#talk to your publisher and don't take legal advice from me | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

setepenre-set · 7 years

Note

Set, I just have to ask. How is your writing process? I'm blown away by the speed you publish such quality stories at! What's your secret?? If you don't mind my asking :)

an anon also asked:

How do you write so fluidly? You’re an inspiration and I’d love some tips or even just how you prep to write? Thank you, love your work!

Thank you so much!

( I’ve got a number of other writing advice posts: one, two, three, four which you may find interesting. And, as always: remember that writing is an individual thing; a technique that works for one person may not work for another

I go through periods of intense hyperfocus and extreme productivity sometimes; I don’t know how to make them happen, sadly. but! I can give you some tips and go through what I do for prep work and my writing process!

I will use my fic Love and War as an example, so that you can see what I’m talking about. ( later on, there’s also an example from my fic Code: Safeword )

Step one is, of course, to get an idea for a story.

And the very important step two is to play out the story in your head–check that you can imagine a good and satisfying ending, that you have an idea for the beginning of the story, and a rough idea of how to get from the beginning to the ending.

So–my idea for Love and War: The Fairy Kingdom and the Dark Forest fought a war over the love ban / imprisonment of the Sugar Plum Fairy. The Dark Forest won, and Bog marries Marianne for political reasons. Eventually they fall in love.

There’s a satisfying ending there: “eventually they fall in love”

There’s a beginning: “Bog marries Marianne for political reasons.”

But did I know how to get from the beginning to the ending? I did not.

So I adjusted my ideas for the fic: Make it much shorter; a one-shot. Instead of having the ending be the demonstration of Bog and Marianne’s love, the ending will be the reader learning that this love will eventually come to pass. So all we need to see is the start of them falling in love.

Ending: the reader sees Bog and Marianne start to fall in love, and is assured that they will eventually be in love.

Beginning: Bog marries Marianne for political reasons.

Middle: We need a reason for Bog to start falling in love with Marianne, and a reason for Marianne to start falling in love with Bog.

In canon, Bog seems to start liking Marianne when she breaks through his skylight and attacks him. Marianne seems to start liking Bog when, after this fight, he leaves his weapon in the throne room, takes her to see her sister, and assures her that he’s working on an antidote.

Bog falls in love with Marianne’s sharp edges. Marianne falls in love with Bog’s kindness. And the whole thing centers around the two of them dueling.

So in the fic, Marianne challenges Bog to spar with her, gives him a sharp smile, and half-jokingly threatens to maim him. And Bog starts falling in love with her sharp edges.

And when he comes to her rooms to spar with her, Bog treats her as an equal, clearly enjoys fighting with her, and doesn’t even suggest that they consummate the marriage. And Marianne starts falling in love with his kindness.

And just like in canon, the whole thing centers around a duel.

So we have a beginning, a middle, and a satisfying ending, and the plot of the fic echoes the plot of canon in an interesting way, which is extra pleasing to me.

When I’m writing a one-shot, this is generally the extent of my prep-work; I start writing after this.

I wrote out the first chapter of Love and War, which follows the plot outline, and has the satisfying ending of them starting to fall in love.

After publishing the one-shot, several people asked me to continue the story, so I tried again to plot it out in my head. And, again, I couldn’t think of a middle bit.

At this point in the prep-work, if you’re stuck for a plot, it can be useful to bounce ideas off of other people–and if you’ve already posted the one-shot, then comments and speculations from readers can be useful as well.

Finding a middle for the story is sort of like finding the original idea for the story: it requires a certain amount of sudden inspiration–there’s usually an ‘ah-ha!’ moment when you figure out the plot.

Mine came when I read a comment from @displacerghost on the first, one-shot chapter. She mentioned that non-consummation is potentially very problematic in political marriages.

AH-HA!

Well, Marianne, as crown princess, would know that, of course, and so it would be likely that Bog, as king, would know that as well…but wouldn’t it be more interesting if, for some reason, he didn’t know? Cultural differences in marriage law–

–so you’ve got Marianne worrying over the non-consummation and…yes, she would try to come up with a way to solve this problem, and being who she is, she’d probably favor an attempted coup–

–but that’s a secretive thing; it’s something that only Marianne will be doing; this story is working towards the satisfying ending of Bog and Marianne’s happily ever after, so the plot absolutely needs something for Bog and Marianne to be doing together while they’re falling in love…

–cultural differences in marriage law–cultural differences in all laws! And of course since their kingdoms are united, now, they’ve got to come up with a unified law code!

Play out the story mentally:

Beginning: Bog and Marianne’s political marriage, the start of them falling in love.

Middle: Bog and Marianne work together to create a unified law code while Marianne secretly plots a coup, and all the while the two of them are falling in love.

Ending: Marianne decides not to attempt a coup, she and Bog confess their love; happily ever after.

We have a beginning, a rough idea for a middle, and an idea for the end.

Time to work this plot out in more detail and outline!

For a while I didn’t outline stories until I was about a third of the way through them, but lately I’ve been working more with outlining them ahead of time. Love and War was definitely outlined.

The original outline for Love and War looked like this:

BREAKFAST, ARGUEROLAND VOLUNTEERS TO HELP COUPLAW CODE / FALL IN LOVE / MARIANNE PLOTSDAWN AND SUNNY ENGAGEDDIVORCE MISUNDERSTANDING / LOVE BAND LIFT

MARIANNE IS BITTERPLANNING WITH DAWNROLAND CALLED OFF

BOG AVOIDING MARI

DAY OF THE WEDDINGBOG COMES TO TELL HER ABOUT SEPARATIONF I N A L L Y T H E Y T A L K

AT WEDDING, EVERYTHING HAPPENS, ROLAND STARTS COUP, SUCCESSFUL, CONVINCES EVERYONE SHE TOLD HIM TO DO IT, DAGDA BELIEVESDAWN SAYS MARI WOULD NEVER STAGE A COUP DURING HER WEDDINGMARI COMMANDS THEM TO LET HER GO, SHE KICKS ROLAND’S ASS, CUTS HIS FACE AND THROWS HIM OUTPARTYMARI DRAGS BOG TO HER ROOMSEX SCENE HAPPY ENDING YAY!

You will notice that the plot of it is considerably different than how the actual story turned out–many of the details are missing (Imp, the love potion, all of the girls at the party, the trip to the Dark Forest, Griselda). And Bog and Marianne confess their feelings before the wedding / the attempted coup–and the tone of the sex scene is different; Marianne is clearly dominant in this version.

Outlines do change as the story is written–you get better ideas, details take shape; it’s very exciting! The outline isn’t there to force you to do anything; it’s just there to help you keep track of your thoughts. It’s a safety net, not a prison cell.

I typed this outline directly into the Love and War document, and then started writing the actual text of the story above the outline. That way the safety net was always visible to me, and I could cross off each plot point as I wrote it out, which is satisfying.

BREAKFAST, ARGUEROLAND VOLUNTEERS TO HELP COUP

(so satisfying!)

And as I write and details emerge, new plot points become necessary–I add these to the outline, and change things as needed.

