 |
| Niaz. "File:Debate Logo.svg". 1/11/08 via Wikipedia. Free Documentation License. |
1. Not to play the Trump card (ha) again, but I think this first debate is really quite important- whether or not Donald Trump fits the psychological stencil of a narcissist. It is said that he both does and does not. He lies to make himself seem impressive and tolerates criticism very poorly, immediately resorting to personal insults. But at the same time, your textbook narcissist will have a charm, a charisma that draws you in before they reveal the person they really are. But Trump has no such appeal. He struts about, brazenly insulting anyone and anything he finds the least bit distasteful (which I've already discussed here) without any attempt at fooling anyone into thinking that he's an honorable person. He never starts a debate, or anything for that matter, with humility. Not only this, but no doctor has every diagnosed him, although some psychiatrists claim they have diagnosed him with narcissistic personality disorder without having to meet him. There are two schools of thought here.
The second article argues that raising the minimum wage would raise average happiness levels in all of america. Senator Barbara Lee, who is also a psychiatric social worker, argues that poverty leads to premature deaths, poor academic performance, and a stigma surrounding those who rely on the help of the government. Additionally, people growing up in poverty are more susceptible to mental illnesses than others, studies show. This argument surrounds the paper of Adam Smith, who made the same points regarding poverty as Senator Lee. The counterargument here of course is that correlation does not imply causation and raising the minimum wage may still do nothing.
2. I would say that there are no sympathetic people in the first story, as it centers around Trump. The closest thing that I can find to sympathy is the opinion of those psychiatrists who think he fits the narcissist bill, I agree with them but sympathy is not the word I would use.
In the second story the most sympathetic people are those in question, living in poverty. They evoke sympathy from me because I too believe that the minimum wage is far too low and I know they are living in terrible conditions that humans shouldn't be in, especially if they are working hard.
3. The least sympathetic character in the first article is without a doubt Trump. I have several reasons for no being able to sympathize with him. Firstly the obvious- he's obscenely rich, racist, sexist, and seemingly without the understanding that the presidential race is not a reality television show. But that's not all. I've had the unfortunate experience of knowing a narcissist and with that comes the knowledge that depending on the severity of their personality disorder, they destroy everything and everyone they get close to. Trump would make a dangerous leader because he has a large yet very fragile ego- it's only a matter of time before the leader of another country insults him and he will start World War Three. And finally, Trump has so much money and property that his life is as good as it's going to get, there's no reason for him to run for president other than he thinks it's a game. So no, I can't find any sympathy for him.
In the second article, I don't see anyone I can't sympathize with. I don't necessary feel sympathy for any of those arguing for or against Adam Smith's paper, I can see both sides of the argument as correlation does not imply causation although I do think the minimum wage should be raised. I don't disagree with these people, but again, I wouldn't use the word sympathy.
No comments:
Post a Comment