One of the most puzzling things about Donald Trump is not that he boasts. Politicians boast. Businesspeople boast. Athletes boast. Parents boast about their children, fishermen about their fish, and almost everyone quietly edits the story of his own life.
Trump is interesting because of the breadth, intensity and apparent sincerity of his exceptionalism.
He isn’t merely successful. He is extraordinarily successful.
He isn’t merely intelligent. He is exceptionally intelligent.
He isn’t merely a good golfer. He is a championship golfer.
He isn’t merely a consequential president. He has repeatedly described himself in terms placing him among, or above, America’s greatest presidents. Just this month, Trump again publicly ranked himself as America’s greatest president, while surveys of presidential scholars have generally placed him near the bottom.
That creates an intriguing psychological question.
Does Donald Trump actually believe Donald Trump?
Because if he does, something much more interesting than ordinary dishonesty is happening.
The human mind has somehow constructed a world in which an enormous amount of contradictory information can exist without substantially modifying the central proposition:
Donald Trump is exceptional.
I don’t think the most useful explanation is that Trump wakes up every morning, looks in the mirror and thinks, I’m actually mediocre, but today I’m going to convince everyone that I’m magnificent.
Nor should we diagnose a psychiatric disorder from afar. Personality disorders require clinical evaluation, and psychologists themselves disagree about aspects of narcissism and about how reliably outsiders can infer the personality of a political figure. One study, for example, found considerable disagreement among political experts rating Trump’s Big Five personality traits.
But there is substantial research on grandiose narcissistic traits and self-regulation, and Trump provides an extraordinary public example through which to examine those mechanisms. Multiple studies asking experts and ordinary observers to evaluate Trump’s public persona have found unusually high perceived narcissistic characteristics, although partisan attitudes affect judgments.
The interesting possibility isn’t simply that Trump lies.
It is that Trump’s perception of reality may be organized around preserving Trump.
And if that is true, it helps explain something much larger than Donald Trump.
It helps explain how human beings can become remarkably resistant to reality without ever entirely losing contact with it.
The Self as an Immovable Object
Most of us maintain a running negotiation between our self-image and the outside world.
I may think I’m an excellent cook.
Then six dinner guests politely push my casserole around their plates.
Eventually reality begins exerting pressure.
Maybe I’m not quite as good a cook as I imagined.
Psychologically healthy self-esteem generally permits this kind of revision because individual failures aren’t existential threats. I can be intelligent and misunderstand something. I can be competent and make a terrible decision. I can be a good father and nevertheless have failed my children in particular ways.
My identity survives the correction.
But imagine a personality in which the proposition “I am exceptional” occupies a much more central position.
Now contradictory evidence creates a different problem.
The mind has two things it could revise.
It could revise the self:
I wasn’t as good as I thought.
Or it could revise the evidence:
The evidence doesn’t really count.
That second option opens an astonishing number of possibilities.
The critic is biased.
The judge is corrupt.
The reporter is dishonest.
The expert is incompetent.
The employee is disloyal.
The poll is wrong.
The election was unfair.
The accounting method is ridiculous.
The historian is partisan.
The golfer cheated.
The ball took an unlucky bounce.
The rules shouldn’t apply in this situation.
The person criticizing me is jealous.
The person praising me understands greatness.
The facts themselves haven’t necessarily disappeared.
What changes is their epistemic value.
Some facts count.
Others don’t.
And the sorting mechanism isn’t random.
The evidence tending to preserve exceptionalism receives enormous weight.
Evidence threatening exceptionalism receives very little.
The Psychological Firewall
Psychologists Carolyn Morf and Frederick Rhodewalt proposed an influential model of narcissism that is particularly useful here. Rather than treating narcissism simply as possessing an inflated opinion of oneself, they described it as a dynamic self-regulatory process—a continuing effort through cognition, emotion and social interaction to construct and maintain the desired self.
That’s a much richer idea than “someone thinks highly of himself.”
The narcissistic self isn’t merely a statue sitting inside the mind.
It’s a project.
It requires maintenance.
Reality constantly arrives at the gates, and information must be processed.
Think of it as a psychological firewall:
EVENT → INTERPRETATION → SELF
Most people have such a firewall. We all engage in motivated reasoning. We remember victories more fondly than humiliations. We explain our own mistakes more generously than other people’s. We give ourselves the benefit of the doubt.
The difference is degree.
If the preservation of an exceptional self becomes sufficiently important, interpretation can become extraordinarily aggressive.
The firewall doesn’t necessarily say:
“This event didn’t happen.”
It says:
“This event doesn’t mean what you think it means.”
That distinction matters enormously.
A politician doesn’t need to believe that a negative poll literally doesn’t exist.
He merely needs to believe the pollster is incompetent.
He doesn’t need to believe that a newspaper didn’t publish criticism.