ROLAND CALLED OFFMORE PLANNING WITH DAWN (TRANSITION)ROLAND PLOTS, CONVINCES GIRL TO GET POTION

BOG AVOIDING MARI, WEDDING PLANS, BOG AND MARI SING

TALK ABOUT SWORD DANCES

ROLAND TRIES LOVE POTION, IT FAILS

SWORD DANCE DEMO

MUSES ON FINALIZING THE LEGAL SEPARATION OF THEIR KINGDOMSROLAND TALKS TO PLUM, LEARNS ABOUT LOVE POTION,

BOG TAKES MARIANNE TO THE DARK FOREST, TALK WITH GRISELDA

ROLAND COMES UP WITH PLAN

DAY OF WEDDING IMP IN MARIANNE’S ROOMIMP TO ROLAND’S ROOMSFAMILY BREAKFAST WITHOUT BOGMARIANNE’S AWKWARD TALK WITH DAGDA

ROLAND ON THE WAY BACK FROM READING THE LETTER IN FRONT OF THE TROOPSIMP IN ROLAND’S ROOM

CELESTE NECKLACE SEARCHROLAND IN MIRRORBOG CAPE PAPERSBOG’S BOUQUET, NOT NOWCELESTE TAKES SWORDS TO BALLROOM, MARIANNE PUTS DAGGER IN POCKETCELESTE GOES TO ROLAND’S ROOM, FINDS MEMENTOS, FREES IMP

WEDDING, BANQUET, BALL BEGINS, FIRST DANCES, SWORD DANCE TO STARTGO! WE SURRENDER, NO WE DON’TROLAND’S PLAN UNFOLDS, DAGDA UNCERTAIN, MARIANNE DAGGER, SEARCHEDBOTTLE AND ACCUSATIONS, PUNCH, IMP, BOTTLE AND POTION FALL ON BOG, HE SEES DAWN FIRST, NO REACTIONCELESTE DOESN’T RECOGNIZE SCENT, APHRODISIAC NO NOTHING IF IN LOVEMARIANNE ACCUSES ROLAND OF DUSTING HERCELESTE SAYS HE MADE HER GET THE POTIONBELLA CLAIMS HAIRCELESTE MENTIONS NECKLACE, MARIANNE SUGGESTS THEFTROLAND POINTS OUT LETTERCELESTE MENTIONS DRAWERPOTION SHENNANAGAINSDAWN SAYS MARIANNE WOULD NEVER RUIN HER WEDDINGMARIANNE DEMANDS FREEDOM AND SWORDFIGHT, CUT, BANISH

NECKLACEBALL CONTINUESMARIANNE LEAVESBOG FOLLOWSDISCUSSION AT LAST

WINGSROBESNECKLACEBOTTLE, DRESSWINDOW SEAT, WALL, BED, NEW BED, EXCUSE FOR A PARTYHAPPY ENDING YAY!

You will notice that the details of the sex scene itself has now been outlined: wings, robes, necklace, bottle, dress, window seat, wall, bed.

As I wrote the story, my feelings on what the tone for the sex scene should be shifted–we see Marianne come into her own and take charge in the ballroom, which is good and emotionally satisfying. So the sex scene can be emotionally satisfying in a different way. Marianne’s spent this entire story feeling like the weight of the world is on her shoulders, like she has to manage everything all the time, has to always be strong.

The sex scene is emotionally satisfying because it allows her to finally relax and let Bog take care of her–because she has gotten to a point where she trusts that letting him take charge right now won’t mean that he respects her less or gives her any less power in their relationship.

And it’s emotionally satisfying in regards to Bog because he’s spent the whole story feeling ugly and untrustworthy and now he’s allowed to really realize and revel in the fact that Marianne wants him so badly and trusts him so much.

You are allowed to change your outline as needed!

A note about plot–the big “action” moments in the plot should also be the big “emotion” moments for the characters. This is where my first outline was unsatisfactory!

If Bog and Marianne confessed their love before the wedding, Marianne wouldn’t have spent the entire wedding in a state of emotional upheaval. She and Bog wouldn’t have been so emotionally overwrought about dancing with each other. And the drama the attempted coup would have been lost–Bog couldn’t have that big emotion moment of thinking Marianne had set up the coup, and surrendering to her, and Marianne couldn’t have that big emotion moment of saying that they don’t surrender and stepping in front of him. No extremely emotional sword dance! No intense misery concerning both of them being dusted with the love potion.

Do you see what I mean? Every big ‘action’ moment: the wedding, the dance, the coup, the sword dance, the love potion–needs to be a big ‘emotion’ moment for the characters.

The things that happen have to matter to the characters not just on a surface level, but in a way that affects their inner emotional state of being.

Outline for the emotion, and write towards the ending.

Having a good and satisfying ending is, in my opinion, the most important thing when writing a story. Everything that happens in the story is working towards that ending.

And this holds true for each chapter of a story as well! Every chapter should have a good and effective ending; the entire chapter should be leading up to it. Cliffhangers are generally effective, as are notes of despair, and uplifting notes.

The ending of Chapter 12 of Love and War is Roland shouting “go” to start the coup, and the line “and chaos erupted in the ballroom”. Clearly a cliffhanger!

But this is also something that the entire chapter has been working up to. Things are tense, and the tension has been wound tighter and tighter until finally chaos! And the cliffhanger!

Chapter 2 of Love and War has Marianne curling up on her bed in despair and thinking “you cannot trust anyone”. This–the note of despair–is an effective ending to the chapter because she has spent the entire chapter feeling as if things are steadily getting worse, and as if nothing she does improves things. The chapter has been working towards this moment of her despair.

Chapter 26 of Code: Safeword, on the other hand, ends with Megamind and Roxanne lying in bed together. Megamind tells Roxanne that, because of her, he’s trying to stop hating himself and to believe that she’s right about him. He asks her to try to like herself more, too, and to believe that he’s right about her. She says that she’ll try, and the two of them fall asleep. An uplifting note.

This chapter has also been working up to this point–there have been plenty of explosions of tension in the chapter–this ending is satisfying because, after the arguments and explosions of tension, we saw the two of them trying to begin the process of recovery–they’ve begun discussing their concerns and problems openly with each other, and have started to be emotionally honest. The uplifting note is a reward for the reader and the characters, an assurance that they really are beginning to recover.

Mechanics-wise, I write a chapter at a time, and when I’ve finished a chapter, I read through it once, proofreading and correcting as I go. Then I copy and paste the chapter into a separate document, and change the font to something completely different. (I write in helvetica; I change it to american typewriter.) If you write in a sans serif font, change it to a serif font, and vice versa; the change of font allows you to catch mistakes more easily.

If I catch a lot of typos during this read-through, I do another proofread. Repeat as needed until I manage to get through it without finding more than one or two typos.

Then I copy and paste the corrected chapter into the main document, delete the original, uncorrected text of that chapter, and save. And then either send to my beta reader (if I’m using one for the story) or post the chapter!

So! That is an example of my writing process, and some writing advice. I hope it is helpful!

-Set

#writing advice #behind the scenes with Set #fenris2017

18 notes · View notes

xtruss · 4 years

Text

Stop Falling For This Facebook Scam

— Zack Friedman, Bestselling Author, The Lemonade Life. I write and speak about leadership and greatness.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg! Photo credit: Associated Press

People are still falling for this Facebook scam - and it needs to stop.

Here's what you need to know.

Facebook Scam

If you're on Facebook, undoubtedly you've seen this scam. Your friends have posted this message. Your mom or dad has posted it. You may have posted it too.

Here's a popular version of the message (and there are other variations):

"Don’t forget tomorrow starts the new Facebook rule where they can use your photos. Don't forget Deadline today!!! It can be used in court cases in litigation against you. Everything you've ever posted becomes public from today Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 13 News talked about the change in Facebook's privacy policy. I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute. NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tacitly allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. FACEBOOK DOES NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO SHARE PHOTOS OR MESSAGES."

The message instructs Facebook users to copy and paste the message on their Facebook page so that users can prevent Facebook from sharing all their content, which supposedly is now becoming publicly available.

Here's everything you need to know about this message in four words:

It is not real.

It is a scam.

Do not believe it.

There are many reasons why this message is a hoax, and here are a few. Let's break it down further:

1. Don't trust messages with missing words, poor grammar and incorrect capital letters

When you see language such as "Don't forget Deadline today!!!", you should take notice. First, it should say, "the deadline." Second, "Deadline" should not be capitalized. Third, you probably don't want to trust statements that end in three exclamation points.

2. Don't trust messages that reference "court cases" or "litigation against you"

One day you're innocently using social media. The next day you're involved in court cases and litigation? Probably another red flag.

3. Facebook doesn't own your content

When you sign up for a Facebook account, you agree to certain legal terms and conditions, including privacy policies. You can modify your privacy settings at any time, but you can't unilaterally change (or exempt yourself from) Facebook's terms and conditions, including its privacy policies. As a Facebook user, despite what this hoax says, you own your content, including all your photos and videos. Facebook does not own your content, nor has Facebook stated it owns your content or will make your content public. As a Facebook user, you grant Facebook a right to use, share and distribute your content in accordance with your privacy settings.

