Looking for a new CEO or University president? You want vision, toughness, flexibility and technical skills. You’re in search of a high-powered individual with a great track record, a strategic thinker who will turn your business around, or attract investors or donors, a cracker jack operations manager who can expand markets, relate to the company culture—or change it if necessary. You know what problems you’re facing, what your goals are and what kind of individual you need at the helm. And there are hundreds if not thousands of great scholarly and more practical articles on leadership to guide you (here and here for example).
But what kind of human being do you want at the top?
There’s an unending stream of articles and research that looks at great leaders and describes their characteristics. Here’s a small selection from the popular business literature:
Top ten qualities that make a great leader (Forbes): honesty, delegate, communication confidence, commitment, positive attitude, creativity, intuition, inspiration, approach
22 Qualities that make a great leader (Entrepreneur): focus, confidence, transparency, integrity, inspiration, passion, innovation, patience, stoicism, wonkiness, authenticity, open-mindedness, decisiveness, personableness, empowerment, positivity, generosity, persistence, insightfulness, communication, accountability, restlessness
The 5 qualities of great leaders (Fast Company): flexibility, ability to communicate, courage tenacity and patience, humility and presence and being responsible)
8 characteristics of great leaders (Huffington Post): collaborative, visionary, influential, empathetic, innovative, grounded, ethical, passionate.
I love these lists and couldn’t resist including the details. I find them instructive and inspiring. The academic literature is comparable. Leadership studies look at myriad aspects of leader behavior, leader traits, leadership initiating structures. There are path-goal theories and the contingency model of leadership. What makes the best, most successful leaders in a range of environments and situations?
But with my background in psychoanalysis and psychiatry, I was interested in something else– the fundamental human traits and capacities that any leader who shoulders great responsibility must have to carry out leadership responsibilities. Essentially, the question I wanted to answer was how can we define what it takes to be a mature adult human who can be trusted with lives and fortunes. What do you need to know about a potential leader before you look at your specific needs and your candidates’ specific strengths?
To my surprise, I didn’t find much in the literature on the fundamentals a leader must possess to carry out his or her responsibilities. I felt such a model needed to be grounded in both theory and practice. But during my research, I discovered a remarkable document, the Army Field Manual on Leader Development, that does a stunning job of spelling out the essential traits and capacities every leader must possess—or determinedly develop where there are weaknesses. And, I found, The Army Field manual is founded in the sound psychological research and psychoanalytic theory I was familiar with on ego functions and executive functions, concepts that spell out the highest level mental capacities.
I distilled five crucial traits and capacities from the Field Manual—Trust (the ability to trust others and inspire trust), Critical Thinking/Judgment, Self-Awareness,Discipline/Self-Control and Empathy. Before you consider other specific talents and potential, make sure your potential leaders are strong in these five core capacities of character and ability. I’m not offering a list of qualities that predict success. Instead, these are the absolute necessities — without them, other strengths are irrelevant.
I’m going to explore each of these five traits in greater depth in a series of blog posts. In my elaboration of each of the core capacities, I draw deeply on the Army Field Manual, as well as my own background as a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst with three and a half decades of clinical practice immersing myself in the motivations, emotions and often irrational behavior of human beings.
Five Criteria for Judging a Leader’s Fundamental Capacity to Carry out his Responsibilities and Duties
Trust,
Judgment/Critical Thinking,
Discipline and Self-Control
Self-Awareness
Empathy
How do we recognize a person who can be entrusted with the fate of a nation, a corporation, a university or any enterprise where actions and decisions have critical impact? There are five critical fundamental capacities a leader in a position of great responsibility must have: trust, judgment, discipline, self-awareness and empathy. Together they constitute a model of an emotionally mature adult with the necessary temperament and cognitive capacity to allow him or her to function at the highest level required of someone who has enormous responsibility.
Great leadership certainly requires additional qualities and capabilities–vision, daring, the capacity to inspire, discernment, creativity and so on. But first, a leader must demonstrate the fundamentals enumerated in this checklist. Without them he or she cannot carry out the duties required of someone in a position of high office.
