‘Driven by strong emotions': Psychologists break down Trump's latest bizarre act
President Donald Trump happily dropped the F-bomb. So what does this say about his willingness to use the A-bomb?
He's mercurial. He's unpredictable. He's inconsistent.
And he's proud of it.
The 79-year-old billionaire property developer and former game show host believes it's what sets him apart from America's governing 'elite'.
A clearly exasperated Trump took to the White House lawn to blurt: 'We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f**k they're doing.'
He was referring to Israel and Iran breaching the deadline for his unilaterally declared ceasefire.
It seems to work. At least sometimes.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to back down. He thanked the President for his 'immense appreciation for Israel' and decided to 'refrain from further attacks'.
But Russian President Vladimir Putin was not so cowed when he was pommeled with similar bluster. The Don's outburst over a breached ceasefire was dismissed as 'emotional overstrain'.
That's a matter of personal politics. But Professor of Psychology Geoff Beattie believes such outbursts present a window into Trump's thought processes.
'Trump was clearly furious, and his language showed it,' the Edge Hill University academic writes.
'This was not a verbal slip – there was no immediate correction, no apology, no nonverbal indication of embarrassment. He just stormed off, clearly angry.'
It's not what voters generally expect from their elected representatives.
Statesmanship may have gone out of vogue decades ago. Along with transparency and accountability.
Despite this, President Theodore Roosevelt's mantra of 'speak softly but carry a big stick' has largely remained an unwritten law of Western diplomacy since World War II.
'But Trump showed frustration, barely contained,' Professor Beattie states. 'His furious, aggressive response was like something straight out of an old psychology textbook.'
Mind games
Human beings have big opinions of themselves.
They're supposed to be smart. To be cool, calm, collected. Civilised.
After all, that's what's supposed to set them apart from mere animals.
'They find other ways of dealing with their frustrations,' Professor Beattie writes. 'They use their rational system of thought to find solutions…
'Perhaps, that's why many people feel shocked when they watch this US president in certain situations. To many of us, it all seems so basic, so unsophisticated, so frightening.'
But Trump's MAGA followers believe it's all part of a mind game.
They insist the President employs a sophisticated 'Mad Man' strategy when it comes to his politics, business and personal relationships.
Put simply, it keeps his opponents off balance. They never know what to expect.
But critics argue the tactic has a critical flaw: the 'Mad Man' card can easily back a player into a corner, where they must either go through with a bluff or lose face.
It comes down to what's behind the poker face.
Does Trump think fast, automatically - or unconsciously?
Professor Beattie says this is evolution's basic, rapid-reaction system. 'It is an intuitive system designed to work in a world full of approach and avoidance, scary animals and friendly animals. It is heavily reliant on affect (emotion) to guide decision-making.'
Or is everything Trump does the result of constant calculation?
Professor Beattie says this second method of thinking is 'slower, more deliberative. It requires conscious effort and is used for complex thinking, solving difficult problems, or making careful decisions.'
Good decisions, he argues, depend upon system two checking the advice of system one.
'But system one often jumps quickly and unconsciously to certain conclusions,' he adds. 'System two should check them, but often doesn't. Even when it would be easy.'
Action or reaction?
'It was a startling moment, even coming from a president who has publicly used that word, and other crude language, in the past,' states Tom Jones of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies.
Mainstream media was all over the unprecedented action taken over Iran's attempt to build an A-bomb.
But it couldn't make up its mind on how to cover Trump's F-bomb.
Some ran unedited video clips. Others used a dash or dot dot dot to mask what everybody already knew.
Poynter's senior vice president, Kelly McBride, argues the truth should be presented unvarnished.
'When you're covering the President, there are very few moments that are completely unpredictable and unscripted — many more with this President than most, but still — and that was one of them. And I think the record should reflect the entire moment.'
Few dispute Trump's decision-making style emphasises immediacy and emotional conviction. This has proven effective in rallying supporters and generating an air of decisiveness.
Especially when nobody dares to disagree with him.
Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately complied with Trump's 'Do not drop those bombs' demand.
But his office put a positive spin on things.
'President Trump expressed his immense appreciation for Israel — which achieved all of its war goals. The President also expressed his confidence in the stability of the ceasefire… (So) Israel refrained from further attacks.'
But President Putin's mouthpiece was more barbed when his boss was labelled 'absolutely CRAZY!'.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov declared: 'We are really grateful to the Americans and to President Trump personally for their assistance in organising and launching this negotiation process. Of course, at the same time, this is a very crucial moment, which is associated, of course, with the emotional overstrain and emotional reactions.'
Professor Beattie has made up his own mind.
'His decisions seem to be driven by strong emotions,' he observes. 'His response to events, opponents and issues are often passionate and visceral. This could lead to decisions being unduly influenced by personal feelings, first impressions based on arbitrary cues, and interpersonal perceptions, rather than anything more substantial.'
The wisdom of The Don
Trump rose to the US Presidency out of the knockdown world of real estate and reality television.