4. Posting a unilateral message with legalese doesn't do anything

Posting a statement on your Facebook page that is contrary to Facebook's privacy terms has no legal effect nor does it change Facebook's privacy policies. Your relationship with Facebook is governed by the terms and conditions to which you agreed with Facebook as well as by existing copyright law. So, posting a notice won't change any laws or privacy policies retroactively or in the future.

5. Facebook being a public entity is irrelevant

While publicly-traded companies may face additional regulatory scrutiny and have additional reporting requirements, being a public entity in itself does not give companies more rights to disclose your content or violate your privacy.

Recommendations

So, what should you do? Here are a few options to consider:

1. Stop posting this message on your Facebook page.

2. Change your privacy settings.

3. Don't post content that you don't want shared.

4. If you're still not comfortable with the above options, you can always cancel your account.

Final Thoughts

When it comes to your privacy, it's important to be diligent. However, posting this message won't do the trick.

— Zack Friedman is the bestselling author of the blockbuster book, The Lemonade Life. Apple named The Lemonade Life one of "Fall's Biggest Audiobooks" and a "Must-Listen." Zack is the Founder & CEO of Make Lemonade, a leading online personal finance company that empowers you to live a better financial life. He is an in-demand speaker and has inspired millions through his powerful insights, including more than 100 million people who have read his advice. Previously, he was a chief financial officer, a hedge fund investor, and worked at Blackstone, Morgan Stanley, and the White House. Zack holds degrees from Harvard, Wharton, Columbia, and Johns Hopkins.

0 notes

living-with-abhi · 3 years

Text

Social media is playing a major role in Covid-19, but is it enough?

Read More - https://www.livingwithabhi.com/post/pondering-over-the-role-of-social-media-during-the-covid-19-pandemic

The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) or extreme severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), as it is now known, is rapidly spreading in India and to the rest of the world from its origin in Wuhan City, China. This deadly and life-threatening virus infected 2,549,632 people and resulted in 175,825 deaths around the world. In India, there are currently 17,610 positive corona infected cases (till 24 April 2020) as reported by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department of India.

During sudden outbreaks, the public needs access to timely and reliable information about the disease symptoms and their prevention. Nowadays, social media are often seen as fast and effective platforms for searching, sharing, and distributing health information among the general population.

Also, social media serves to provide an important informal source of data to identify health information that has not been reported to medical officers or health departments and to uncover or share perspectives on any life-threatening health-related issues.

But this channel of disseminating knowledge sometimes mixed with scare tactics, discrimination, misleading reports, and conspiracy theories related to the origin of the virus, its spread, and mass buying of face masks, all closely connected to the modern 21st century “info media” social media networks.

Despite the importance of rapid access to information in these critical situations, poor comprehension or inaccurate or false information in the format of rumors or unreliable news can lead to misunderstanding in the community, which makes the situation worse.

Dr. Tedros Adhanom, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), calls this the battle against “trolls and conspiracy theories.” Misinformation creates confusion, and spreads fear, hampering the outbreak response. “Misinformation on the coronavirus might be the most contagious thing about it.”

These circumstances can lead to an increase in the people's unnecessary expectations requiring diagnostic, medication, or referral services as for instance taken as a shortage and black marketing of face masks and hand sanitizer in India. As for low- and middle-income countries with limited health services, this can make the situation worse because these nations don't have enough workforce and financial resources to cope up with this epidemic.

Yet India is managing with its own level at its best, but it seems like the virus's potential path is uncertain.

Hence, this review provides a bird's eye view of the impact of social media on the general population during this CoV epidemic.

Government and health professionals must embrace and make plans for the use of social media, work together, establish limits and build guidelines for its usage, and above all, make them work for the general population.

What is the Role of Social Media during the COVID-19 Crisis?

Today, social media such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, have become primary sources of information.

They are also vehicles for fake news and disinformation. During a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic, how should social media be mastered and employed in a responsible way? HEC Paris Associate Professor of Marketing, Kristine de Valck, has been studying the role of social networks in the marketplace since 1999. She explains.

The #coronavirus health crisis highlights the particular strengths of social media and how it brings people across the globe together, to make sense of what is truly happening.

HOW DO COMPANIES AND INDIVIDUALS USE SOCIAL MEDIA DURING SUCH A CRISIS?

Broadly, there is two opposing logic. Companies can use social media for commercial purposes or for communal purposes. In other words, companies use social media to brand, sell, market their business (which is close to traditional marketing efforts using mass media) versus using social media to connect with and co-create with customers and – more importantly – to provide a platform to customers to bond together. You can see this as the distinction between using social media to talk to your customers versus using social media to talk with your customers and have them talk to each other through your brand.

For individuals, the same axe translates into using social media to self-present – that can turn into the very narcissistic self-exposure that we sometimes see on social media versus using social media to connect with friends, family, and like-minded others for socialization and emotional support.

WHAT PARTICULAR STRENGTHS OF SOCIAL MEDIA ARE HIGHLIGHTED DURING SUCH DIFFICULT TIMES?

For me, this crisis highlights the particular strengths of social media in how they can be used for the second type of purpose; that is community and emotional support.

Just like we have seen with other crises, such as the earthquake and following tsunami that caused the nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011, the terrorist attacks in Paris and elsewhere in Europe over the past years, we see today that people all over the world reach out to each other – close by and far away – through social media to make sense of what is happening.

I am thinking of the many funny videos about how people creatively deal with the lockdown, of the neighborhood Facebook groups that organize entertainment and practical support to help neighbors who need assistance with grocery shopping or childcare, and the quick rise of apps and functionalities that allow for live chat and video sessions with multiple people.

This is social media at its core and at its best.

PEOPLE TURN TO SOCIAL MEDIA NOT ONLY FOR SUPPORT AND ENTERTAINMENT BUT ALSO USE IT AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION… AND FAKE NEWS.

This is where we need to warn of the dark side of social media and its role in spreading fake news. Platforms have been slow in acknowledging their responsibility in helping platform users distinguish fake news from facts, but they are taking steps in the right direction. Instagram, for example, announced to only include COVID-19 related posts and stories in their recommendation section that are published by official health organizations. In general, my advice is to crosscheck information that you get through social media with at least two other information sources such as government websites and high-quality news outlets. In addition, we also all have a role to play by not further spreading rumors through our social media accounts.

HOW SHOULD MARKETERS ADOPT THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA STRATEGIES IN THIS EXTRAORDINARY TIME?

It is a tricky question. Typically, marketers should relate their social media contributions to the real-time context. Indeed, at the start of the crisis, I kept receiving long-before planned brand posts that did not refer at all to the situation, and thus, seemed misplaced. At the same time, trying to leverage a sanitary crisis for branding purposes in your social media posts can quickly be perceived as distasteful.

The best examples I have seen come from companies that offer free resources to their customers to face the crisis. For example, many academic publishers have made online content available for free to support teachers and students worldwide with distance learning. Closer to home, the teachers have started a YouTube channel where they post videos on how we can keep fit while confined at home.

This is social media at its core and at its best.

Coronavirus: How Panic Spreads Through Social Media

With its capacity to bring people closer than ever before, social media has also set new and special challenges, including phenomena of Cyber-bullying, exploiting public opinion, and other forms of crime. The pandemic of CoV is affecting global health and now become a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) as declared by the WHO. In the International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005, the term Public Health Emergency of International Concern is defined as “an extraordinary event which is described, as given in these regulations:

To constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease; and

To potentially require a coordinated international response.” This definition implies a situation that: is serious, unusual, or unexpected; carries implications for public health beyond the affected State's national border and may require immediate international action.

While the Internet is seen as an effective source for obtaining health information, it can be used as a means of disseminating misinformation. As standard research methods include methodology and peer review, this analysis also includes a framework for inspections which balances to minimize the risk of inaccurate or inappropriate content dissemination; social media platforms will often encourage open membership, and in large part unrestricted exchange of ideas under 'protecting and allowing free' principles expression – sadly because of short legal consequences, there is little or no accountability for what is said or communicated.