He merely needs to believe the newspaper is dishonest.
He doesn’t need to believe that respected historians haven’t rated him poorly.
He merely needs to believe the historians themselves are fools.
Once you understand that mechanism, apparent contradictions become surprisingly easy to reconcile.
Golf May Be the Perfect Laboratory
Golf is particularly revealing because it strips away many of the ambiguities surrounding politics and business.
Presidential greatness is subjective.
Business success can be measured dozens of ways.
Whether someone was a “great father” involves relationships outsiders cannot fully observe.
But golf provides numbers.
There is a ball.
There is a hole.
You hit the ball.
You count the strokes.
This should be hostile territory for self-deception.
Yet sportswriter Rick Reilly has spent years alleging that Trump routinely bends golf’s rules, improves lies, takes questionable gimmes and reports scores inconsistent with what actually occurred. Trump and his defenders have rejected accusations about his honesty. Reilly’s especially interesting observation, however, was not merely that Trump cheats. Reilly suggested that Trump doesn’t experience what he’s doing as cheating in the conventional sense.
That possibility fascinates me.
Imagine moving a golf ball from a terrible lie to a better one.
Surely you know you moved it.
So how could you simultaneously believe you’re an exceptional golfer?
Because human beings don’t experience facts without interpretation.
Perhaps the bad lie wasn’t representative.
Perhaps the previous shot deserved a better outcome.
Perhaps everybody takes generous gimmes.
Perhaps the match isn’t being conducted under tournament conditions anyway.
Perhaps the superior player is still obviously superior.
Perhaps the score merely reflects what should have happened.
The physical event remains completely accessible to consciousness.
What changes is its meaning.
The ball was moved.
But in the internal narrative:
justice was restored.
That’s very different from psychosis.
It’s also subtler than ordinary lying.
Someone can know perfectly well what happened while maintaining a remarkably distorted understanding of what what happened means.
Why “Good” May Not Be Good Enough
Here’s another curious aspect of Trump’s golf.
He appears by many accounts to actually be a fairly capable amateur golfer.
That makes exaggeration more psychologically interesting, not less.
Why isn’t “I’m pretty good” sufficient?
Perhaps because for a strongly grandiose personality, good isn’t the relevant category.
The desired category is exceptional.
Psychological research suggests grandiose narcissism is particularly associated with what researchers call agentic domains: status, competence, achievement, intelligence and dominance. Research on narcissism and intelligence, for example, has found that grandiose narcissistic traits aren’t essentially related to objectively measured intelligence, yet are associated with unusually positive intellectual self-views and a strong desire to appear intelligent.
That distinction is critical.
The psychological reward doesn’t necessarily come from being exceptional.
It comes from experiencing oneself—and being experienced by others—as exceptional.
And suddenly Trump’s peculiar superlative vocabulary makes more sense.
Everything tends toward categories like:
best,
biggest,
smartest,
greatest,
strongest,
most successful,
most beautiful,
most important,
never before seen.
These aren’t merely adjectives.
They establish rank.
And rank may be central to the psychological architecture.
The Most Powerful Defense: Discredit the Observer
But there’s still a problem.
Other human beings exist.
And other human beings have eyes.
Eventually somebody says:
“No. You aren’t the greatest.”
This is where the system acquires perhaps its most powerful defensive mechanism.
Instead of allowing criticism to change one’s opinion of oneself, criticism changes one’s opinion of the critic.
Imagine someone whom Trump previously praises.
That person subsequently criticizes Trump.
An ordinary interpretation might be:
“Someone I respect thinks I made a serious mistake. I should consider what he’s saying.”
A self-protective interpretation can instead become:
“Apparently I was wrong about him. He’s incompetent, weak or disloyal.”
The evidence threatening the self has been transformed into evidence about somebody else.
This mechanism can become almost perfectly self-sealing.
Person praises me:
Smart person.
Person criticizes me:
Stupid person.
Newspaper praises me:
Good journalism.
Newspaper criticizes me:
Fake news.
Expert agrees with me:
Excellent expert.
Expert disagrees:
So-called expert.
Employee remains loyal:
Terrific person.
Employee leaves and criticizes me:
Disgruntled former employee.
Election won:
Historic mandate.
Election lost:
Something illegitimate happened.
The extraordinary feature of this structure is that both positive and negative evidence can reinforce the original proposition.
Praise demonstrates greatness.
Criticism demonstrates persecution of greatness.
Victory proves greatness.
Defeat demonstrates that enemies fear greatness.
At that point the belief has acquired something resembling an immune system.
Why Shame Stops Working
This also helps explain something Trump’s opponents have repeatedly misunderstood.
They expect embarrassment to work.
Someone identifies an obvious contradiction.
Trump says something demonstrably exaggerated.
A comedian mocks him.
