Tyrannical Minds: Psychological Profiling, Narcissism, and Dictatorship

by Dean Allen Haycock

Not everyone can become a tyrant. It requires a particular confluence of events to gain absolute control over entire nations.


First, you must be born with the potential to develop brutal personality traits. Often, these are combined in “The Dark Triad” of malignant narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy, as well as elements of paranoia, and an extraordinary ambition to achieve control over others.


Second, your predisposition to antisocial behavior must be developed and strengthened during childhood. You might suffer physical and/or psychological abuse, or grow up in trying times.


Finally, you must come of age when the political system of your country is unstable. Together, these events establish a basis for a rise to power, one that Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Qaddafi all used to gain life-and-death control over their countrymen and women. It is how Osama bin Laden and the leaders of the Islamic State hoped to gain such power.


Though these men lived in different times and places, and came from vastly different backgrounds, many of them felt respect for each other. They often seemed to recognize their shared, “dark” personality traits and viewed them as strengths. Only in rare cases did they show signs of mental disorders.


“Getting inside the heads” of foreign leaders and terrorists is one way governments try to understand, predict, and influence their actions. Psychological profiles can help us understand the urges of tyrants to dominate, subjugate, torture and slaughter. 


Tyrannical Minds reveals how recognizing their psychological traits can provide insight into the motivations and actions of dangerous leaders, potentially allow to us predict their behavior?and even how to stop them. As strongmen and authoritarian leaders around the world increase in number, understanding the most extreme examples of tyrannical behavior should serve as a warning to anyone indifferent to the threats posed by political extremism.

Genres: Psychology, Politics, Nonfiction, History

336 pages, Hardcover

First published April 1, 2019

About the author

Dean Haycock is a science and medical writer living in New York.

He is the author of "Characters on the Couch, Exploring Psychology Through Literature and Film" (ABC-CLIO/Greewood, 2016); "Murderous Minds: Exploring the Criminal Psychopathic Brain: Neurological Imaging and the Manifestation of Evil" (Pegasus Books), "The Everything Health Guide to Adult Bipolar Disorder," 2nd and 3rd Editions (Adams Media) and "The Everything Health Guide to Schizophrenia" (Adams Media). He also is the co-author of "Avoiding and Dealing with Complications of LASIK and Other Eye Surgeries" (with Ismail A. Shalaby, M.D., Ph.D.)

He earned a Ph.D. in neurobiology from Brown University and a fellowship from the National Institute of Mental Health to study at The Rockefeller University. The results of his research, conducted in academia and in the pharmaceutical industry, have been published in Brain Research, the Journal of Neurochemistry, the Journal of Biological Chemistry, the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, and the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.

The author’s other reporting and feature articles have appeared in many newspapers and magazines including WebMD, Drug Discovery and Development, BioWorld Today, BioWorld International, The Lancet Neurology, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Current Biology and the Annals of Internal Medicine. In addition, he has contributed articles on a variety of topics to The Gale Encyclopedia of Science and The Gale Encyclopedia of Mental Health.

He is a member of the National Association of Science Writers, the American Society of Journalists and Authors and the Society for the Scientific Study of Psychopathy.

Reviews

[Will Byrnes · Rating 4 out of 5]

People shy away from parallels to fascism, but it’s important to note that fascism is not a political ideology or strategy but mental pathology of societal scale, starting with an impaired individual manipulating psychological weaknesses in the population to achieve power, and then multiplying the disorder by duplicating it in the general culture.

Tyrannical Minds offers a look at a collection of the worst of the worst in despotic leaders, over the last century or so, (sorry Genghis) by peering through a psychological lens at common characteristics. It looks at what may have made these guys the way they were, the traits they manifested, and how we might apply the patterns presented here to contemporary leaders. It is important not only in offering insight into how to deal with foreign despots, but to recognize the patterns in our own people and to try to keep that particular brand of misery from recurring. When Haycock first proposed the book, he was not planning on looking at any US presidents, but wound up having a substantial portion of the work focused on a certain morality-challenged president.


