A Competency Test For Trump Could Be A Bad Idea

  

Doctors, lawyers and soldiers have to prove that they are mentally competent to do their job. Must be the president

That is what MP Brendan Boyle, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, proposed on Tuesday when he introduced a law in which the elected president had to undergo a physical and spiritual medical examination before swearing. Although the bill is broadly prepared for all those elected as the highest office, the law is clearly aimed at President Trump. It is even named after one of the president's recent tweets: standardization of tests and accountability for the major election gives voters the information they need for the Uncontrolled Selection Act. (It is STABLE GENIUS in acronyms.)

Trump's mental health has been debating in Washington for more than a year - mental health professionals have offered external personality assessments, Congress has been able to invoke the 25th amendment and the public has debated its age. related cognitive decline. But the conversation peaked last week after the publication of Michael Wolff's book "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House."

We are not here to assess whether Trump is mentally ill, suffering from dementia or otherwise mentally handicapped. (However, we are considering whether it is appropriate to discuss the problem.) Instead, we try to better understand the convenience of preselecting a chair for mental skills. For answers we have turned to law, medicine and the military - other industries where the personal stability of one person can have a significant influence on the safety of others. Indeed, evaluations such as Boyle's are regularly done in some of these other professions. However, if we compare how mental health is treated in these different jobs, this also shows why transferring standards from other industries would not be easy or even desirable.

There are tests of mental competence before anyone can become a doctor, lawyer or soldier. The details vary per state for lawyers and by specialty for medicines and the army.

These are all general entrance examinations, aimed at whether a lawyer, doctor or potential soldier can do the work that he or she proposes. For example, if you want to become a lawyer in Illinois, you must obtain a sign and fitness exam. Candidates complete documents, including references to characters and medical history questionnaires, which are reviewed by five different committees, said Jayne Reardon, executive director of the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism. If these committees believe that a candidate needs a more in-depth evaluation, they can choose to hold a hearing. "It can be a contradictory process where the claimant gets a lawyer to represent him," she said.

And this process does not stop once you become part of the club. For example, surgeons undergo an assessment every two years, regardless of which hospital they are accredited to, and that serves primarily as a professional check, said David Welsh, surgeon and board member of the American College. surgeons. According to Craig Bryan, psychologist and executive director of the National Center for Veterans Studies at the University of Utah, military instructors receive specific assessments of mental health each year because their duties are so demanding. the psychological plan.

Although the specific characteristics of these institutional systems differ, there are some similarities that can help to form a presidential hypothetical preselection. First, all three professions focus on behavior and potential performance at work, not on the diagnosis of mental illness or personality disorder, or on reaching a certain age. For example, a person with bipolar disorder can still take the fitness exams described by Reardon and become a lawyer - although, depending on their personal medical history, they may receive a conditional authorization to continue taking their medication. prescribed. .

All these test systems are also universally applied. Although some people can eventually achieve a higher than normal exam level, there is a basic level of testing that everyone in these professions must follow. Everyone is treated in the same way. No one should be A-OK and get a free pass.

"It is a very delicate balance because (people with psychological problems)

This balance is thought a bit differently in the business world, where it is common practice to use personality tests to track people to find a job. But this is usually done by the business community, says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, Dean of Leadership Practice at the Yale School of Management.

There is no universal entrance exam that allows people to become company directors or members or a board of directors. And although Sonnenfeld said it could be risky, he was also opposed to something like the universal projections used in law, medicine and the military. The business world has been dependent to varying degrees on personality and mental competence tests as a filter when hiring and promoting decades. But these tests have often been scientifically inadequate and bad for the company culture. "In France they have an analysis of writing and until recently they even used phrenology," Sonnenfeld said. None of these systems is a scientifically valid way to learn about human personality and behavior. Meanwhile, personality tests that are widely used by US companies may inadvertently lead to a conformist workplace or the scientific application of discrimination against minorities and people with disabilities.

Whatever the test is, the interpretation of the results is just as important as the way they are collected. These concerns - whether the parameters used to test a person's mental competence are valid and whether the results are interpreted in a way that is just for the individuals and good for the institution - were shared by Elizabeth Suhay, a professor in government at the American university, whose work encompasses the interactions between science and politics. She had trouble with the idea of conducting a proficiency test for the presidency, especially in a polarized political climate. "It becomes clear to everyone that people can politicize both facts and values," Suhay said.

It has formed a corollary of the process of deposition, which effectively allows Congress to define what counts as "high crimes and crimes". Disposal is an open and democratic process, Suhay said. But this leaves a lot of room for politicization in defining what is a problem and what is not. A test of mental competence for the presidency would probably do the same. But because it would come with a layer of science, in the form of test results, it could have a false sense of security and objectivity.

But the effort is high, she said. If you make the chair dependent on a test for mental health, you run the risk of undermining the foundations of democracy when people find a way to use the test to prevent opponents from running. At the same time, most voters do not have transparent information about the mental health of a candidate. The risks to democracy and the risks of an incompetent president are real.