A newspaper publishes a fact-check.
Critics think:
Surely this is humiliating.
But embarrassment requires something psychologically sophisticated.
You have to temporarily occupy another person’s perspective.
You must think:
“I can see how I look through your eyes, and I recognize that your judgment of me has some validity.”
But what if the person looking at you has already been classified as dishonest, stupid, jealous or hostile?
Then his judgment carries no authority.
Imagine a five-year-old tells a Nobel laureate that she doesn’t understand physics.
The physicist doesn’t go home devastated.
Why?
Because she doesn’t accept the child’s judgment as meaningful evidence about her competence.
Now imagine possessing a psychological system capable of placing almost every serious critic into the five-year-old category.
The result would resemble extraordinary emotional armor.
You haven’t become immune to criticism.
You have become extraordinarily selective about whose criticism constitutes legitimate information.
The Paradox of the Thin Skin
But this produces one of the great paradoxes of grandiosity.
If criticism doesn’t matter, why react so intensely to it?
Why attack critics?
Why obsess over insults?
Why demand loyalty?
Why care about ratings, crowd sizes, rankings and comparisons?
Wouldn’t someone who truly believed himself exceptional simply shrug?
This is where the popular idea that narcissism is merely “high self-esteem” becomes inadequate.
The scientific literature distinguishes grandiose and vulnerable dimensions of narcissism, and researchers continue debating how they relate to self-esteem. It would be simplistic to say every grandiose person secretly hates himself.
But research increasingly emphasizes the regulation of self-esteem.
A recent systematic review describes pathological narcissism in terms of compromised or fluctuating self-esteem regulation dependent upon validation, admiration or enhancement, with different reactions emerging when self-esteem is threatened.
In other words, tremendous self-confidence and tremendous sensitivity to threats can coexist.
Indeed, they may be part of the same mechanism.
Secure confidence doesn’t require constant proof.
I don’t spend every morning checking whether I’m still taller than my refrigerator.
I’m confident about it.
Something that requires continual affirmation may be less psychologically settled.
That doesn’t mean the person secretly believes the opposite.
It means the belief may require maintenance.
And maintenance consumes enormous psychological energy.
Money and Power Can Make the Bubble Real
There is another factor that makes Trump’s situation unusual.
Most people’s grandiosity eventually collides with ordinary life.
You tell your boss you’re the greatest employee in company history.
Your boss laughs.
You declare yourself the greatest golfer at the club.
The tournament scoreboard disagrees.
You insist you’re a brilliant businessman.
The bank declines your loan.
Reality eventually gets a vote.
But wealth, celebrity and power can purchase insulation from corrective feedback.
Trump has spent much of his adult life surrounded by employees, lawyers, business partners, television producers, political operatives, admirers and eventually government officials for whom maintaining a good relationship with Donald Trump could have enormous consequences.
Then add celebrity.
Buildings display your name.
People request photographs.
Television programs revolve around you.
Crowds cheer when you enter arenas.
Politicians seek your endorsement.
Billionaires take your calls.
Foreign leaders receive you ceremonially.
Millions of Americans vote for you.
Twice you win the presidency.
At some point, grandiosity has an enormous quantity of real-world evidence available to support it.
This is important because Trump’s belief in his exceptionalism isn’t constructed from nothing.
By any reasonable historical measure, becoming president of the United States is exceptional.
Becoming president twice is exceptional.
Becoming internationally famous is exceptional.
Building a global brand is exceptional.
Transforming one of America’s major political parties around one’s personality is unquestionably an extraordinary political achievement, regardless of whether one considers the result beneficial or disastrous.
The psychological distortion therefore needn’t be:
“I have accomplished nothing but believe I’ve accomplished everything.”
It can be much subtler:
“Because I have accomplished extraordinary things, my judgment that I am extraordinary in other areas must also be correct.”
Success becomes transferable.
I succeeded in television.
Therefore I’m a brilliant communicator.
I won the presidency.
Therefore I’m a brilliant strategist.
I’m a brilliant strategist.
Therefore my policy judgment must be superior.
People criticize my policy judgment.
Therefore those people must not recognize brilliance.
Each conclusion supports the next.
The Court Around the King
Power introduces another danger.
People begin adapting themselves to the leader’s psychology.
An employee learns that bad news produces anger.
Next time, the employee softens the bad news.
Another employee watches what happened.
He softens it further.
Eventually senior people aren’t asking:
“What is true?”
They’re asking:
“How can we tell him this?”
Then:
“Does he actually need to know this?”
Eventually:
“Maybe we shouldn’t bring this up.”
The leader doesn’t have to explicitly order everyone to lie.
Organizations learn.
Humans are excellent reinforcement-learning machines.
Reward praise and punish contradiction consistently enough and an information environment begins constructing itself around you.