Dean A. Haycock - image from his Twitter pages

There are plenty of folks today in positions of national leadership for whom the word Tyrant could apply. Madeleine Albright put together an impressive basket of such deplorables in her 2018 book, Fascism, but that used a different scope, offering a pretty narrow definition of fascism and looking to see who, among the considered leaders, might fit. Dean Haycock looks at a range of mostly dead leaders from a psychological perspective. The usual suspects pop up. Little moustache man, Uncle Joe, Chairman you-know-who, Dear Leader, Saddam, and others. What unites these folks? If we can come up with a unifying personality profile, how does DJT’s dainty foot fit into that glass jackboot?

Can a psychological analysis of a person predict that person’s behavior under a range of circumstances? Maybe, maybe not. But what if the people doing the analyzing never get to meet their subjects in person? What if they have to rely on records of what the person has said and done? What if the best personal sources for information on the person under consideration have biases of their own that might taint their views? Haycock gives us some background on the psychological profiling of world leaders, including a nifty look at what our intel services cooked up on Adolph way back when. It’s pretty impressive. He looks at the controversies surrounding psychological analysis from a distance, and the role of the American Psychiatric Association in telling its members that it is unethical to offer a “diagnosis” without having conducted a personal examination of the subject. He brings in analysis from a range of professional psychologists and psychiatrists.

Haycock points to a condition that is not in the official catalog of defined diagnoses, (the DSM-5, or Diagnostic and Statistical annual of Mental Disorders) Malignant Narcissism, and a broader characterization called the Dark Factor of Personality, or D-Factor. Much of the book is spent checking out the sundry tyrants to see how they measure up in the “D” scale. This includes appealing traits like Machiavellianism, feeling that rules do not apply to them, sadism, belief that they deserve more than anyone else, that they are better than everyone else, callousness, craving admiration and praise, engaging in vendettas against critics…it goes on. Is this ringing any bells? I think we’re gonna need a bigger scale.


Young Adolph with Daddy Dearest - image from Warthunder.com

Haycock makes a point that plenty of people are narcissistic. It takes a special level of self-involvement to raise that to a diagnosable Narcissistic Personality Disorder, or NPD. And therein lies a significant challenge if one is looking to the narrow point of whether DJT can be diagnosed with a serious mental illness. A counter argument is made that diagnosis is less important than the potential for harm. And mental health pros are duty bound to issue warnings to those who might be affected by the behavior of such subjects.

It is clear that there are several factors that must dovetail to generate a top-flight tyrant. First, of course, is DNA. The little SOB needs to have an inherent predilection. But that is far from enough. It helps if the predilection is nurtured by, say, an abusive parent or caregiver. It’s not required, mind you. Mao, for example, was spoiled rotten as a kid. But it definitely helps. You might think of the layout as means (DNA), motive (being pissed off at the world), and last, but not least, opportunity. In this case that means a period of political instability.

While it is pretty easy to see that in the case of Hitler’s Germany, suffering from the penalties of losing World War I, and Russia suffering under the Czars and war with Germany. It is less obvious to see a comparable level of societal distress in the USA. Some level, for sure, as wages have stagnated and the economic gains of the last several decades have gone mostly to the already well-to-do. But, while it may be angst and/or rage-inducing, it is not entirely clear that this bit would pass muster in establishing the requisite baseline. There is certainly grounds for concern as more and more jobs are automated or off-shored, and everyone has to worry about whether they will be laid off. And I suppose the increasing ethnic/religious hostility generated by some media sources and happily employed by feckless politicians has been contributing to a growing sense of internal national conflict. Add to the mix that we have some outsiders doing their best to fan the flames of hatred. So, while it may not be a period of turmoil comparable to that experienced by many other nations, or by the USA in other times, there might be enough to push it over the line.

