Psychologist J.D. Haltigan Claims 'Contemporary Left' Exhibits 'Cluster B Psychopathology'

J.D. Haltigan, PhD, a developmental psychologist and prominent social media figure, recently sparked debate with a provocative statement on X, asserting that the "contemporary Left" is defined by "emotionally unstable children" and "Cluster B psychopathology." This direct correlation of a clinical psychological classification with a political demographic has drawn significant attention.

Haltigan, who earned his doctorate in developmental psychology from the University of Miami, has previously held postdoctoral positions at institutions including the University of Illinois and the University of Ottawa, and served as an Assistant Professor at the University of Toronto's Department of Psychiatry. He is known for his outspoken critiques of what he perceives as ideological shifts within academia, notably filing a lawsuit against the University of California, Santa Cruz, over its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) statement requirements for faculty applicants. His social media presence often features commentary on cultural and political issues through a psychological lens.

The term "Cluster B personality disorders" refers to a group of mental health conditions characterized by dramatic, overly emotional, or erratic thinking and behavior. These include Antisocial Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Histrionic Personality Disorder, and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Diagnoses are made by qualified mental health professionals based on established criteria, focusing on persistent, pervasive patterns of inner experience and behavior that deviate significantly from cultural expectations and cause distress or impairment to an individual.

Haltigan's specific claim, shared on social media, stated: > "Yes. "Emotionally unstable children." = Cluster B psychopathology. It defines the contemporary Left." This assertion, however, contrasts sharply with the general consensus in the psychological and psychiatric communities. Mainstream clinical practice does not support applying diagnostic labels, such as personality disorders, to broad political or social groups. While political psychology does explore the psychological traits and motivations that may influence political behavior or adherence to certain ideologies, pathologizing an entire political demographic with clinical diagnoses is widely considered unethical and unscientific. Such generalizations risk misrepresenting complex psychological conditions and misusing clinical terminology for political ends.