiling his own collection of Bush-isms, which have revealed, he says, a disquieting truth about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the free world. He's not a moron at all — on that point, Miller and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien agree. But according to Miller, he's no friend. "I did initially intend it to be a funny book. But that was before I had a chance to read through all the transcripts," Miller, an American author and a professor of culture and communication at New York University, said recently in Toronto. "Bush is not an imbecile. He's not a puppet. I think that Bush is a sociopathic personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is what a lot of people miss." Miller's judgment, that the president might suffer from a bona fide personality disorder, almost makes one long for the less menacing notion currently making the rounds: that the White House's current occupant is, in fact, simply an idiot. If only. Miller's rendering of the president is bleaker than that. In studying Bush's various adventures in oration, he started to see a pattern emerging. "He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence, when he's talking about revenge. "When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine," Miller said. "It's only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes." While Miller's book has been praised for its "eloquence" and "playful use of language," it has enraged Bush supporters. Bush's ascent in the eyes of many Americans — his approval rating hovers at near 80 percent — was the direct result of tough talk following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In those speeches, Bush stumbled not at all; his language of retribution was clear. It was a sharp contrast to the pre-9/11 George W. Bush. Even before the Supreme Court in 2001 had to intervene and rule on recounts in Florida after a contentious presidential election, a corps of journalists were salivating at the prospect: a bafflingly inarticulate man in a position of power not seen since vice-president Dan Quayle rode shotgun on George H.W. Bush's one term in office. But equating Bush's malapropisms with Quayle's inability to spell "potato" is a dangerous assumption, Miller says. At a public address in Nashville, Tenn., in September, Bush provided one of his most memorable stumbles. Trying to give strength to his case that Saddam Hussein had already deceived the West concerning his store of weapons, Bush was scripted to offer an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. What came out was the following: "Fool me once, shame ... shame on ... you." Long, uncomfortable pause. "Fool me — can't get fooled again!" Played for laughs everywhere, Miller saw a darkness underlying the gaffe. "There's an episode of Happy Days, where The Fonz has to say, `I'm sorry' and can't do it. Same thing," Miller said. "What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, `Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude." If what Miller says is true — and it would take more than just observations to prove it — then Bush has achieved an astounding goal. By stumbling blithely along, he has been able to push his image as "just folks" — a normal guy who screws up just like the rest of us. This, in fact, is a central cog in his image-making machine, Miller says: Portraying the wealthy scion of one of America's most powerful families as a regular, imperfect Joe. But the depiction, Miller says, is also remarkable for what it hides — imperfect, yes, but also detached, wealthy and unable to identify with the "folks" he's been designed to appeal to. An example, Miller says, surfaced early in his presidential tenure. "I know how hard it is to put food on your family," Bush was quoted as saying. "That wasn't because he's so stupid that he doesn't know how to say, `Put food on your family's table' — it's because he doesn't care about people who can't put food on the table," Miller says. So, when Bush is envisioning "a foreign-handed foreign policy," or observes on some point that "it's not the way that America is all about," Miller contends it's because he can't keep his focus on things that mean nothing to him. "When he tries to talk about what this country stands for, or about democracy, he can't do it," he said. This, then, is why he's so closely watched by his handlers, Miller says — not because he'll say something stupid, but because he'll overindulge in the language of violence and punishment at which he excels. "He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy. He's much like Nixon. So they're very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his temper." Miller, without question, is a man with a mission — and laughter isn't it. "I call him the feel bad president, because he's all about punishment and death," he said. "It would be a grave mistake to just play him for laughs." Copyright 1996-2002. Toronto Star Newspapers Limite <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