This model of the fundamentals required of a leader is based on the principles of mature, high level mental functioning developed in the fields of psychology, psychiatry and psychoanalysis over the last 100 years. I discovered that the Army Field Manual Leader Development fm6_22 follows the same path and arrives at the same destination. The scorecard I’ve developed is distilled from that Army Manual. It’s virtue is that it does not require specialized knowledge such as a background in Psychiatric evaluation. It allows a leader’s mental capacity to lead to be determined by any reasonably observant and thoughtful person using common sense. The scorecard can also be used by leaders to assess their own strengths and weaknesses and plan a program for improvement of their personal leadership capacity. In fact, one of the Army Field Manual’s prime missions is to assist leaders in developing their leadership abilities.
*Trust. According to the Army, trust is fundamental to the functioning of a team or alliance in any setting: “Leaders shape the ethical climate of their organization while developing the trust and relationships that enable proper leadership.” A leader who is deficient in the capacity for trust makes little effort to support others, may be isolated and aloof, may be apathetic about discrimination, allows distrustful behaviors to persist among team members, makes unrealistic promises and focuses on self-promotion.
As a psychiatrist I’ve observed that an individual lacking in trust habitually blames others when problems arise, avoids taking responsibility and consistently feels beleaguered and unfairly treated.
*Discipline and self-control. The manual requires that a leader demonstrate control over his behavior and align his behavior with core Army values: “Loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage.” The disciplined leader does not have emotional outbursts or act impulsively, and he maintains composure in stressful or adverse situations. Without discipline and self-control, a leader may not be able to resist temptation, to stay focused despite distractions, to avoid impulsive action or to think before jumping to a conclusion. The leader who fails to demonstrate discipline reacts “viscerally or angrily when receiving bad news or conflicting information,” and he “allows personal emotions to drive decisions or guide responses to emotionally charged situations.”
Discipline means having the ability to forego an immediate reward for a later, greater outcome.
In psychiatry, we talk about “filters” — neurologic braking systems that enable us to appropriately inhibit our speech and actions even when disturbing thoughts or powerful emotions are present. Discipline and self-control require that an individual has a robust working filter, so that he doesn’t say or do everything that comes to mind.
*Judgment and critical thinking. Judgment and critical thinking are complex, high-level mental functions that include the abilities to discriminate, assess, plan, decide, anticipate, prioritize and compare. A leader with the capacity for critical thinking “seeks to obtain the most thorough and accurate understanding possible,” and he anticipates “first, second and third consequences of multiple courses of action.” A leader deficient in judgment and strategic thinking demonstrates rigid and inflexible thinking. His thinking is not innovative
The ability to think critically and strategically is a necessary precondition for good judgment. “Sound judgment is dependent on the ability to organize thoughts logically, to plan ahead, to understand cause and effect and most importantly to anticipate the consequences of an action,” according to the Army manual.
Problem solving is dependent on thinking and judgment, so these capacities can be evaluated by observing how the leader responds to a crisis. Most importantly, can he considers the long-term consequences of his actions.
Because it is absolutely fundamental to effective leadership, the AFM expands at length on the specifics involved in critical and strategic thinking. This leadership capacity involves actively seeing different points of view, considering alternative explanations and looking at the big picture. Thinking, speech and ideas should be deliberate and well-organized. Assessments should include looking for gaps in information and seeking to have them filled, while looking for inconsistencies. The leader “keeps reasoning separate from self-esteem”. Planning is careful, thoughtful and based on complete information and the synthesis of the divergent views and alternative explanations which should be actively sought. Priorities are clear and well thought out.
Helpfully, the AFM gives a vivid description of the behaviors of a leader deficient in judgment and strategic thinking. That leader fails to consider alternative explanations or courses of action. He fails to consider second and third consequences of an action. He oversimplifies, cannot distinguish the critical elements in a given situation and is unable to handle multiple lines of thought simultaneously. He Is hasty in prioritization and planning. He cannot or does not “articulate the evidence and thought process leading to decisions”.
*Self-awareness. Self-awareness requires the capacity to reflect and an interest in doing so. “Self-aware leaders know themselves, including their traits, feelings, and behaviors,” the manual says. “They employ self-understanding and recognize their effect on others.” When a leader lacks self-awareness, the manual notes, he “unfairly blames subordinates when failures are experienced” and “rejects or lacks interest in feedback.”
