It may have helped to actually read my response and the link because you would have learned we are not talking about narcissism. That is very different from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Since my point was to show that mental health professionals are cautioned not to form diagnoses from afar by their own professional organization, the difference between narcissism and NPD is moot.
The link you provided talks about a psychiatrist that performed a mental health evaluation on Trump and he never met Trump so you just proved your own claim as bonkers.
Uh, no. Key quote from the article:
On the organization’s website, APA President Maria A. Oquendo wrote: “The unique atmosphere of this year’s election cycle may lead some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates, but to do so would not only be unethical, it would be irresponsible.”
Then, Dr. McAdams ventured some thoughts on Mr. Trump, but as the article states:
It’s a reasoned, rational account of a hulking persona: careful to avoid a specific diagnosis.
Nothing “bonkers” about it. From my very first statement, I used the term “diagnosis”.
That is acknowledging psychiatrists have the expertise to perform evaluations on people they have never met but they should not have an “official” conclusion.
I disagree with your interpretation. My read is that a mental health professional can of course glean insight from public statements into an individual’s state of mind (I think that’s obvious), but should avoid any official “conclusion” (kind of a weak word to use, there — it seems you intentionally avoided the word “diagnosis”) because there is a high probability they would be wrong.
For some reason, you chose not to respond directly to the paper I cited from the Emory University researchers suggesting that narcissism may be a desirable characteristic in a POTUS. Is that because you have already settled on a pop psychology diagnosis of NPD, or simply because the idea upsets a preferred narrative?