That is where a personality trait becomes a governance problem.
Because the danger isn’t simply that a leader misunderstands reality.
Every president misunderstands things.
The danger is that the institution itself learns to misunderstand reality in the leader’s preferred direction.
The Emperor Doesn’t Need to Be Naked
The old story of The Emperor’s New Clothes assumes that the emperor has been fooled.
Everyone privately recognizes reality except him.
But there is a more disturbing version.
Suppose the emperor understands that some people claim he’s naked.
He simply considers those people idiots.
His ministers tell him the clothes are magnificent.
Thousands of citizens cheer.
His favorite newspaper praises the tailoring.
Court scholars publish essays explaining why only sophisticated observers can perceive the fabric.
People who insist he’s naked are expelled from court.
Eventually the emperor possesses overwhelming social evidence that he’s dressed beautifully.
Who is being irrational now—from his perspective?
This is how social power can transform psychological defense into epistemic isolation.
You don’t have to eliminate contradictory information.
You merely have to eliminate contradictory information from the category labeled:
credible.
Trump May Both Know and Not Know
And that brings us back to the original question.
Does Donald Trump really believe he’s exceptional?
I suspect the answer may often be yes, although none of us can know his private mental state.
But that doesn’t mean every boast is sincerely believed or that strategic lying disappears.
Human beings are capable of something much stranger.
We can know something and not incorporate it.
Trump could know he received criticism without accepting that the criticism reflects reality.
He could know historians rank him poorly while believing the rankings reveal more about historians than about him.
He could know someone else scored better on a golf hole while believing himself the superior golfer.
He could know that an enterprise failed while continuing to regard himself as an extraordinary businessman.
He could consciously exaggerate something while simultaneously believing the exaggeration captures a deeper truth.
That’s not nearly as contradictory as it sounds.
We do miniature versions of this constantly.
“I know I got a C, but I’m actually smarter than that.”
“I know the relationship failed, but she never understood me.”
“I know I didn’t get promoted, but office politics decided it.”
Sometimes those explanations are even true.
That’s what makes motivated reasoning so difficult to detect.
A psychological defense doesn’t have to invent impossible explanations.
It merely has to select the explanation most favorable to the self repeatedly enough.
And That May Be the Real Lesson
Donald Trump is an unusually vivid example, but this essay isn’t really about Donald Trump.
It’s about us.
We all maintain autobiographies in which we are protagonists.
We remember evidence selectively.
We rationalize.
We discount hostile witnesses.
We seek people who confirm our beliefs.
We reinterpret failures.
We attribute successes to ability and failures to circumstances.
The difference between ordinary self-serving bias and extreme grandiosity may therefore be less like the difference between sanity and insanity than the difference between a gentle breeze and a hurricane.
The underlying atmospheric physics can be similar.
The magnitude is different.
And power amplifies the consequences.
A retired man convincing himself that he remains the best golfer at his country club is mostly harmless.
A CEO unable to distinguish criticism from disloyalty can destroy a corporation.
A military commander who treats unfavorable intelligence as incompetence can lose a war.
A president whose sense of personal greatness becomes intertwined with national decision-making can make the distinction between what is true and what affirms the leader enormously consequential.
That is why character matters in leadership in ways that have little to do with whether we like the leader.
The most important characteristic of a powerful person may not be intelligence.
It may not even be experience.
It may be the ability to receive information that says:
You are wrong.
And then leave the information intact.
To resist immediately transforming “I was wrong” into “you are incompetent.”
To distinguish humiliation from correction.
To recognize that an adversary can be right.
To understand that loyalty and accuracy are different virtues.
To tolerate temporary damage to one’s self-image in exchange for a more accurate model of reality.
Because reality is extraordinarily patient.
You can insult it.
You can sue it.
You can fire the person who describes it.
You can call it fake.
You can surround yourself with people who agree that it isn’t happening.
For a surprisingly long time, wealth and power can even make that strategy work.
But reality has one enormous structural advantage.
Reality doesn’t need you to believe in it.
And perhaps that is the deepest danger of extreme grandiosity in leadership.
The leader may not consciously choose fantasy over reality.
He may experience himself as the great defender of reality.
He may genuinely believe that other people are biased, corrupt, stupid or jealous. He may sincerely experience contradiction as proof that lesser people simply cannot recognize what is obvious to him.
Inside that psychological architecture, there is no great contradiction.
There is only one stable fact around which everything else must be organized:
I am exceptional.
Success confirms it.
Praise confirms it.
Power confirms it.
Opposition confirms it.
Criticism confirms it.
Even failure can confirm it, once failure has been properly explained.
And eventually the most frightening possibility isn’t that such a person is lying to everyone else.
It’s that after decades of selectively admitting evidence into his internal courtroom, he may be the easiest person for himself to convince.
Leave a Reply