Self-awareness creates a desire to understand: motives, how feelings are affecting judgment, how one is impacting others, how one is viewed by others. The AFM describes the necessity of the capacity for “metacognition” which is the ability to think about thinking, to observe and regulate one’s thoughts.
This capacity enables a leader to put the following essential functions into effect in all his decision making: Actively consider what he knows and doesn’t know; maintain awareness of his thinking process and its strengths and weaknesses; be alert to his emotions and their impact on his thinking; act tactfully; make accurate assessments of social cues; and listen to and let the views and feelings of others have an impact on him.
*Empathy. Perhaps surprisingly, the field manual repeatedly stresses the importance of empathy as an essential attribute for Army leadership.
A good leader “demonstrates an understanding of another person’s point of view” and “identifies with others’ feelings and emotions.” The manual’s description of inadequacy in this area: “Shows a lack of concern for others’ emotional distress,” is indifferent to their pain and “displays an inability to take another’s perspective.”
Empathy is required for an effective leader because it is this capacity that allows him to accurately understand another person’s intent and to be able to foresee the impact of his actions on others. The Army guide states that the empathic leader can be identified because he is respectful of others, cares about subordinates and creates a positive work environment. A person who is deficient in this capacity He focuses solely on his own needs without considering those of others. He de-humanizes the enemy.
As a psychiatrist, I’ll add another dimension to empathy. It’s not enough to understand how another person feels – the best dictators are adept at sensing other people’s’ vulnerabilities and exploiting them. A leader also must care about the impact of his words and actions on others. The AFM description of inadequacy in this dimension: “Exhibits resistance or limited perspective on the needs of others. Words and actions communicate a lack of understanding or indifference.”
The 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows for the removal of the President by the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet if they determine that he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties” of his high office. That phrase captured me. How would the Vice President and the Cabinet determine ability or inability to discharge the duties of the Presidency whether the President is Donald Trump or anyone else? The Constitution says no more than that brief phrase. I set out to operationalize it, so that leaders and citizens could make a fair and objective determination of this President’s, or any other’s, ability to discharge his duties. In the process, I developed a tool that could be useful beyond politics, to assess the core capacities for leadership of anyone being considered for a position of high responsibility. Pathology isn’t the issue here. It’s actually easier (and not that useful) to diagnose mental disorders and pathological traits. But how do we codify mental strength, that is capacity and ability?
“Duties of his office”–A listing of what the president does every day –meet foreign leaders, make announcements, sign laws, clearly wouldn’t be helpful. Nor would generalizations such as set policy, promote his agenda, uphold the Constitution. I felt that specifying the qualities and defining attributes of the duties of the Presidency is the key to making the 25th Amendment usable. The duties of the President are those of someone with the highest level of responsibility, whose every decision and action has critical impact and enormous consequences.
“Unable to discharge” —The key word here is “unable”, which led me to search for a way to operationalize assessment of ability or inability. I started the process of creating a tool for assessing ability or inability by reviewing the literature on executive functioning in psychology and ego functioning in psychoanalysis. Both of these fields of thought define a wide range of capacities that are necessary for the highest level of cognitive, emotional and social functioning. In my research, I stumbled upon a document that pulls it all together, the Army Field Manual on Leader Development 6-22. This is a dense document which is quite extraordinary and based on sound psychological research and practice. I distilled 5 traits from the field manual, added some analysis from my own background as a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, and came up with an evaluation tool that could serve as a guide for the evaluation of anyone aspiring to a position of the highest leadership and responsibility.
I was struck by the morality play that unfolded in James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017. Commentators focussed on the stunning depiction of Trump, by Comey, as the sort of person who couldn’t be trusted not to lie. And his direct accusation of Trump of lying about his reasons for firing Comey, and defaming both the director and the Agency. Trump, predictably called Comey a liar, and accused him of perjury. He also celebrated what he saw as vindication from Comey of any wrong doing–that was not at all the case.
Listening to Comey, he struck me as a man who had grappled deeply with moral dilemmas, and had the courage to own the dire consequences of his decisions.