In addition to resolving the urgent need to step up public health interventions for tackling the epidemic, the pandemic of social media hysteria must be combated. This spreading of panic and misinformation about CoV is termed as “Misinfodemics.”

Sharing and spreading timely and transparent information, especially when the news is unfavorable and predicting uncertainty is clearly an integral part of managing large-scale epidemics and other emergencies.

All such interactions should be routine between government agencies and the public to develop trust that becomes critical during epidemics. In today's world, reaching the general population – especially in times of public health crisis – takes more than common mass media as some of the channels which are behind paywalls.

Subsequent public contact from China and other parts of the world and exchange of knowledge strengthened the response to the outbreak. Similarly, Singapore's approach to public risk communication, including Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's speech on February 8, 2020, was lauded by experts in health care as they developed a model for reducing panic and rumors among their people.

The last outbreak of Ebola in Western Africa is yet another clear example of the ability of social networks to influence the actions of people. This news of the epidemic created a fearful environment globally with rumors and misinformation, which rapidly spreads through social networks.

Several studies had investigated the role that social networks have played in spreading misinformation about Ebola. A study published in the British medical journal analyzed tweets about the Ebola outbreak from African countries. The researchers revealed that most of the messages contained false information, and 'fake' tweets were more retweeted than those comprising “truthful” facts.

Odlum and Yoon also state that various senses of public anxiety, anger, and health information seeking global Ebola-related goals were identified during the Ebola epidemic through Twitter's 2014 to 2016 content review.

Furthermore, social networks helped spread conspiracy theories, gibberish accusations, and some even gave them information about fake treatments; likewise, the SMS and WhatsApp messages also spread false news stories.

Conclusion

Instead of self-glorifying social media brand posts, brands will be forced to embrace the communal logic of social media during the COVID-19 crisis. More than ever, social media posts should be user-centric and not producer-centric. Brands that will be able to deliver messages and engage in conversations that are considered valuable because they provide helpful information, relevant advice or that simply make you laugh will come out of the crisis stronger.

Stay safe and keep sharing!

#bloggercovid19 #antibiotics #affectingall #antiinflammatory #Virus #panic #pandemic #socialmedia #publicopinion #facebook #twitter #instagram #pinterest #concern #disease #globally #healthissues #mask #sanitizer #fakenewsspreading #emergency #WHO #virus #covid #COVID19 #COVID19PH #COVID2019 #covidsafe #covidhelp #Covid19India #COVID19outbreak #COVIDSecondWave

#bloggercovid19 #antibiotics #affectingall #antiinflammatory #Virus #panic #pandemic #socialmedia #publicopinion #facebook #twitter #instag

0 notes

bountyofbeads · 5 years

Text

Nice writing but authenticity is overshawdowed when the author fails to mention he is yoked in marriage to a spouse who daily lifts up a person & administration determined to suck the very soul of this nation into a swirling drain of lies, corruption, racism for self-enrichment.

Please don't normalize #GeorgeConway. The Conways hope to come through this unscathed, but they share an agenda: lasting supremacy for conservatives. His via the stacking of the courts with hyper-partisan ideologues, hers via the obliteration of truth. They are playing us all.

Unfit for Office

Donald Trump’s narcissism makes it impossible for him to carry out the duties of the presidency in the way the Constitution requires.

George T. Conway III | Published October 3, 2019 5:00 AM ET | The Atlantic | Posted October 3, 2019 |

PART 1 OF 2

On a third-down play last season, the Washington Redskins quarterback Alex Smith stood in shotgun formation, five yards behind the line of scrimmage. As he called his signals, a Houston Texans cornerback, Kareem Jackson, suddenly sprinted forward from a position four yards behind the defensive line.

Jackson’s timing was perfect. The ball was snapped. The Texans’ left defensive end, J.J. Watt, sprinted to the outside, taking the Redskins’ right tackle with him. The defensive tackle on Watt’s right rushed to the inside, taking the offensive right guard with him. The result was a huge gap in the Redskins’ line, through which Jackson could run unblocked. He quickly sacked Smith, for a loss of 13 yards.

Special-teams players began taking the field for the punt. But Smith didn’t get up. He rolled flat onto his back, pulled off his helmet, and covered his face with his hands. He was clearly in excruciating pain. The slow-motion replay immediately showed the television audience why: As Smith was tackled, his right leg had buckled sharply above the ankle, with his foot rotating significantly away from any direction in which a human foot ought to point. The play-by-play announcer Greg Gumbel said grimly, “We’ll be back,” and the network abruptly cut to a break. There was nothing more to say.

Even without the benefit of medical training, and even without conducting a physical examination, viewers knew what had happened. They may not have known what the bones were called or what treatment would be required, but they knew more than enough, and they knew what really mattered: Smith had broken his leg, very badly. They knew that even if they were not orthopedists, did not have a medical degree, and had never cracked open a copy of Gray’s Anatomy. They could tell—they were certain—something was seriously wrong.

And so it is, or ought to be, with Donald Trump. You don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, and you don’t need to be a mental-health professional to see that something’s very seriously off with Trump—particularly after nearly three years of watching his erratic and abnormal behavior in the White House. Questions about Trump’s psychological stability have mounted throughout his presidency. But those questions have been coming even more frequently amid a recent escalation in Trump’s bizarre behavior, as the pressures of his upcoming reelection campaign, a possibly deteriorating economy, and now a full-blown impeachment inquiry have mounted. And the questioners have included those who have worked most closely with him.

No president in recent memory—and likely no president ever—has prompted more discussion about his mental stability and connection with reality. Trump’s former chief of staff John Kelly is said to have described him as “unhinged,” and “off the rails,” and to have called the White House “Crazytown” because of Trump’s unbalanced state. Trump’s former deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, once reportedly discussed recruiting Cabinet members to invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the Constitution’s provision addressing presidential disability, including mental disability.

Rosenstein denies that claim, but it is not the only such account. A senior administration official, writing anonymously in The New York Times last September, described how, “given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment”—but “no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis.” And NBC News last week quoted someone familiar with current discussions in the White House warning that there is “increasing wariness that, as this impeachment inquiry drags out, the likelihood increases that the president could respond erratically and become ‘unmanageable.’” In September, a former White House official offered a similar assessment to a Business Insider reporter: “No one knows what to expect from him anymore,” because “his mood changes from one minute to the next based on some headline or tweet, and the next thing you know his entire schedule gets tossed out the window. He’s losing his shit.”

Even a major investment bank has gotten into the mix, albeit in a roundabout way: JPMorgan Chase has created a “Volfefe Index”—named after Trump’s bizarre May 2017 “covfefe” tweet—designed to quantify the effect that Trump’s impulsive tweets have on interest-rate volatility. The bank’s press release understatedly observed that its “volatility fair value model” shows that “the president’s remarks on this social media platform [have] played a statistically significant role in elevating implied volatility.”

The president isn’t simply volatile and erratic, however—he’s also incapable of consistently telling the truth. Those who work closely with him, and who aren’t in denial, must deal with Trump’s lying about serious matters virtually every day. But as one former official put it, they “are used to the president saying things that aren’t true,” and have inured themselves to it. Trump’s own former communications director Anthony Scaramucci has on multiple occasions described Trump as a liar, once saying, “We … know he’s telling lies,” so “if you want me to say he’s a liar, I’m happy to say he’s a liar.” He went on to address Trump directly: “You should probably dial down the lying because you don’t need to … So dial that down, and you’ll be doing a lot better.”

That was good advice, but clearly wishful thinking. Trump simply can’t dial down the lying, or turn it off—even, his own attorneys suggest, when false statements may be punished as crimes. A lawyer who has represented him in business disputes once told me that Trump couldn’t sensibly be allowed to speak with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, because Trump would “lie his ass off”—in effect, that Trump simply wasn’t capable of telling the truth, about anything, and that if he ever spoke to a prosecutor, he’d talk himself into jail.

