Making Sense of POTUS: Part V--Trait 7

This is the fifth in a six part series about Donald Trump's publicly visible traits. The current focus is:

7--Mr. Trump is neither insightful nor prone to guilt

Following the outline of the preceding parts, these elements will be treated individually. And, as has been the case so far, examples abound.

Insight Definitions of insight run from inaccurate colloquial ones, like simply understanding a situation or that a mistake was made, to the technical. Technical definitions of insight typically include the abilities to accurately describe: 

• current thoughts, emotion and behavior
• triggers for such experiences, psychological and social
• personality factors related to the triggers
• the genesis and development of these factors, including those that are biological, psychodynamic, and conditioned

Some psychoanalysts, like Otto Kernberg for example, have added to this list a desire for change. All of this assumes authenticity and not being too encumbered by one's defenses. 

The comprehensiveness of technical explanations makes them too unwieldy for application to public action. Instead, behavioral indicators should be considered, the best of which is guilt.

Guilt Setting aside the roles of biology and reinforcement in guilt production, the concept can be defined using the first two bullet points above, with the addition of the ability to contrast cognition, emotion and behavior with norms.  (This also means that a certain degree of insight is necessary for guilt to be generated, a topic to which we will return shortly.)

The question at hand is, how can it be observed?

In the present scenario, silence and a hang-dog facial expression -best illustrated by Bill Clinton in the aftermath of the revelation of his affair with Monica Lewinsky- are not approaches likely to be adopted by Mr. Trump because they are antithetical to one of his two raisons d'etre, wresting adulation from others. (The second is accruing more power.) The most reliable way left to observe guilt is to listen. In a nutshell, we must examine what Mr. Trump says for evidence that he is aware of, and bothered by, his thoughts, feelings and actions being outside normal limits. 

And... the evidence is mixed. 

It is clear that POTUS looks for triggers. But it is also clear that, at the same time, he sees only social ones. Simply put, blaming and projecting preclude the consideration of contributing psychological factors. 

Further, Mr. Trump is aware of his effect on people. Indeed, this seems to be one of his major foci. But he is also unperturbed by it. 

Lastly, there is no evidence in either direction that he is able to accurately describe his thoughts or emotions, or that he is able to contrast them with norms. His only apology on record is for his comments on the Billy Bush tapes. The apology drips with insincerity and reeks of contradiction. It is grossly illogical and nakedly manipulative. It is neither an apology nor proof of guilt.

In sum, mixed evidence of guilt does not insight make.