This is a blog post I wrote today for Huffington Post:
source: time.com 6/8/17
The manifest surface of James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence committee on June 8 was riveting and fascinating in itself—for example his describing immediate distrust of the President on January 6 as the kind of person who could be expected to lie. Comey revealed himself to be human, flawed, vulnerable, introspective and profoundly ethical.
Listening just a bit beneath the surface, I found answers to two questions that have been plaguing me. I left the riveting viewing session with some sadness about what I’d learned but considerably greater peace of mind.
First, why did Comey chose to speak out on October 28 about the new emails discovered on Anthony Weiner’s laptop in the Hillary Clinton case, breaking with the tradition of avoiding whenever possible interfering in an election? No previous explanation that I’ve heard from Comey or thrown around by commentators has satisfied me—certainly not the speculation that he as a Republican wanted Trump to win. I never felt that was his motivation.
Second, why did Comey repeatedly reassure President Trump that he was not personally under investigation, when clearly so much is yet to be investigated and understood about the Trump campaign and Russia ties, Trump family business issues, emoluments, etc. etc. This just didn’t meet my common sense bar, and it didn’t seem legally essential for him to offer these reassurances to Trump.
The answers to both questions were revealed yesterday, and they clearly lie in Comey’s bone deep allegiance to the mission and core values of the FBI. I wish he had done neither of things. I share the view of many that his October 28 statement had a significant negative effect, if not a defining impact, on the election outcome. He himself said in previous testimony (May 3, 2017) that “It makes me ‘mildly nauseous’ to think I may have affected election.”
Nevertheless, both under angry questioning by Senator Feinstein on May 3, and again on June 8, Comey insisted he would not, even in retrospect, change his decision. Why not? It never made sense.
I also share the impression of many that there are so many unanswered questions about Trump and Russia as well as other aspects of Trump’s behavior that it seemed just plain weird to repeatedly reassure the President that he wasn’t being personally investigated. We know, of course, that the precise Comey meant “at this moment at which I am saying this”. But we also know that Comey’s reassurance is being used enthusiastically by Trump and his team (either cunningly or naively) as a thoroughgoing exoneration of any wrongdoing, seemingly now and forever.
Clinton Email Decision
Here’s a chunk of the dialogue on June 8 between Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Burr and Comey about the fateful decision to write a letter (which Comey should have known would be immediately leaked) to Congress on October 28 about the newly discovered Anthony Weiner emails
BURR: Director Comey, you have been criticized publicly for the decision to present your findings on the e-mail investigation directly to the American people. Have you learned anything since that time that would’ve changed what you said, or how you chose to inform the American people?
COMEY: Honestly, no. I mean, it caused a whole lot of personal pain for me, but, as I look back, given what I knew at the time and even what I’ve learned since, I think it was the best way to try and protect the justice institution, including the FBI.
BURR: Let me go back, if I can, very briefly, to the decision to publicly go out with your results on the e-mail.
Was your decision influenced by the attorney general’s tarmac meeting with the former president, Bill Clinton?
COMEY: Yes. In — in an ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department.
BURR: Were there other things that contributed to that that you can describe in an open session?
COMEY: …Probably the only other consideration that I guess I can talk about in an open setting is, at one point, the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me.
Bill Clinton’s tarmac meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch.Attorney General Lynch’s request that he call the Clinton email thing a “matter” instead of an “investigation”.
Comey’s motivation is clearly to protect the independence of the “justice institution”, the FBI. He had to “protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department.” The independence, credibility and integrity of the FBI are the paramount guiding values that led to his decision.
Sadly, it was just those values that were questioned by progressives after his October 28 action. Instead of understanding he had to make what for him was an agonizing decision to protect the integrity of the FBI, many of us on the left thought that his action cast a shadow of partisanship over the FBI. Speaking out before the election about Clinton and not Trump made it look to Clinton supporters like the FBI was NOT independent. I think we were dead wrong, at least as far as his motivation was concerned. For Comey, not speaking out, or “concealing” as he called it, would have been betraying the agency’s core values. It speaks to me of a Greek tragedy, where a hero’s greatest strength leads inevitably to his destruction.