Trump’s lawyers in the Russia investigation clearly agreed: As Bob Woodward recounts at length in his book Fear, members of Trump’s criminal-defense team fought both Trump and Mueller tooth and nail to keep Trump from being interviewed by the Office of Special Counsel. A practice testimonial session ended with Trump spouting wild, baseless assertions in a rage. Woodward quotes Trump’s outside counsel John Dowd as saying that Trump ��just made something up” in response to one question. “That’s his nature.” Woodward also recounts Dowd’s thinking when he argued to Trump that the president was “not really capable” of answering Mueller’s questions face to face. Dowd had “to dress it up as much as possible, to say, it’s not your fault … He could not say what he knew was true: ‘You’re a fucking liar.’ That was the problem.” (Dowd disputes this account.) Which raises the question: If Trump can’t tell the truth even when it counts most, with legal jeopardy on the line and lawyers there to help prepare him, is he able to apprehend the truth at all?

Behavior like this is unusual, a point that journalists across the political spectrum have made. “This is not normal,” Megan McArdle wrote in late August. “And I don’t mean that as in, ‘Trump is violating the shibboleths of the Washington establishment.’ I mean that as in, ‘This is not normal for a functioning adult.’” James Fallows observed, also in August, that Trump is having “episodes of what would be called outright lunacy, if they occurred in any other setting,” and that if he “were in virtually any other position of responsibility, action would already be under way to remove him from that role.”

Trump’s erratic behavior has long been the subject of political criticism, late-night-television jokes, and even speculation about whether it’s part of some incomprehensible, multidimensional strategic game. But it’s relevant to whether he’s fit for the office he holds. Simply put, Trump’s ingrained and extreme behavioral characteristics make it impossible for him to carry out the duties of the presidency in the way the Constitution requires. To see why first requires a look at what the Constitution demands of a president, and then an examination of how Trump’s behavioral characteristics preclude his ability to fulfill those demands.

The Framers of the Constitution expected the presidency to be occupied by special individuals, selfless people of the highest character and ability. They intended the Electoral College to be a truly deliberative body, not the largely ceremonial institution it has become today. Because the Electoral College, unlike Congress and the state legislatures, wouldn’t be a permanent body, and because it involved diffuse selections made in the various states, they hoped it would help avoid “cabal, intrigue and corruption,” as Alexander Hamilton put it in “Federalist No. 68,” and deter interference from “these most deadly adversaries of republican government,” especially “from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”

Though the Constitution’s drafters could hardly have foreseen how the system would evolve, they certainly knew the kind of person they wanted it to produce. “The process of election affords a moral certainty,” Hamilton wrote, “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity,” might suffice for someone to be elected to the governorship of a state, but not the presidency. Election would “require other talents, and a different kind of merit,” to gain “the esteem and confidence of the whole Union,” or enough of it to win the presidency. As a result, there would be “a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.” This was the Framers’ goal in designing the system that would make “the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided."

Hamilton’s use of the word trust in The Federalist Papers to describe the presidency was no accident. The Framers intended that the president “be like a fiduciary, who must pursue the public interest in good faith republican fashion rather than pursuing his self-interest, and who must diligently and steadily execute Congress’s commands,” as a recent Harvard Law Review article puts it. The concept is akin to the law of private fiduciaries, which governs trustees of trusts and directors and officers of corporations, an area that has been central to my legal practice as a corporate litigator. “Indeed,” as the Harvard Law Review article explains, “one might argue that what presents to us as private fiduciary law today had some of its genesis in the law of public officeholding.” The overarching principle is that a fiduciary—say, the CEO of a corporation—when acting on behalf of a corporation, has to act in the corporation’s best interests. Likewise, a trustee of a trust must use the assets for the benefit of the beneficiary, and not himself (a fundamental rule, incidentally, that Trump apparently couldn’t adhere to with his own charitable foundation).

In providing for a national chief executive, the Framers incorporated the very similar law of public officeholding into his duties in two places in the Constitution—in Article II, Section 3 (the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”), and in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, which requires the president to “solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States.” That language—particularly the words faithfully execute—was in 1787 “very commonly associated with the performance of public and private offices,” the Harvard Law Review article points out, and “anyone experienced in law or government” at that time would have recognized what it meant, “because it was so basic to … the law of executive officeholding.” In a nutshell, while carrying out his official duties, a president has to put the country, not himself, first; he must faithfully follow and enforce the law; and he must act with the utmost care in doing all that.

But can Trump do all that? Does his personality allow him to? Answering those questions doesn’t require mental-health expertise, nor does it really require a diagnosis. You can make the argument for Trump’s unfitness without assessing his mental health: Like James Fallows, for example, you could just ask whether Trump would have been allowed to retain any other job in light of his bizarre conduct. At the same time, the presence of a mental disorder or disturbance doesn’t necessarily translate to incapacity; to suggest otherwise would unfairly stigmatize tens of millions of Americans. Someone battling a serious psychological ailment can unquestionably function well, and even nobly, in high public office—including as president. The country, in fact, has seen it: Abraham Lincoln endured “no mere case of the blues”; he suffered such “terrible melancholly,” said one of his contemporaries, that “he never dare[d] carry a knife in his pocket.” Many historians speculate that he suffered from what we would now diagnose as clinical depression. Yet Lincoln’s mechanisms for coping with his lifelong affliction may have supplied him with the vision, the creativity, and the moral fortitude to save the nation, to achieve for it a new birth of freedom. As a writer in this magazine once put it: Lincoln’s “political vision drew power from personal experience … Prepared for defeat, and even for humiliation, he insisted on seeing the truth of both his personal circumstances and the national condition. And where the optimists of his time would fail, he would succeed, envisioning and articulating a durable idea of free society.”

More than a diagnosis, what truly matters, as Lincoln’s case shows, is the president’s behavioral characteristics and personality traits. And understanding how people behave and think is not the sole province of professionals; we all do it every day, with family members, co-workers, and others. Nevertheless, how the mental-health community goes about categorizing those characteristics and traits can provide helpful guidance to laypeople by structuring our thinking about them.

And that’s where the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders comes into play. The DSM, now in its fifth edition, “contains descriptions, symptoms, and other criteria for diagnosing mental disorders,” and serves as the country’s “authoritative guide to the diagnosis of mental disorders.” What’s useful for nonprofessionals is that, for the most part, it’s written in plain English, and its criteria consist largely of observable behaviors—words and actions.

That’s especially true of its criteria for personality disorders—they don’t require a person to lie on a couch and confess his or her innermost thoughts. They turn on how a person behaves in the wild, so to speak. If anything, a patient’s confessions in an office may disadvantage a clinician, because patients can and do conceal from clinicians central aspects of their true selves. If you can observe people going about their everyday business, you’ll know a lot more about how they act and behave.

And Donald Trump, as president of the United States, is probably the most observable and observed person in the world. I’ve personally met and spoken with him only a few times, but anyone who knows him will tell you that Trump, in a way, has no facade: What you see of him publicly is what you get all the time, although you may get more of it in private. Any intelligent person who watches Trump closely on television, and pays careful attention to his words on Twitter and in the press, should be able to tell you as much about his behavior as a mental-health professional could.

One scholarly paper has suggested that accounts of a person’s behavior from laypeople who observe him might be more accurate than information from a clinical interview, and that this is especially true when considering two personality disorders in particular—what the DSM calls narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder. These two disorders just happen to be the ones that have most commonly been ascribed to Trump by mental-health professionals over the past four years. Of these two disorders, the more commonly discussed when it comes to Trump is narcissistic personality disorder, or NPD—pathological narcissism. It’s also more important in considering Trump’s fitness for office, because it touches directly upon whether Trump has the capacity to put anyone’s interests—including the country’s and the Constitution’s—above his own.