In making a point that nurture alone is not sufficient, Haycock offers a comparison of two unnamed boys. Both suffer very similar, miserable upbringings. One becomes a productive member of society, a recording artist. The other becomes Stalin. It is not at all obvious in reading the two stories which was which. A good warning not to jump to conclusions.

There is particularly fascinating look at how paranoia serves to keep tyrants in power, while generating a feedback loop that generates more and more paranoia. This includes an insightful look at why it is that working for such people presents an existential threat.


Chairman Mao and Stalin (2 photos were merged) – image from BBC

Managerial competence allows some despots to thrive (Stalin), while incompetence leads to their demise (Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein) Of course, one might also contend that it was less that they were incompetent than that they made mistakes, which even competent leaders can do.

Haycock sees Trump as more like Amin than Stalin. His incompetence emanates, at least, from his bigotry, and manifests in a blatantly racist handling of national immigration policy. The long-term impact of his whites-only immigration preference remains to be seen, but it seems likely that creative intellectual and entrepreneurial migrants will be considering options other than the USA in which to practice their trade, develop new technologies, and build new businesses. This will be a huge loss for the country. Idi Amin made a point of throwing out of Uganda the Asian population that was responsible for a considerable percentage of the national economy. It did not work out well for Amin or Uganda.

It seems to me that Trump is less a despot than a wannabe despot. Even when he was merely a candidate, Trump did not really expect to win. He was running as a large-scale business promotion. That is one reason why there was no compunction about pursuing a deal for Trump Tower Moscow during (and certainly after) the campaign. The expectation was that if he lost, no one would care. (The Producers model of politico-econo flim flam) Thus, he did not approach running for president as a quest for power in the same way that other mononymous despots had. Some of them had a form of Messiah Complex, with an associated vision of how things should be remade in their countries. Hitler imagined a Third Reich. Mao wanted to bring medieval China into the modern age. Trump’s primary interest is in stuffing his pockets. He is so extremely narcissistic that he does not care about the country, and would sell (already has sold) it out to feather his own nest. No grand visions here, just avarice. Most of the public policies he pursues are all tactical. He does what he can to keep his base riled and his donors content, and if he can spice that up with a bit of abuse and sadism, well that makes him feel pretty good too. That said, he does manifest some of the behavior that people with a Messiah Complex might, proclaiming that only he can fix things, for instance. But is he the dire, murderous threat that these others clearly were?


Saddam Hussein - image from Der Spiegel

As a candidate, definitely not. Not much was at stake, really. But as a president, the terms have changed. He has been the subject of many investigations, with many more to come. The only reason he has not already been indicted is that he occupies the highest office in the land. But once he is threatened with ouster, whether by voters or legal proceedings, predicting the future becomes quite a dicey matter. Given his gargantuan narcissism, he cannot tolerate the possibility of rejection (thus the BS about three million mystery voters for Hillary in 2016), and can certainly not tolerate the humiliation of possible arrest, which he would almost certainly face, whether from federal charges possibly recommended by Robert Mueller in the federal realm, or by diverse state authorities. Faced with this, and in the absence of some sort of face-saving exit strategy (leaving office due to ill-health?) there is a very real possibility that he would resort to bloody means to keep himself in office. At that point he might call in someone like Erik Prince to organize whatever private military measures might be necessary to prevent his removal. Sinclair and Fox would be more than happy to go along. And his more cultish followers would insist that he was somehow defending the nation, and not just keeping his corrupt ass out of jail. Hopefully it will not come to that. (This review was first posted in May 2019. The events of January 6, 2020, Desecration Day, provide plenty of evidence that DJT was indeed all in for violence as a way to retain power. It remaims to be seen whether Erik Prince played any role in that.)

