This column is not about Newt Gingrich. Nor is it about Chaz Bono. It’s not even about how the thought of them dancing together would make Rick Santorum’s head explode. No, this column is about a psychiatrist named Keith Ablow, who in recent months has taken the time to write about Gingrich and Bono from his unique perspective as a mental health professional.

According to his Web site, Ablow “serves as the FOX NEWS expert on psychiatry.” It was in that capacity that in January, Ablow penned a widely circulated column regarding the well-documented peccadilloes of Gingrich and the former House speaker’s qualifications to be president.

“Here’s what one interested in making America stronger can reasonably conclude—psychologically—from Mr. Gingrich’s behavior during his three marriages,” Ablow wrote. “Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.” He continued, “Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.” He dug deeper, “One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.”

Now buckle up for the exciting psychological conclusion: “When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.”

I am not a mental health professional, nor do I play one on TV. Nor am I about to claim that Gingrich is a psychopath. But I do wonder whether the doctor’s personal political views may be overriding his medical judgment.

For example, Ablow is surely familiar with the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, used for diagnosing that serious personality disorder. If I were a psychiatrist—which again, I am not—who wanted to publicly contend that there was significant evidence for Gingrich being a psychopath—which I certainly do not—I could pretty much just quote from the checklist: glibness, grandiose sense of self-worth, being manipulative, having poor behavior control, being sexually promiscuous, having many short-term marital relationships and, my favorite for the guy still running for president as this column goes to press, lack of realistic long-term goals.

Clearly, the qualities that Ablow thinks recommend Gingrich to the electorate could easily be interpreted quite differently by some other hypothetical qualified psychiatrist. Someone who might come to this Seinfeld-ian conclusion, succinctly stated by the disapproving father of a woman who dated George Costanza’s dad: “This guy ... this is not my kind of guy.”

Which brings us to Chaz Bono, a guy who used to be a gal. When Bono was on Dancing with the Stars last fall, Ablow advised parents “to not allow their children to watch the episodes in which Chaz appears.” He contended that to see Bono being applauded could kindle gender dysphoria in vulnerable youths.

Have I mentioned that I’m not a psychiatrist? Therefore, I can’t say whether Ablow is correct—although it’s easy enough to find vehement disagreement on this issue from other psychiatrists online. I recommend the response from Jack Drescher, a member of the DSM-5’s Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group, who describes the Fox News mind maven’s views as having “little basis in current clinical practices” and being basically just “opinions, scare tactics and inflammatory language.”

What I can’t figure out is why Ablow did not also offer additional obvious advisories. For example, girls who watch Dancing with the Stars might manifest a sudden desire for breast augmentation surgery, and boys who watch might exhibit a predilection for wearing toreador pants tight enough to lower sperm counts. My advice: people who sit on the couch to see fox-trots are better off than people who lie on the couch to hear Fox psych.

This article was originally published with the title The Doctor Is Way Out.

10 Comments

1. 1. frank3174 11:19 AM 3/23/12

   I enjoy all your columns, this one in particular.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. crossmanf 06:25 PM 3/27/12

   Steve:
   I have long enjoyed your Science talk podcasts and your columns. We share the same alma mater and I think that we have similar political/sociological bents based on what I have read or listened to from you.
   
   That said I find that your column this month has no basis for being published in "Scientific" American. I don't blame you. I blame Sci Am editorial staff for allowing this magazine to expand in directions far removed from a discussion of today's science in America. This column just supplied me the activation energy to get over the apathy barrier and respond with this note.
   
   I am deeply disappointed by this expansion of pseudo science discussion in Sci Am., and I have been for a couple of years now.
   
   A reader of Sci Am since ~ 1954.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. fedros 03:36 AM 3/30/12

   First, as you stated, you are not a psychiatrist and you should say right after that your article is personal, showing your personal point of view; if you asked a psychiatrist, or read some regulations and tables from APA, you should say that you follow the personal opinion of another psychiatrist and a table written by APA members who OWN a good portion of some factories producing meds. This ownership overshadows a lot their commitment to our mental health. But what I said is not what I dislike in your article. As you probably know, the big issue few months ago about dr Ablow was not Gingrich( damn spelling for a foreigner)but Bono, but you put it last: to show you're not headed to defend a category? Hmmm...or cause you know the last thing sticks in mind...Hmmm? Anyway, you are not so credible as you think, people who agree just want to hear someone agreeing and who disagrees gets disappointed. But nobody will notice you took the part of someone who doesn't accept freedom of opinion, paints cannons to trash doctors and think to rule our mind using an association to sell meds.You are not so free....after all

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. kienhua68 04:32 AM 4/8/12

   My My. How off the mark can some perspectives be.
   Newt is a good example of passion sans empathy.
   Also, it's all about Newt.
   Behavior speaks louder than words. A sociopath with
   an agenda will, as witnessed in recent news, say virtually
   anything to further their goal.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. gpwagher 08:00 PM 4/8/12

   Your article made me curious about Dr Ablow. His website says: "Keith Ablow, MD is one of America's leading psychiatrists." OK, that sounds good. To be objective I checked his scientific record on PubMed, the online repository of all work remotely related to medicine. Interestingly there is not a single scientific or scholarly article to Dr Ablow's credit. How low is this profession, when someone with no record of scientific achievement can call himself a leading psychiatrist? Of course he can write on his website whatever he wants, regardless how lacking in fact it is.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. JamesDavis in reply to gpwagher 09:24 AM 4/11/12

   I'm glad I'm not the only one who does a little extra research. Ablow is the type of 'professional' Faux News choose to deceive their viewers. You see these type of people on Faux News all the time. The author of this article is more accurate about Gingrich than this faux doctor. If Gingrich became president, he would do more harm to this country than his demigod Bush did, and Obama is going to use this information to eat Romney alive. Romney is almost as bad a Gingrich in his warped views of the world and the direction America should be going.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. promytius 09:45 AM 4/11/12

   There is no science anywhere on this page, other than some of the comments. Education is apparently a doomed industry; for proof I offer Sci-Am and its pseudo-scientific predilection for pap, dressed in a gossamer veil of respectability, but still depressingly transparent. We can only hope. Real science I guess is just not marketable enough for general consumption - dumb it down, gussy it up, stick it on the web. Poor science, poor, poor science...

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. gpwagher in reply to promytius 11:12 AM 4/11/12

   I disagree; public abuse of scientific credibility, like committed by Dr Ablow and FoxNews, is very much a concern related to science that needs to be discussed in a forum that connects science and scientists and the public, like SciAm is doing. Science does not end at the technical side of investigations.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. Bops 03:55 PM 4/11/12

   A person's behavior indicates what type of person they are.
   Normal people recognize not ok.
   Why do you have a problem with that?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. Bops in reply to promytius 04:00 PM 4/11/12

    The article is about behavior of this person.
    If it's true, it's true.
    Actions speak louder than words.
    Why do you have a problem with this?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this