A Clinical Psychologist For President

Follow on

Of all the different criteria people use when deciding for whom to vote in presidential elections, I’ve never heard anyone talk about the importance of a background in clinical psychology—but it’s always struck me as important for a president to have as for a clinical psychologist. Certainly, foreign policy experience, a firm grasp of the principles of economics, a bold and confident leadership style, and the ability to get people to work together are all critically important—but a moment of reflection is all it takes to realize that all of these abilities spring from an understanding of and ability to leverage the principles of human psychology.

Our scientific understanding of these principles has finally advanced far enough—and in many cases has been found to be counterintuitive enough—that, as wise as any one of us may be in our personal lives, compared to trained clinical and research psychologists, we’re all a bunch of amateurs. As a result of our politicians’ distinct lack of psychological expertise, we’ve experienced—and will continue to experience—a number of significant policy failures. Why? Because at its core, public policy achieves societal improvements by changing the behavior of its citizens. How can a policy be expected to achieve its purpose if it’s not then grounded in a correct understanding of human psychology?

Consider, for example, the war on drugs. It’s hard to imagine anyone thinking today that this policy has achieved its objective: data suggests that the percentage of people addicted to drugs now is just about the same, if not slightly more, than when Nixon declared war on drug use in the 1970s. My point here isn’t that the goal is a worthy one (though I think it is). My point is that the strategy—the policy—designed to reduce drug use has failed because it wasn’t grounded in science. Certainly in the 1970s the science wasn’t yet known and it was generally accepted that addicts were addicts because they were weak-willed, lazy, and hedonistic. But now we know just how ineffective willpower is in helping people resist temptation, especially people whose brain chemistry has been altered by chronic substance abuse. We don’t generally blame people for contracting Parkinson’s disease. Yet perhaps because all addictions begin with the willful choice to experiment even now we continue to blame addicts for their inability to free themselves from their addictions, and policy makers continue to believe if we only make the punishments for using drugs more and more severe most people will stop trying drugs and most addicts will stop using them.

Consider as a second example the use of torture. Though most of us find our country’s use of torture morally barbaric, little research has actually been done on whether it actually works. (For obvious reasons we wouldn’t conduct a randomized, prospective trial to answer this question. But as people have been tortured and continue to be tortured around the world, we can ask the question “Does torture work?” in a scientific way even as we provide succor to its victims.) Though it may strike some as immoral even to be interested in studying this question, to do so might end the debate once and for all: for what if science proves that torture doesn’t work? (In fact, here is an example of a study that suggests just that). Then the debate is over before it’s begun.

What about the debate raging in New York about banning the sale of over-sized sugary drinks? Science suggests that the consumption of these drinks contributes to the rates of obesity and other illness. So getting consumers to drink fewer of them would seem like a good idea. But again our politicians may be putting policy before science, for here is an example of a study that suggests such a ban would actually increase consumption of sugary drinks.

One problem, of course, is that scientific understanding proceeds slowly. It can take many years, if not decades, to confirm findings. And politicians are notoriously impatient to take action in general for obvious reasons. But if our politicians only had a rudimentary understanding of how science works, perhaps the most important question about any policy up for consideration would not only have a better chance of being asked (before ever needing to entertain the questions of ethics, morals, politics, or constitutionality), but also of being answered correctly: will it work?

Next Week: The Three Realms Of Confidence, Redux

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • So, the job description would read:

    Foreign policy experience, a firm grasp of the principles of economics, a bold and confident leadership style, the ability to get people to work together; and the ability to leverage principles of human psychology (prerequisite: strong background in the scientific method & scientific research, to be applied to policy decisions)?

    I would add that it is equally appallingly fascinating that, in a representative form of democracy, elected representatives don’t listen to/heed/educate their constituency. (As in the gun control/background check issue, where, apparently, 90% of Americans want the background check piece, but the elected representatives did not vote for it when the vote came up a few weeks ago.) To my way of thinking, representing ones constituency should be towards the top of the job description. Then, if your constituency wants something that probably won’t work, according to scientific studies, you go back to the education piece of your job, prepping your constituency for the introduction of a bill, its rationale, its break-down, etc.

    An elected representative has to deal with values, at a most basic level. S/he has to reconcile her/his own value system with that of his constituency, and may often find her/himself drawn in to a personal struggle between her/his conscience and her/his duty to represent the people of her/his district, the electorate. “Will it work?” may be one of the representatives values—but is it a shared value with the electorate?

  • Yes, but several of recent memory have all had daughters. That has to count for some paychology intensives.

  • If the number of people addicted to drugs is the same now or a little more than it was when Nixon declared the war on drugs, it seems to me that the the percentage of the population addicted today is considerably lower. The population of the US in 1975 was roughly 216 million people, in 2012 it was roughly 313 million. Even without doing any arithmetic, you can see that the percentage of addicted people in 2012 is considerably lower. And you don’t talk about whether the drugs addicted to were the same. I am not endorsing the war on drugs. In fact, I think it has been terribly destructive. But I think you need to look more deeply at why it has been destructive: the numbers of people in prison for minor drug offenses, the number of those who entered for minor causes who leave as hardened criminals; the quantities of money that goes to maintaining penal institutions that could better be used for treatment; the criminal underbelly that runs the drug industry; the lives ruined by drugs, etc., etc. It would also be good to look at why the rate of addiction has gone down. I think you will find other factors besides the war on drugs.

    Generally, I think social science studies (as in the soda study), at least as they are presented in the press, tend to treat human beings as if they were machines. Our very humanity is ignored. What if the soda ban were accompanied by peer education, for instance?

    Just some thoughts.

    Esther: Thanks for pointing out a mistake I made. If you look at the graph in the link I provided, as well as the data on which it’s based, the percentage of the population is addicted today is roughly the same, not the absolute number.


  • I think it is clearly evident that psychological manipulation is indeed used by governments all over the world; it simply isn’t true that this area of knowledge and skill is not an essential means of control already! Not only that but these techniques are being used increasingly for ill rather than for people’s well-being…

  • Thank you for your reply. I should have looked at the link!

    Esther: No worries. I did misspeak and corrected it, so thanks.


  • How about a new cabinet post; minister of social psychology?

  • The purpose of torture is torture.