You know how the Mueller report laid out so many of the awful things that Trump did, but weaseled on bringing actual charges against him? Well, for now. (DOJ guidelines on the prosecutability of the president are internal DOJ rules, not settled law) It’s a lot like that here. Haycock makes it clear that Trump is the poster child for malignant narcissism, with plenty of “D” to keep his tank overflowing, but will not commit to a yes or no on whether the man should be removed from office. It does seem clear, though, that he considers him a potential menace to us all.


Idi Amin - image from Face to Face Africa

The book is definitely thought-provoking, adding some needed nuance to considerations of mental health in the highest office in the land, and contributes some new concepts to our store of things to be taken into account in looking ahead. I particularly enjoyed the historical elements and appreciated the which-one-will-become-the-tyrant piece.

I had some difficulty with what seemed repetition and a bit of murkiness, as we moved from one set of dark traits to another. Had to metaphorically rub my head and concentrate, so is this trait necessary? How about this one? But what if he is missing this one? I understand that things psychological do not always lend themselves to mathematical models, but I can still wish for that, right?

Bottom line is that even if the president is running naked in the Oval, hurling his feces all over the walls, thinks Pence is Lurch from the Addams Family, and screams incoherently at anyone who comes into his office, his cabinet and close advisors, and the Republican Party have shown no inclination to do anything about it anyway. Thus, the benefit of this book is less about how we might fix a mental health problem in the Presidency than an offering of grave concern about what a fear-ravaged, and/or barking president might mean for us all. As the institutions of our republic continue to face daily assault by this White House, it is worthwhile to have a sense of just how frightened we ought to be.


Review first posted – May 10, 2019

Publication dates
----------April 3, 2019 - hardcover
----------April 6, 2021 - trade paperback

I received an ARE of Tyrannical Minds from Norton in return for my unquestioning allegiance, and support for their quest for world dominance. I promise I am not plotting anything against them.

PS - Here in April 2025 we are seeing further manifestations of Trump unchained. He has been all in on transporting people to gulags in other countries, due process be damned. He has taken to gutting federal agencies, relying on fiats to ignore statutory requirements, abandoning our allies in favor of our enemies, destroying decades of medical and other scientific research by fecklessly slashing budgets with no analysis on how efficiency figures in at all, destroying decades of international goodwill the USA had built up by helping needy populations across the planet, by attacking our rule of law by targeting judges who rule against him, and law firms that try cases he does not like. It sure seems that malignant narcissist does not go nearly far enough.




==========In the summer of 2019 GR reduced the allowable review size by 25%, from 20,000 to 15,000 characters. In order to accommodate the text beyond that I have moved the EXTRA STUFF segment of the review to the comments section directly below.

[Mahvar · Rating 1 out of 5]

اثری که می‌تونست تحلیلی عمیق از ساختار روانی قدرت و خودشیفتگی سیاسی باشه، در عمل به مجموعه‌ای از روایت‌های پراکنده و غیرنظام‌مند تبدیل شده. نویسنده بیش از اینکه به بنیان‌های علمی و روان‌تحلیلی تکیه کنه، به توصیف‌های ژورنالیستی و قصه‌پردازی تکراری پناه برده.
درحالی‌که عنوان کتاب وعده‌ی «پروفایل روانی ذهن‌های مستبد» رو میده، تو محتوا نه از دقت مفهومی خبری هست، نه از چارچوب نظری منسجم. مفاهیم روان‌شناختی صرفاً به شکل تزئینی استفاده شدن تا متن ظاهری علمی پیدا کنه، اما تو واقعیت هیچ تحلیل منسجمی از سازوکار روانی دیکتاتورها ارائه نمیشه.
در نهایت، کتاب بیش از آنکه اثری علمی باشه، نوعی popular psychology خوش‌خوان اما غیرنقّاد هست، اثری که می‌خواست پیچیدگی روان استبداد رو نشون بده، اما تو سطح توصیف باقی موند.
بیشتر وقت تلف کردنه تا مطالعه‌ی علمی واقعی.