Why Reassure Trump He Wasn’t Under Investigation?
Presumably, Comey could have guessed that Trump and his allies would take this as a vindication and exoneration, now and forever. I for one didn’t believe Trump, not known as a truth teller, when he said in the Lester Holt interview (NBC News, May 11, 2017) that Comey had assured him 3 times that he wasn’t under investigation.
HOLT: Let me ask you about your termination letter to Mr. Comey. You write, “I greatly appreciate you informing me on three separate occasions that I am not under investigation.” Why did you put that in there?
TRUMP: Because he told me that. I mean, he told me that.
HOLT: He told you, you weren’t under investigation with…
TRUMP: Yeah, and I…
HOLT: …regard to the Russian investigation.
I was startled to hear Trump’s claim confirmed by Director Comey yesterday. Why would he do that? Comey gives a very interesting window into his thinking with this answer:
“I was speaking to him, and briefing him about some salacious and unverified material. It was in the context of that that he had a strong and defensive reaction about that not being true. And my reading of it was it was important for me to assure him we were not personally investigating him. And so the context then was actually narrower, focused on what I had just talked to him about.
It was very important because it was, first, true. And second, I was worried very much about being in kind of a — kind of a J. Edgar Hoover-type situation. I didn’t want him thinking that I was briefing him on this to sort of hang it over him in some way. I was briefing him on it because we were — had been told by the media it was about to launch. We didn’t want to be keeping that from him. And if there was some — he needed to know this was being said. But I was very keen not to leave him with an impression that the bureau was trying to do something to him. And so that’s the context in which I said, “Sir, we’re not personally investigating you.”
I’m old enough to get the J Edgar Hoover reference, and to have a visceral response and understanding. One of the formative and cautionary stories my mother told me in my childhood was about a couple of FBI agents coming to her door during the McCarthy Era and asking if her friend Myrtle was a member of the Communist Party. (My mother proudly but with obvious lingering terror refused to answer). I know what the FBI meant in the public mind in the 1950’s and 1960’s—an agency that would collect dirt on everyone it could and use it to threaten, blackmail or manipulate them when it suited director Hoover. Comey, as a deep believer in the integrity of the agency, didn’t want to have Trump get the impression that his FBI, Comey’s agency, was anything like the J Edgar FBI. He wanted Trump to know that today’s FBI would not use the salacious file to influence or manipulate Trump. I can’t know, but I suspect Trump missed the nuances of this reassurance altogether as well as its narrow “right now/counterintelligence” focus and took it, as he has affirmed in so many tweets, as proof that he has never done anything wrong with respect to Russia or anything else.
So the answers to the two troubling questions come down to Comey’s pride in and allegiance to the values of the FBI. Its motto is Fidelity-Bravery-Integrity.
The FBI’s stated core values are
• Rigorous obedience to the Constitution of the United States;
• Respect for the dignity of all those we protect;
• Compassion;
• Fairness;
• Uncompromising personal integrity and institutional integrity;
• Accountability by accepting responsibility for our actions and decisions and the consequences of our actions and decisions;
• Leadership, both personal and professional; and
• Diversity.
As much as I hate and mourn the political impact of his decisions, if I were James Comey, I believe I would have made the same decisions. I find myself admiring him as a great man whose integrity and profound sense of ethics helped lead us to a very dark time but who will also help bring us back to a time of national integrity, bravery and fidelity to our core national values.
Power has a bad rap. It’s okay to talk about how to be a good leader, but most of us are quite uncomfortable talking about how to use power. More often for women than men, the squirmy feeling evoked by the idea of using power can be close to agonizing.
Power is usually tagged as negative, manipulative or Machiavellian.[1] The exercise of power is actually morally neutral—it can be used for good or ill. Absolute power is of course undesirable—we all need the checks and balances that being part of various intersecting human communities provide.
But, to be a successful leader you have to be comfortable with the exercise of power. Achieving this comfort is a crucial developmental step for every leader. In my own experience as a woman leader, in working with and mentoring other women in or assuming leadership positions, I have observed that most women leaders, even the most competent and brilliant, usually need some help with this leap.
So what is power, if we separate it from its negative associations of control, domination and oppression?
