[x]

It looks like they have a hard time separating mental from physical conditions, or illnesses from vices or moods. Of course, when you want to know what Washington or Lincoln was like, you don't turn to these guys. You go to a good biography that can tell you more than a long distance diagnosis.

I have to wonder about the "Captain Queeg" factor, though. If a candidate really does have some sort of neurosis or disorder, it would be a good idea not to elect him. The long campaigns we have may do something to weed out candidates who have some mental problems -- though some disorders may actually work to a politician's advantage, at least until they get elected.

Some conditions, though, may not show up until a crisis happens. The idea that you can separate out those the determined from overly rigid, or the easy-going from the spinless before hand is a delusion, since those who write such long-distance analyses are usually influenced more by their own prejudices than by actual objective data.

[doberville]

"I have to wonder about the "Captain Queeg" factor, though. If a candidate really does have some sort of neurosis or disorder, it would be a good idea not to elect him. ..."

Actually, there is something to be said for having a psychoneurosis in a specific occupation.

For instance, would you really want a LEO who wasn't at least a little paranoid? ("Oh,don't worry . . .be happy"); how about a surgeon who wasn't somewhat o/c? (This scalpel was on the OR floor less than 5 seconds.)

As for politicians, need I say more?