[Kirsten · Rating 1 out of 5]

horrific waste of time. I was hoping for a serious academic discussion, with interesting and instructive anecdotal information, of 20th century tyrants, dictators and despots. what I got was a poorly written, horribly edited , and thinly veiled diatribe about Trump. if you are a Never Trumper, feel free to read and enjoy; however, don't for one second believe that this is an academic endeavor. the simple grammar errors ( your and you`re included!) speak volumes about how much consideration should be afforded this 300 page op ed.......

[Jeremiah Salyer · Rating 1 out of 5]

Wow this book sucked. Some interesting bits about Stalin and Mao's background but it went off the deep end tearing into Donald Trump and attacking his politics.
I think everyone knows Trump is a Narcissist but he doesn't belong in a book about madmen like Hitler Mao etc.

[Marybeth · Rating 1 out of 5]

Only read this book if you want to continue to believe all the lies the Left are promoting about Trump, because the title is a ruse to get you to read about true tyrannts and then force you to think about Trump as one.

[Heath · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book about the thoughts, tendencies, and extreme acts of dictators and wannabe dictator Donald Trump. As far as trends in narcissistic individuals and historical analyses focusing on narcissism in a half dozen deposed dictators, it's not too shabby.

I don't think the author recognizes the importance of the electoral college or he does and just refers to the majority/minority as a fact. I inferred that he didn't like that Trump was elected because it wasn't popular. Regardless, his judgments of his public character and obnoxious Twitter feeds are accurate. His comparisons of Trump to others are eye-opening, and the contrasts are interesting.

His later chapters seem a bit rushed through or incomplete with a fair amount of speculation and conjecture. There were also spelling errors and even wrong words, especially in these latter parts. He quotes Jerrold Post more than other authors and often redescribes him and others as if they weren't introduced before. Haycock also includes phrases like "studies show" and doesn't list the studies in footnotes nor in the bibliography. You can still get the gist if you can power through the imperfections.

If you're interested in how one person can rise out of the 1% who have strong narcissistic tendencies, this book is a good start.

[Mariah · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars. Lots of interesting and thoughtful points made in this. The premise for the book is that throughout more recent history there have been more than a handful of dictators that exhibit obvious signs of personality disorders, specifically narcissistic personality disorder, as well as other mental health issues. It talks a bit on the dark triad or tetrad of coexisting narcissistic personality disorder, psychopathy, and Machievellianism. The author discusses the differences between children who are abused growing up and or in similar circumstances to the background of some of these dictators like Hitler, Stalin Mao and why everyone doesn’t develop the same tendencies. There’s some nature vs nurture at play here. Some reviewers have been incensed that Trump was talked about in here and to be fair the author includes ways that he obviously differs from the aforementioned dictators but they also include concerns from experts in the field of psychology. They also mention that tyrants are dependent upon emotionally damaged individuals to support them and the underlying economic, social, and political issues that help their timing. Do with that information what you will.

[Ashlyn · Rating 2 out of 5]

I started out really enjoying this book but, by the end of it, I was annoyed. It was very very repetitious. It was also full of typos. Some of the psychological principles in the book were not explained or used correctly. The book could have easily been shortened by 50-100 pages without repetitions. The author isn’t a psychologist, he’s a medical/science writer that applied and interpreted the work of other psychologists and used that to look at different historical dictators. I think the publishing was rushed because of Donald Trump’s presidency. Its called “sexy” psychology because it is a rather surface level intellectual discourse on a popular subject with little to add to the field. Maybe this is a good book for the average reader(but even they would catch on to the repetitiveness), but not a psychologist.

[Brian Katz · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book. It helped to better understand the context in which twentieth century despots came to power and their underlying pathology. Though exact traits cannot be pointed to as cause, the book did provide a framework of relevant traits that contribute to bad behavior @ in the authoritarian level. There were some consistent themes and that is helpful for a society to keep an eye on in future leaders. The discussion about Trump was balanced, presenting both sides, so the reader can decide. Which is very rare. Hats off to the author for not taking a side, but rather presenting both sides.