Narcissus, the Greek mythological figure, was a boy who fell so in love with his own reflection in a pool of water that, according to one version of the story, he jumped in and drowned. Psychiatrists and psychologists now use the term narcissism to describe feelings of self-importance and self-love. As Craig Malkin, a clinical psychologist who has written extensively on the subject, has explained, narcissism is a trait that, to some extent, all human beings have: “the drive to feel special, to stand out from … other[s] … to feel exceptional or unique.”

A certain amount of narcissism is healthy, and helpful—it brings with it confidence, optimism, and boldness. Someone with more than an average amount of narcissism may be called a narcissist. Many politicians, and many celebrities, could be considered narcissists; presidents seem especially likely to “rank high in extroverted narcissism,” Malkin writes, although they have varied greatly in the degree of their narcissism. But extreme narcissism can be pathological, an illness—and potentially a danger, as it was for Narcissus. “Pathological narcissism begins when people become so addicted to feeling special that, just like with any drug, they’ll do anything to get their ‘high,’ including lie, steal, cheat, betray, and even hurt those closest to them,” Malkin says.

The “fundamental life goal” of an extreme narcissist “is to promote the greatness of the self, for all to see,” the psychologist Dan P. McAdams wrote in The Atlantic. To many mental-health professionals, Donald Trump provides a perfect example of such extreme, pathological narcissism: One clinical psychologist told Vanity Fair that he considers Trump such a “classic” pathological narcissist that he is actually “archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there’s no better example” of the characteristics of the disorder he displays. “Otherwise,” this clinician explained, “I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He’s like a dream come true.” Another clinical psychologist said that Trump displays “textbook narcissistic personality disorder.”

Not everyone agrees that Trump meets the diagnostic criteria for NPD. Allen Frances, a psychiatrist who helped write the disorder’s entry in the DSM, has argued that a mental “disturbance” becomes a “disorder” only when, as the DSM puts it, the affliction “causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.” The idea behind this threshold is to separate “mild forms” of problems from pathological ones, “in the absence of clear biological markers or clinically useful measurements of severity for many mental disorders.”

In Frances’s view, that dividing line disqualifies Trump from having a disorder, particularly NPD. Trump “may be a world-class narcissist,” he has written, “but this doesn’t make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder. Mr. Trump causes severe distress rather than experiencing it and has been richly rewarded, rather than punished, for his grandiosity, self-absorption and lack of empathy.”

But from the perspective of the public at large, the debate over whether Trump meets the clinical diagnostic criteria for NPD—or whether psychiatrists can and should answer that question without directly examining him—is beside the point. The goal of a diagnosis is to help a clinician guide treatment. The question facing the public is very different: Does the president of the United States exhibit a consistent pattern of behavior that suggests he is incapable of properly discharging the duties of his office?

Even Trump’s own allies recognize the degree of his narcissism. When he launched racist attacks on four congresswomen of color, Senator Lindsey Graham explained, “That’s just the way he is. It’s more narcissism than anything else.” So, too, do skeptics of assigning a clinical diagnosis. “No one is denying,” Frances told Rolling Stone, “that he is as narcissistic an individual as one is ever likely to encounter.” The president’s exceptional narcissism is his defining characteristic—and understanding that is crucial to evaluating his fitness for office.

The DSM-5 describes its conception of pathological narcissism this way: “The essential feature of narcissistic personality disorder is a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy that begins by early adulthood and is present in a variety of contexts.” The manual sets out nine diagnostic criteria that are indicative of the disorder, but only five of the nine need be present for a diagnosis of NPD to be made. Here are the nine:

1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).

2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).

4. Requires excessive admiration.

5. Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations).

6. Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends)

7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings or needs of others.

8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.

9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

These criteria are accompanied by explanatory notes that seem relevant here: “Vulnerability in self-esteem makes individuals with narcissistic personality disorder very sensitive to ‘injury’ from criticism or defeat.” And “criticism may haunt these individuals and may leave them feeling humiliated, degraded, hollow and empty. They may react with disdain, rage, or defiant counterattack.” The manual warns, moreover, that “interpersonal relations are typically impaired because of problems derived from entitlement, the need for admiration, and the relative disregard for the sensitivities of others.” And, the DSM-5 adds, “though overweening ambition and confidence may lead to high achievement, performance may be disrupted because of intolerance of criticism or defeat.”

The diagnostic criteria offer a useful framework for understanding the most remarkable features of Donald Trump’s personality, and of his presidency. (1) Exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements? (2) Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance? (3) Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and should only associate with other special or high-status people? That’s Trump, to a T. As Trump himself might put it, he exaggerates accomplishments better than anyone. In July, he described himself in a tweet as “so great looking and smart, a true Stable Genius!” (Exclamation point his, of course.) That “stable genius” self-description is one that Trump has repeated over and over again—even though he has trouble with spelling, doesn’t know the difference between a hyphen and an apostrophe, doesn’t appear to understand fractions, needs basic geography lessons, speaks at the level of a fourth grader, and engages in “serial misuse of public language” and “cannot write sentences,” and even though members of his own administration have variously considered him to be a “moron,” an “idiot,” a “dope,” “dumb as shit,” and a person with the intelligence of a “kindergartener” or a “fifth or sixth grader” or an “11-year-old child.”

Trump wants everyone to know: He’s “the super genius of all time,” one of “the smartest people anywhere in the world.” Not only that, but he considers himself a hero of sorts. He avoided military service, yet claims he would have run, unarmed, into a school during a mass shooting. Speaking to a group of emergency medical workers who had lost friends and colleagues on 9/11, he claimed, falsely, to have “spent a lot of time down there with you,” while generously allowing that “I’m not considering myself a first responder.” He has spoken, perhaps jokingly, perhaps not, about awarding himself the Medal of Honor.

Trump claims to be an expert—the world’s greatest—in anything and everything. As one video mash-up shows, Trump has at various times claimed—in all seriousness—that no one knows more than he does about: taxes, income, construction, campaign finance, drones, technology, infrastructure, work visas, the Islamic State, “things” generally, environmental-impact statements, Facebook, renewable energy, polls, courts, steelworkers, golf, banks, trade, nuclear weapons, tax law, lawsuits, currency devaluation, money, “the system,” debt, and politicians. Trump described his admission as a transfer student into Wharton’s undergraduate program as “super genius stuff,” even though he didn’t strike the admissions officer who approved his candidacy as a “genius,” let alone a “super genius”; Trump claimed to have “heard I was first in my class” at Wharton, despite the fact that his name didn’t appear on the dean’s list there, or in the commencement program’s list of graduates receiving honors. And Trump, through an invented spokesman, even lied his way onto the Forbes 400.

(4) Requires excessive admiration? Last Thanksgiving, Trump was asked what he was most thankful for. His answer: himself, of course. A number of years ago, he made a video for Forbes in which he interviewed two of his children. The interview topic: how great they thought Donald Trump was. When his own father died, in 1999, Trump gave one of the eulogies. As Alan Marcus, a former Trump adviser, recounted the story to Timothy O’Brien, he began “more or less like this: ‘I was in my Trump Tower apartment reading about how I was having the greatest year in my career in The New York Times when the security desk called to say my brother Robert was coming upstairs’”—an introductory line that provoked “‘an audible gasp’ from mourners stunned by Trump’s self-regard.” According to a Rolling Stone article, other eulogists spoke about the deceased, but Trump “used the time to talk about his own accomplishments and to make it clear that, in his mind, his father’s best achievement was producing him, Donald.” The author of a book about the Trump family described the funeral as one that “wasn’t about Fred Trump,” but rather “was an opportunity to do some brand burnishing by Donald, for Donald. Throughout his remarks, the first-person singular pronouns—I and me and mine—far outnumbered he and his. Even at his own father’s funeral, Donald Trump couldn’t cede the limelight.”

And he still can’t. Here’s a man who holds rallies with no elections in sight, so that he can bask in his supporters’ cheers; even when elections are near, and he’s supposed to be helping other candidates, he consistently keeps the focus on himself. He loves to watch replays of himself at the rallies, and “luxuriates in the moments he believes are evidence of his brilliance.” In July, after his controversial, publicly funded, campaign-style Independence Day celebration, Trump tweeted, “Our Country is the envy of the World. Thank you, Mr. President!” In February 2017, Trump was given a private tour of the newly opened National Museum of African American History and Culture, and paused in front of an exhibit on the Dutch role in the slave trade. He turned to the museum’s director and said, “You know, they love me in the Netherlands.”