According to the Oxford dictionary, power is 1The ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way. 2The capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events.[2]
A leader possesses power because she has, by virtue of her position and personal strengths, the resources and capacity to act and to direct the behavior of others. Competence, luck, popularity or a host of other factors may have contributed to gaining that position. Many women express being surprised to find themselves in leadership positions, and typically have given no thought to the exercise of power. But once in a position of leadership, however you got there, however surprised you may be to be there, you need to appreciate the ways you can and should exercise the power inherent in the position. That’s your job. That’s what you were elected or hired to do, and you can’t shy away from it without betraying out those who are counting on you.
Women leaders face complex internal and external psychological challenges that male leaders don’t have to worry about. It’s not fair, but it’s real and it’s better to acknowledge these challenges and learn how to deal with them than to get stuck on the unfairness of it all. Essentially, women leaders are in a double bind. Effective leaders of any gender score highly on a cluster of traits psychologists call “agency”. Effective leadership in fact requires that a leader possesses these traits. Agency includes things like being independent, assertive, dominant, controlling, forceful and self-confident. Leaders high in agency makes decisions easily. Yet even today, women are generally perceived to be and expected to be high in another cluster of traits psychologists call “communality”: kindness, niceness, interpersonally sensitive, helpful affectionate etc.[3]
Interestingly, the current movement in management to promote hiring practices that acknowledge the value of “soft skills”– interpersonal sensitivity and the ability to collaborate– in hiring may lead to more female hires, but may also trap women in middle management jobs, because to wield power, to be at the top, the agency cluster of traits is required.[4]
Some researchers believe the tendency for women to show communal traits is typical of the female brain, tied to the XX chromosome.[5] Others would argue vehemently that are the product of socialization and stereotyping. Many would say this is unfair, prejudiced and sexist. Unfortunately for the women leader, determined to use the power of her position to accomplish her goals, none of this matters.
I remember when I took over the presidency of a national professional association. I had worked out my agenda well in advance of taking office. I had a bunch of specific goals, I knew where I wanted to go and I believed I knew what had to be done. I had a forthright, let’s get it done style, and was impatient with those who disagreed with me. I was not especially interested in their opinions unless I saw them as helping me create the changes I knew I wanted. Not surprisingly, this bothered a number of my colleagues enormously. I remember being told by one former friend that he was shocked – it was like I had become a different person. A subset of mostly male colleagues criticized me publicly for being secretive and withholding, and viewed my presidency as one long betrayal. I thought it was because I wasn’t that interested in their advice or their hurt feelings. It’s true, I wasn’t. I learned I am not a consensus builder. I am too impatient and eager to get things accomplished to kick ideas around in repeated discussions. I liked working with one or two close allies who saw things the way I did and wanted to move the organization along. In retrospect, I might have been a more effective leader if I had made an effort to be a bit more “communal”—read tactful and patient– but at the time I simply wanted to act, not attend to interpersonal nuance.
Women leaders need to learn to “thread the needle”. They must be high in “agency” traits. They will be viewed more unfavorably than equivalent male colleagues exhibiting the exact same behaviors. The men will be seen as reliable, confident and masterful, while the woman may often be seen as bitchy and cold.
Powerful women have to strike a very fine balance. They must be authoritative, self confident and powerful. Although one option is to accept that they’ll be calling you a bitch behind your back, another, more exciting option is to develop a style that is very powerful but disarmingly warm and respectful. Senator Elizabeth Warren and Meryl Streep are two women who brilliantly present themselves in this manner. So too does the Statue of Liberty.
[1] See, for example, The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene. (NY: Penguin Books, 2000).
[3] See “Role Incongruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders”, Alice H. Eagly and Steven J. Karau, Psychological Review, 2002, Vol 109 No 3: 573-598 and “Feminized Management and Backlash Toward Agentic Women Leaders” The hidden costs to women of kindler, gentler image of middle mangers”. Laurie A. Rudman and Peter Glick. J. of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999, Vol 77, No 5:1004-1010
[5] See “The Female and Extreme-Female Brain”, John Cookson. January 4, 2017. Big Think. http://bigthink.com/women-and-power/the-female-and-extreme-female-brain