[Charles Oberonn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book got almost immediately outdated by the Jan 6 insurrection. Hearing the narrator describe Trump as not actually a despot but just somebody with authoritarian tendencies made me laugh and cry. That's not an issue you can hold against the author, tho.

What I can hold against the author is the messy structure of the first half of the book, which jumps from example to example with no seeming rhyme or reason.

I think a restructuring of the book with Trump as a framing device would've worked better.

[Agnė Bartkevičiūtė · Rating 3 out of 5]

Man trūko struktūros. Pačioje knygoje nėra vienos temos, kuri būtų išnagrinėta. Regis turėtų būti apie diktatorius, bet 40% knygos skirta Trump'ui. Nėra iki galo aprašyta diktatorių psichologinio profilio sudarymo metodologija, problematika. Skyriai ir potemės chaotiški.
Nors tikrai yra įdomių faktų, minčių ir vietų, kurios "užkabino", silpnas 3.

[Edi Vlad · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book is not worth one’s time. The author has presented interesting and useful information about how a tyrant’s mind works, but sadly the quarter end of the book is made about Trump, while dictators such as Hirohito, Castro, Pol Pot are completely ignored and others (Mussolini, Putin) etc are just mentioned. Very dissapointing.

[Fereydoon · Rating 2 out of 5]

کتاب ادعای بررسی دقیق اون چیزی که تو ذهن حاکمان مستبد میگذره رو میده ولی در واقع کاری که میکنه اینه که تیپ های شخصیتی که مستبدین معمولا دارن رو معرفی میکنه و مابقی کتاب به گفتن داستان زندگی مستبدین معروف قرن بیستم میپردازه
فوق العاده حوصله سربر و خواب آور بود و علی رغم زور زیادی که زدم نتونستم از نیمه پیش برم

[David Becker · Rating 3 out of 5]

A psychological investigation into the minds of some of the most notable autocrats of the last century. Plenty of interesting material, but the author’s meandering and repetitious writing style makes it a chore to get there. Unnecessarily coy, too, about Donald Trump’s position in the autocrat pantheon.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting look at narcissism and national leadership. As an academic that researches the "dark"; or destructive side of leadership, I found this book to be fascinating and a very worthwhile read.

[LifeOfBooks · Rating 5 out of 5]

Truly fantastic book, well written and seriously one of my favorite books. Touched base on each person's life briefly adding in supportive details that may or may not have been public knowledge. Loved this book.

[Iulian Ștefan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aproape o carte de 10. Am scăzut un punct (și puțin) pentru că are un început pe care l-am găsit greoi și neinteresant și cam lung. În rest informații super utile și interesante despre dictatorii care au fost și care vor veni.

[Lydia]

Nice

[Michelle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting topics and well researched. However, the writing style felt very disconnected and the transitions between thoughts and sections was hard to follow to the point of distraction.

[Heather · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent introduction to psychopathology of despot rulers. Two chapters on Trump are especially telling.

[Liliana · Rating 2 out of 5]

Temática interessante, mas o autor repete muitas vezes a mesma informação e é pouco objetivo.

[James · Rating 1 out of 5]

mostly a rant about Trump, personally I think the author is a dark triad

[Rachel · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF

[Susan Kennedy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some was interesting, but then Trump enters the picture. He didn't kill millions like Hitler or Stalin or Mao Zedong. Why is he in the book?

[Sofia Lopes · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 🌟 tem alguns erros de edição

[Asta Zak · Rating 3 out of 5]

D. Trump four years ago was lashing Germany’s reliance on Russia for energy, pointing to problems that could result from such "collaboration". Today, the world is seeing the consequences.

An evident narcissism of D. Trump, however, is not enough to bring him into one line with A. Hitler, J. Stalin, Mao and other ruthless dictators. Former president of America might be called a tyrant in personality, but not in policy, like the latter.