(5) A sense of entitlement? (9) Arrogant, haughty behaviors? Trump is the man who, on the infamous Access Hollywood tape, said, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything you want”—including grabbing women by their genitals. He’s the man who also once said, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” (8) Envious of others? Here’s a man so unable to stand the praise received by a respected war hero and statesman, Senator John McCain, that he has continued to attack McCain months after McCain’s death; his jealousy led White House staff to direct the Pentagon to keep a destroyer called the USS John S. McCain out of Trump’s line of sight during a presidential visit to an American naval base in Japan. And Trump, despite being president, still seems envious of President Barack Obama. (6) Interpersonally exploitative? Just watch the Access Hollywood tape, or ask any of the hundreds of contractors and employees Trump the businessman allegedly stiffed, or speak with any of the two dozen women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct, sexual assault, or rape. (Trump has denied all their claims.)

Finally, (7) Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings or needs of others? One of the most striking aspects of Trump’s personality is his utter and complete lack of empathy. By empathy, psychologists and psychiatrists mean the ability to understand or relate to what someone else is experiencing—the capacity to envision someone else’s feelings, perceptions, and thoughts.

The notorious lawyer and fixer Roy Cohn, who once counseled Trump, said that “Donald pisses ice water,” and indeed, examples of Trump’s utter lack of normal human empathy abound. Trump himself has told the story of a charity ball—an “incredible ball”—he once held at Mar-a-Lago for the Red Cross. “So what happens is, this guy falls off right on his face, hits his head, and I thought he died … His wife is screaming—she’s sitting right next to him, and she’s screaming.” By his own account, Trump’s concern wasn’t the poor man’s well-being or his wife’s. It was the bloody mess on his expensive floor. “You know, beautiful marble floor, didn’t look like it. It changed color. Became very red … I said, ‘Oh, my God, that’s disgusting,’ and I turned away. I couldn’t, you know, he was right in front of me and I turned away.” Trump describes himself as saying, after the injured man was hauled away on a makeshift stretcher, “‘Get that blood cleaned up! It’s disgusting!’ The next day, I forgot to call [the man] to say is he okay … It’s just not my thing.”

And then there was 9/11. Trump gave an extraordinary call-in interview to a metropolitan–New York television station just hours after the Twin Towers collapsed. He was asked whether one of his downtown buildings, 40 Wall Street, had suffered any damage. Trump’s immediate response was to brag about the building’s brand-new ranking among New York skyscrapers: “40 Wall Street actually was the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan, and it was actually, before the World Trade Center, was the tallest—and then when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second-tallest. And now it’s the tallest.” (This wasn’t even true—a building a block away from Trump’s, 70 Pine Street, was a little taller.)

That human empathy isn’t Trump’s thing has been demonstrated time and again during his presidency as well. In October 2017, he reportedly told the widow of a serviceman killed in action “something to the effect that ‘he knew what he was getting into when he signed up, but I guess it hurts anyway.’” (Trump later claimed that this account was “fabricated … Sad!” and that “I have proof,” but of course he never produced any.) On a less macabre note, on Christmas Eve last year, Trump took calls on NORAD’s Santa Tracker phone line, which children call to find out where Santa Claus is as he makes his rounds. Trump asked a 7-year-old girl from South Carolina: “Are you still a believer in Santa? Because at 7, it’s marginal, right?”

According to Woodward’s Fear, when Trump’s first chief of staff, Reince Priebus, resigned, he found out about his replacement when he saw a tweet from Trump saying that he had appointed John Kelly as the new chief of staff—moments after Priebus and Trump had spoken about waiting to announce the news. Kelly was appalled, and that night apologetically told Priebus, “I’d never do this to you. I’d never been offered this job until the tweet came out. I would have told you.” His predecessor, though, wasn’t surprised. “It made no sense, Priebus realized, unless you understood … ‘The president has zero psychological ability to recognize empathy or pity in any way.’”

Priebus apparently isn’t the only White House staffer to have learned this; in February 2018, when Trump met with survivors of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting and their loved ones, his communications aide actually gave him a note card that made clear that “the president needed to be reminded to show compassion and understanding to traumatized survivors,” as The New York Times put it. The empathy cheat sheet contained a reminder to say such things as “I hear you.” One aide to President Obama told the Times that had she and her colleagues given their boss such a reminder card, “he would have looked at us like we were crazy people.”

Most recently, in July of this year, in a stunning scene captured on video, Trump met in the Oval Office with the human-rights activist Nadia Murad, a Yazidi Iraqi who had been captured, raped, and tortured by the Islamic State, and had won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2018 for speaking out about the plight of the Yazidis and other victims of genocide and religious persecution. Her voice breaking, she implored the president of the United States to help her people return safely to Iraq. Trump could barely look her in the eye. She told him that ISIS had murdered her mother and six brothers. Trump, apparently not paying much attention, asked, “Where are they now?” “They killed them,” she said once again. “They are in the mass grave in Sinjar, and I’m still fighting just to live in safety.” Trump, who has publicly said that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, seemed interested in the conversation only at the end, when he asked Murad about why she won the prize.

Another equally unforgettable video documents Trump visiting Puerto Rico shortly after Hurricane Maria, tossing rolls of paper towels into a crowd of victims. He later responded vindictively to charges that his administration hadn’t done enough to help the island, prompting the mayor of San Juan to observe that Trump had “augmented” Puerto Rico’s “devastating human crisis … because he made it about himself, not about saving our lives,” and because “when expected to show empathy he showed disdain and lack of respect.”

In October 2018, a gunman burst into Shabbat morning services at a Jewish synagogue in Pittsburgh and sprayed worshippers with semiautomatic-rifle and pistol fire. Eleven people died. Three days later, the president and first lady visited the community, and the day after that, the first thing Trump tweeted about the visit was this: “Melania and I were treated very nicely yesterday in Pittsburgh. The Office of the President was shown great respect on a very sad & solemn day. We were treated so warmly. Small protest was not seen by us, staged far away. The Fake News stories were just the opposite—Disgraceful!” Similarly, after gunmen killed dozens in the span of a single August weekend in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, Trump went on a one-day sympathy tour that was marked by attacks on his hosts and on political enemies, and an obsessive focus on himself.

What kind of human being, let alone politician, would engage in such unempathetic, self-centered behavior while memorializing such horrible tragedies? Only the most narcissistic person imaginable—or a person whose narcissism would be difficult to imagine if we hadn’t seen it ourselves. The evidence of Trump’s narcissism is overwhelming—indeed, it would be a gargantuan task to try to marshal all of it, especially as it mounts each and every day.

Yet pathological narcissism is not the only personality disorder that Trump’s behavior clearly indicates. A second disorder also frequently ascribed to Trump by professionals is sociopathy—what the DSM-5 calls antisocial personality disorder. As described by Lance Dodes, a former assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, “sociopathy is among the most severe mental disturbances.” Central to sociopathy is a complete lack of empathy—along with “an absence of guilt.” Sociopaths engage in “intentional manipulation, and controlling or even sadistically harming others for personal power or gratification. People with sociopathic traits have a flaw in the basic nature of human beings … They are lacking an essential part of being human.” For its part, the DSM-5 states that the “essential feature of antisocial personality disorder is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.”

The question of whether Trump can serve as a national fiduciary turns more on his narcissistic tendencies than his sociopathic ones, but Trump’s sociopathic characteristics sufficiently intertwine with his narcissistic ones that they deserve mention here. These include, to quote the DSM-5, “deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others.” Trump’s deceitfulness—his lying—has become the stuff of legend; journalists track his “false and misleading claims” as president by the thousands upon thousands. Aliases? For years, Trump would call journalists while posing as imaginary PR men, “John Barron” and “John Miller,” so that he could plant false stories about being wealthy, brilliant, and sexually accomplished. Trump was, and remains, a con artist: Think of Trump University, which even Trump’s own employees described as a scam (and which sparked a lawsuit that resulted in a $25 million settlement, although with no admission of wrongdoing). There’s ACN, an alleged Ponzi scheme Trump promoted, and from which he made millions (he, his company, and his family deny the allegations of fraud); and the border wall that hasn’t been built and that Mexico’s never going to pay for. Trump is a pathological liar if ever there was one.

