Take our Narcissism Test

Find a therapist who understands narcissism.

Narcissistic and authoritarian personality structures share a root: a fragile ego that resists challenge.

Research shows narcissistic individuals are disproportionately likely to emerge as leaders in groups.

When a narcissistic leader controls a military, it becomes an extension of their distorted internal world.

I want to talk about sanity. Not sanity in the clinical sense, though that will become relevant shortly. I mean the broader kind: whether a person in power can see past the boundaries of their own defended self clearly enough to make decisions that serve people other than the self doing the deciding.

Because here is what the research consistently suggests, and what I keep returning to as the world arranges itself into fresh configurations of violence: War, in a great many cases, is a failure of this kind of sanity first. The missiles come second.

The Ego Under Pressure

The ego is not inherently a problem. It is the self's organizing principle, the structure through which we navigate a world that would otherwise be overwhelming. But the ego, in its compulsively defended state, the ego that has calcified around a wound and decided its survival depends on the subjugation of some perceived other, functions as a kind of ordinary madness. Not psychosis, and not necessarily a diagnosable personality disorder, but the particular breakdown that occurs when a self becomes so defended it can no longer perceive clearly, regulate proportionately, or act from anything other than the imperative of self-preservation.

Psychologist Bob Altemeyer's decades of empirical research on authoritarian personality structures identified a consistent cluster: rigid intolerance of ambiguity, hostility toward out-groups, and a need for dominance that resists legitimate challenge (Altemeyer, 1996). What his work also revealed is how frequently these traits co-occur with elevated narcissistic features: inflated self-regard, a conviction that ordinary rules do not apply, and a striking deficit in empathy for those outside the in-group. Both structures share the same psychological root: a fragile ego that requires constant external reinforcement and cannot tolerate being seen as weak, wrong, or limited.

Brunell and colleagues (2008) found that narcissistic individuals are disproportionately likely to emerge as leaders precisely because their self-assurance and dominance behaviors are initially misread as competence. The qualities that win them power become liabilities once the complexity of actual governance sets in. At that point, the ego structure that secured the position begins to distort how it is exercised.

The Ethics of Violence

None of this is an argument for pacifism, and I want to be precise here because the analysis can slide toward something naïve if I'm not careful. There is a genuine ethical hierarchy within armed conflict, and where a given war falls on that hierarchy matters enormously.

A leader who deploys military force in genuine defense of a civilian population under existential threat is making a categorically different decision than one who deploys force to satisfy territorial ambition, personal grievance, or the hunger for historical legacy. The soldier acting in service of the former operates from a different moral register than one sent to enact the latter. As the spiritual philosopher Meher Baba observed, wars fought in defense of the whole can produce an unexpected clarifying effect on the individuals within them: "During a war, there are persons who unveil their inherent higher Self through the endurance of pain, and by acts of bravery and self-sacrifice. It is better that such unselfish action be released under the stimulus of danger than not released at all." Crisis can crack open capacities for sacrifice and solidarity that the defended ego ordinarily suppresses.

The moral weight, in other words, is not distributed evenly. It accumulates most heavily with whoever ordered the conflict and for what purpose.

When the Ego Commands

When a narcissistic or psychopathic personality structure sits at the helm of a military apparatus, something qualitatively different from policy emerges. The grandiosity, paranoia, compensatory aggression, and intolerance of challenge that organize the leader's internal world get projected outward, mobilized, and given uniforms. The country and its military become an extension of the ruler's egoic architecture rather than an instrument of collective protection.

This is particularly dangerous because narcissistic and psychopathic structures are constitutionally ill-equipped for complexity, and war is nothing but complexity. Civilian lives are interwoven with military objectives; history resists erasure by force; political realities do not yield to the clean logic of dominance. A leader whose personality structure cannot tolerate ambiguity does not sit with that complexity. They flatten it. And what gets lost in the flattening is the moral scaffolding that prevents atrocity.

Take our Narcissism Test

Find a therapist who understands narcissism.

Jerrold Post, the political psychologist who spent decades profiling world leaders for the CIA, argued that this threat dysregulation is among the most dangerous features of narcissistic leadership (Post, 2004). Leaders who cannot distinguish between political challenge and personal annihilation respond to the former as though it were the latter. Diplomacy requires holding ambiguity, tolerating the discomfort of not having dominated, and treating an adversary's position as a legitimate human one. These are precisely the capacities that the defended narcissistic ego systematically undermines.

The result is a predictable pattern across history: disproportionate retaliation, protracted engagement, and a fundamental unwillingness to negotiate except from a position of total dominance. The war cannot end until the ego is satisfied, and the ego is rarely satisfied.

The Scale Changes; The Mechanism Doesn't

The psychology that produces conflict at the geopolitical scale is not categorically different from that which produces it at the interpersonal level. The limited ego, perceived threat, escalation, the inability to acknowledge one's own role in the provocation, the zero-sum logic of winners and losers: These are the same mechanisms operating in both a collapsing marriage and a military invasion, differing only in scale and consequence.

This is not an abstraction. It is an invitation to look inward. The degree of awareness a leader (or any person) brings to their own defensive patterns is the variable that determines whether conflict escalates or resolves. Personality structure is not incidental to the conduct of war. In many cases, it is the primary variable.

Altemeyer, B. (1996). The Authoritarian Specter. Harvard University Press.

Brunell, A. B., Gentry, W. A., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Kuhnert, K. W., & DeMarree, K. G. (2008). Leader emergence: The case of the narcissistic leader. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1663–1676.

Post, J. M. (2004). Leaders and Their Followers in a Dangerous World: The Psychology of Political Behavior. Cornell University Press.

There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.

By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

© Psychology Today