Assessing Leaders at a Distancecious lens and are continually seeking to confirm their core premise
of external danger, against which they must defend themselves, have
significant constraints on their interpretation of the political world
and their manner of dealing with it.
It is clear from the foregoing discussion that there are many simi-
larities between the O-C personality and the paranoid personality.
For both, there is a focus on detail, an emphasis on autonomy, and a
guarded rigidity. But these qualities have significant differences too.
The O-C fixes on details, while the paranoid searches for clues. The
O-C is searching for certainty, while the paranoid is searching for
confirmation of a fixed conclusion of danger. While the O-C is stub-
born and obstinate, the paranoid is touchy and guarded. The O-C is
dominated by conscience, by what he or she should do, whereas the
paranoid is dominated by fear and is in a constant state of perceived
external danger. There are many points of continuity, but the para-
noid style is more extreme, more unstable, and more psychologically
primitive.
The Paranoid in Power: Implications for Political Behavior
The paranoid personality tends to hold very strong, rigidly
entrenched cognitive beliefs. Of all the personality types, this type is
the one most motivated to seek to maintain internal consistency
among cognitive beliefs—often at the expense of an "objective"
examination of incoming information. The paranoid personality typ-
ically includes a belief system with a vivid and central image of the
adversary. As one might suspect, the adversary is seen as inherently
and pervasively evil and a major and incorrigible threat to one's own
personal/national interest. There is little doubt that the adversary
will respond to conciliatory goals by taking advantage of them. The
paranoid personality, by definition, sees adversaries everywhere.
Therefore, the individual sees the world in polarized terms. The
paranoid's world is a Manichean universe, divided into two camps—
allies and adversaries; neutrals are impossible. "If you are not
strongly for me—you must be against me."
There is a powerful tendency to exaggerate greatly not only the
hostile nature of the adversary's intentions but the adversary's polit-
ical and military skill and ability to take threatening actions rela-
tively unconstrained by logistical, chronological, or informational