Other criteria for antisocial personality disorder include “failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest”; “impulsivity or failure to plan ahead”; and “lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.” Check, check, and check: As for social norms and lawful behaviors, there are all the accusations of sexual misconduct. Also relevant is what the Mueller report says about Trump’s efforts to derail the Justice Department’s investigation into Russian interference in the last presidential election. And given what federal prosecutors in New York said about his role in directing hush money to be paid to the porn star Stormy Daniels, a strong case can be made that Trump has committed multiple acts of obstruction of justice and criminal violations of campaign-finance laws. Were he not president, and were it not for two Justice Department opinions holding that a sitting president cannot be indicted, he might well be facing criminal charges now.

As for impulsivity, that essentially describes what gets him into trouble most: It was his “impulsiveness—actually, total recklessness”—that came close to destroying him in the 1980s. In “response to his surging celebrity,” Trump, “acquisitive to the point of recklessness,” engaged in “a series of manic, ill-advised ventures” that “nearly did him in,” Politico reported. His impulsiveness has buffeted his presidency as well: Think of his first ordering, then calling off, the bombing of Iran in June, and his aborted meeting with the Taliban at Camp David just last month. And remember the racist tweets he sent in mid-July in which he told four nonwhite representatives—three of whom were born in the United States—to “go back” to the “countries” they “originally came from.” Those tweets were apparently triggered by something he saw on TV.

Or consider his impetuous, unvetted personnel decisions, such as his failed selection of Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson, the former White House physician, as Veterans Affairs secretary, and his choice of Representative John Ratcliffe as director of national intelligence. It was just so on The Apprentice, where editors and producers found that “Trump was frequently unprepared” for tapings, and frequently fired strong contestants “on a whim,” which required them “to ‘reverse engineer’ the episode, scouring hundreds of hours of footage … in an attempt to assemble an artificial version of history in which Trump’s shoot-from-the-hip decision made sense.” One editor remarked that he found “it strangely validating that they’re doing the same thing in the White House.” Trump sees none of this as a problem; to the contrary, he prides himself on following his instincts, once telling an interviewer: “I have a gut, and my gut tells me more sometimes than anybody’s brain can ever tell me.”

And lack of remorse? That’s a hallmark of sociopathy, and goes hand in hand with a lack of human conscience. In a narcissistic sociopath, it’s intertwined with a lack of empathy. Trump hardly ever shows remorse, or apologizes, for anything. The one exception: With his presidential candidacy on the line in early October 2016, Trump expressed regret for the Access Hollywood video. But within weeks, almost as soon as the campaign was over, Trump began claiming, to multiple people, that the video may have been doctored—a preposterous lie, especially since he had acknowledged that the voice was his, others had confirmed this as well, and there was no evidence of tampering. “We don’t think that was my voice,” he said to a senator. The “we,” no doubt, was a lie as well.

Again, as with his narcissism, all this evidence of Trump’s sociopathy only begins to tell the tale. The bottom line is that this is a man who, over and over and over again, has indifferently mused about the possibility of killing 10 million or so people in Afghanistan to end the war there, while allowing that “I’m not looking to kill 10 million people”—as though this were a realistic but merely less preferred option than, say, raising import tariffs on chewing gum. As a 1997 profile of Trump in The New Yorker put it, Trump has “an existence unmolested by the rumbling of a soul.”

In a way, Trump’s sociopathic tendencies are simply an extension of his extreme narcissism. Take the pathological lying. Extreme narcissists aren’t necessarily pathological liars, but they can be, and when they are, the lying supports the narcissism. As Lance Dodes has put it, “People like Donald Trump who have severe narcissistic disturbances can’t tolerate being criticized, so the more they are challenged in this essential way, the more out of control they become.” In particular, “They change reality to suit themselves in their own mind.” Although Trump “lies because of his sociopathic tendencies,” telling falsehoods to fool others, Dodes argues, he also lies to himself, to protect himself from narcissistic injury. And so Donald Trump has lied about his net worth, the size of the crowd at his inauguration, and supposed voter fraud in the 2016 election.

The latter kind of lying, Dodes says, “is in a way more serious,” because it can indicate “a loose grip on reality”—and it may well tell us where Trump is headed in the face of impeachment hearings. Lying to prevent narcissistic injury can metastasize to a more significant loss of touch with reality. As Craig Malkin puts it, when pathological narcissists “can’t let go of their need to be admired or recognized, they have to bend or invent a reality in which they remain special,” and they “can lose touch with reality in subtle ways that become extremely dangerous over time.” They can become “dangerously psychotic,” and “it’s just not always obvious until it’s too late.”

Experts haven’t suggested that Trump is psychotic, but many have contended that his narcissism and sociopathy are so inordinate that he fits the bill for “malignant narcissism.” Malignant narcissism isn’t recognized as an official diagnosis; it’s a descriptive term coined by the psychoanalyst Erich Fromm, and expanded upon by another psychoanalyst, Otto Kernberg, to refer to an extreme mix of narcissism and sociopathy, with a degree of paranoia and sadism mixed in. One psychoanalyst explains that “the malignant narcissist is pathologically grandiose, lacking in conscience and behavioural regulation with characteristic demonstrations of joyful cruelty and sadism.” In the view of some in the mental-health community, such as John Gartner, Trump “exhibits all four” components of malignant narcissism: “narcissism, paranoia, antisocial personality and sadism.”

Mental-health professionals have raised a variety of other concerns about Trump’s mental state; the last worth specifically mentioning here is the possibility that, apart from any personality disorder, he may be suffering cognitive decline. This is a serious matter: Trump seems to be continually slurring words, and recently misread teleprompters to say that the Continental Army secured airports during the American Revolutionary War, and to say that the shooting in Dayton had occurred in Toledo. His overall level of articulateness today doesn’t come close to what he exhibits in decades-old television clips. But that could be caused by ordinary age-related decline, stress, or other factors; to know whether something else is going on, according to experts, would require a full neuropsychological work-up, of the kind that Trump hasn’t yet had and, one supposes, isn’t about to agree to.

But even that doesn’t exhaust all the mental-health issues possibly indicated by Trump’s behavior. His “mental state,” according to Justin A. Frank, a former clinical professor of psychiatry and physician who wrote a book about Trump’s psychology, “include[s] so many psychic afflictions” that a “working knowledge of psychiatric disorders is essential to understanding Trump.” Indeed, as Gartner puts it: “There are a lot of things wrong with him—and, together, they are a scary witch’s brew.”

This is a lot to digest. It would take entire books to catalog all of Trump’s behavioral abnormalities and try to explain them—some of which have already been written. But when you line up what the Framers expected of a president with all that we know about Donald Trump, his unfitness becomes obvious. The question is whether he can possibly act as a public fiduciary for the nation’s highest public trust. To borrow from the Harvard Law Review article, can he follow the “proscriptions against profit, bad faith, and self-dealing,” manifest “a strong concern about avoiding ultra vires action” (that is, action exceeding the president’s legal authority), and maintain “a duty of diligence and carefulness”? Given that Trump displays the extreme behavioral characteristics of a pathological narcissist, a sociopath, or a malignant narcissist—take your pick—it’s clear that he can’t.

To act as a fiduciary requires you to put someone else’s interests above your own, and Trump’s personality makes it impossible for him to do that. No president before him, at least in recent memory, has ever displayed such obsessive self-regard. For Trump, Trump always comes first. He places his interests over everyone else’s—including those of the nation whose laws he swore to faithfully execute. That’s not consistent with the duties of the president, whether considered from the standpoint of constitutional law or psychology.

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

0 notes