'Many suggest that Trump's decision-making style reflects his background in the high-pressure and high-stakes world of business, where quick judgments and gut instinct can be advantageous in these sorts of competitive winner-takes-all environments,' Professor Beattie states.
'But the world at war is a more precarious place, where system one (reactionary thought) needs to be kept more firmly in check.
'Gut instincts may have a role to play, but that old lazy system two (considered thought) needs to be more vigilant. Especially, it would seem, in Trump's case.'
Such personalities have other commonly associated traits.
'Commentators have described Trump as both narcissistic and authoritarian,' state John Moores University workplace relations researchers Neil Beasley and Madeleine Pickles.
'Yet, running parallel to these factors, one character trait is glaringly common among Trump supporters: sycophancy.'
Yes-men (and women): They're in every office, busily 'kissing up' and 'kicking down'.
'When leaders are surrounded by 'yes-men', they're deprived of critical input that could challenge assumptions or highlight potential flaws,' Beasley adds.
'This can lead to cognitive entrenchment where decision-makers become overconfident and resistant to change. Bad decisions then proceed unchecked, often escalating into systemic failures.'
But the brains behind Trump insist this is all just sour grapes.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said after US forces bombed Iran's nuclear facilities: 'Past presidents wanted to take this action, but they didn't have the guts to make the decision.'
Columnist Debra Saunders points out for the Heritage Foundation think-tank that, despite all the hostility between Trump and Europe, 'NATO leaders are praising Trump for pushing for them to increase their contribution to NATO's defence spending'.
'At the time, Trump's remarks seemed a shocking breach of decorum,' she added.
'Now they have the ring of an alarm that needed to be sounded.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
32 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Iranians mourn top commanders killed in Israeli strikes
Thousands of mourners have lined the streets of downtown Tehran for the funeral of the head of the Revolutionary Guard and other top commanders and nuclear scientists killed during a 12-day war with Israel. The caskets of Guard's chief General Hossein Salami, the head of the Guard's ballistic missile program, General Amir Ali Hajizadeh and others were driven on trucks along the capital's Azadi Street on Saturday as people in the crowds chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel". Salami and Hajizadeh were both killed on the first day of the war, June 13, as Israel launched a war it said meant to destroy Iran's nuclear program, specifically targeting military commanders, scientists and nuclear facilities. There was no immediate sign of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in the state broadcast of the funeral. Khamenei, who has not made a public appearance since before the outbreak of the war, has in past funerals held prayers for fallen commanders over their caskets before the open ceremonies, later aired on state television. During 12 days before a ceasefire was declared on Tuesday, Israel claimed it killed around 30 Iranian commanders and 11 nuclear scientists, while hitting eight nuclear-related facilities and more than 720 military infrastructure sites. More than 1000 people were killed, including at least 417 civilians, according to the Washington-based Human Rights Activists group. Iran fired more than 550 ballistic missiles at Israel, most of which were intercepted, but those that got through caused damage in many areas and killed 28 people. Saturday's ceremonies were the first public funerals for top commanders since the ceasefire, and Iranian state television reported they were for 60 people in total, including four women and four children. Authorities closed government offices to allow public servants to attend the ceremonies. Iran has always insisted its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes, but Israel views it as an existential threat and said its military campaign was necessary to prevent Iran from building an atomic weapon. Khamenei's last public appearance was June 11, two days before hostilities with Israel broke out, when the 86-year-old met Iranian parliamentarians. On Thursday, however, he released a pre-recorded video, in his first message since the end of the war, filled with warnings and threats directed toward the United States and Israel, the Islamic Republic's longtime adversaries.
West Australian
35 minutes ago
- West Australian
Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court closes term
The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that might make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion", said Paul Rosenzweig, a lawyer who served in Republican President George W Bush's administration. Friday's ruling said that judges generally could grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021. Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. "President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. "Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. "It recognises that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform." Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favour of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence", Luther said. The cases involving Trump administration policies came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found it was likely unconstitutional. "One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said. In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive health care and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination. The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBTQI characters are read. In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. "The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress's problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues'," Levinson said. This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favour of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time the court recognised any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called "third countries". Recent rulings "have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court", Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said. The court's jurisprudence reflected a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they had the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said. The court's conservative majority, Kreis said, "is probably feeling more emboldened to act".
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court closes term
The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that might make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion", said Paul Rosenzweig, a lawyer who served in Republican President George W Bush's administration. Friday's ruling said that judges generally could grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021. Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. "President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. "Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. "It recognises that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform." Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favour of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence", Luther said. The cases involving Trump administration policies came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found it was likely unconstitutional. "One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said. In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive health care and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination. The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBTQI characters are read. In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. "The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress's problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues'," Levinson said. This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favour of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time the court recognised any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called "third countries". Recent rulings "have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court", Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said. The court's jurisprudence reflected a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they had the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said. The court's conservative majority, Kreis said, "is probably feeling more emboldened to act".
