When the Wolf Needs Applause

Power, Narcissism, and the Cruelty of the Insecure

A lamb came to the river to drink, only to be met by a hungry wolf. Though the lamb stood downstream, the wolf accused him of muddying the water. When the lamb protested that this was impossible, the wolf grew angrier, conjuring more absurd accusations – “You insulted me last year!” “You and your kind are always against me!” – until, at last, he abandoned all pretence.

“Enough talk,” the wolf snarled, “I’ll eat you anyway.”

This fable has no grand moral lesson, no twist of fate where justice prevails. It is simply a story about raw power wielded without cause, cruelty for cruelty’s sake.

And it is difficult to imagine a better parallel to the scene that unfolded in the White House this week, where a man seeking aid found himself mocked and diminished, forced to endure the smirks of those who, like the wolf, did it simply because they could.

But Trump is no wolf. He’s a crow that’s found some peacock feathers and is pretending to wear the mantel of leader; fanning his stolen glory and expecting admiration. But, whilst all can see it’s a façade, no one seems to point this out, challenge or even ridicule the peacockery.

In the grand theatre of politics, one often encounters figures whose self-perception far exceeds their actual capacities. Leaders who adorn themselves in the rhetoric of power, intelligence, and authority without the depth to support it.

The Trump-Zelensky White House press meeting was a stage where grandiosity met its limits, and where the dynamics of narcissism and intelligence – or the lack thereof – played out in real time.

In this article, we discuss the interplay between personality – specifically trait narcissism – and low intelligence, and the psychology of the wolf, the wolfpack and the lamb.

A wolf in peacock feathers

Before we examine the intersection of low intelligence and grandiose narcissism, we’ll need some definitions.

In common language, Narcissism is often used as a pejorative. Any individual that exhibits behaviours that might be entitled, self-centred or considered selfish might be labelled as a narcissist. But to a psychologist, narcissism is far more nuanced and complex.

Trait narcissism is similar to any other trait, in that it is a collection of individual facets that each resides on a dimension or spectrum from low to high. Just as you can be low, high or anywhere in between for Assertiveness or Altruism, so each of us will have a place on the facet dimensions of Narcissism.

At the extreme end of the dimension, narcissism involves an exaggerated sense of self-importance and a lack of empathy for others, often accompanied by an excessive need for admiration. This pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy sits in a category of its own, and is the definition of a mental disorder: Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

However, a person can have traits that exhibit similar behaviours that don’t quite meet the threshold to be categorised as a mental disorder. Afterall, a disorder is a category – you either are or are not – whereas traits reside on a spectrum. It’s perfectly natural for many of us to have traits that can be classed as narcissism without having a mental disorder.

And don’t worry. As I’ve written about previously, there are benefits and pitfalls of to these facets, depending on the situation and context we might find ourselves in, just as there are with all other facets of personality.

Narcissism comes in two main varieties: vulnerable and grandiose. As a recap from an earlier article, grandiose narcissism is more overt and easier to observe, and is driven by inflated self-importance, entitlement, and a constant need for admiration. This encourages behaviours that might include dominance, aggression, and a lack of empathy.

When the individual believes that these drivers are not fulfilled or that they can increase their peacockery to an audience, the resultant behaviours can be amplified. Cruelty, bullying, physical attack (e.g., aggressive handshakes), and the need to fight your way through the G20 members to be the centre of the group photo.

Personality traits are independent from intelligence. Just as we can have highly Agreeable individuals (i.e.; empathetic, collaborative, tribe-first, etc.) at different levels of intelligence, so too we can have people with narcissistic traits with varying intelligence.

In psychology, intelligence might be defined as “the ability to derive information, learn from experience, adapt to the environment, understand, and correctly utilise thought and reason.”

It’s not, necessarily, the ability to remember and recall information, such as the names of the linesmen in the 1966 World Cup final*. It’s the ability to take in new information, process this data and use it in the context of the situation and environment. It’s the ability to learn and solve problems.

Throughout Donald Trump’s political career, several prominent individuals, including members of his own administration, have openly criticised his intelligence.

Rex Tillerson, Trump’s former Secretary of State, reportedly referred to him as a “moron.” H.R. McMaster, then National Security Adviser, allegedly described Trump as an “idiot” and a “dope” with the intelligence of a “kindergartner.” John F. Kelly, who served as White House Chief of Staff, is said to have called Trump an “idiot” and “unhinged” on multiple occasions. James Mattis, the former Secretary of Defense, reportedly stated that Trump had the understanding of “a fifth or sixth grader.”

These accounts highlight concerns raised by individuals within Trump’s inner circle regarding his cognitive abilities.

* The linesmen were Tofiq Bahramov and Karol Galba

Dangerously dumb?

The interplay between grandiose narcissism and low intelligence is fascinating – even if you’re not a personality psychologist.

For example, intelligence’s role in mediating narcissism influences self-perception and decision making. These individuals commonly overestimate their own capabilities and intelligence, and tend to exhibit impulsivity and poor judgment.

As individuals with lower intelligence might be easier to influence and grandiose narcissists demand adulation, this combination might lead to third parties fawning, praising and “ego stroking” in order to garner favour or change the individual’s previously held views of them (e.g., Tik Tok, Putin, North Korea).

The over-estimation of their capabilities can result in unrealistic goals. While campaigning Trump repeatedly declared he would end the Ukraine war “in one day”.

“I know [Ukrainian President Volodomyr] Zelenskyy well. I know [Russian President Vladimir] Putin well. I would get that ended in a period of 24 hours,” he said in an interview with British broadcaster GB News. “One hundred per cent, it would be easy. That deal would be easy.”

Without the cognitive abilities to critically analyse situations, contexts and the politics of groups and individuals involved, this self-importance, impulsivity and over-estimation of capabilities might naturally lead to challenge from those who have processed the data differently (or more objectively). This is where lower intelligence narcissism becomes a particular problem.

These individuals tend to be highly sensitive to criticism. They don’t see the criticism as being focused on the argument; they infer that it is an attack on their own self-image. They display heightened defensiveness and hostility, sometimes adopting an attack-first form of defensiveness – lashing out (sometimes physically, as demonstrated multiple times in the discussion, with finger pointing and pushing contact) at perceived opponents.

The have difficulties in maintaining relationships due to arrogance, lack of empathy, and their manipulative behaviours. The grandiose I’m-important-you-should-recognise-it beliefs can quickly move towards victimhood.

Throughout the press conference, Trump interrupted, spoke-over and diminished Zelensky’s views and responses. The finger-pointing, subtle shoves and playing to the audience for his needed adulation (note: watch where he looks up to after each attack) are examples of dominance, bullying and entitlement – hallmarks of the low intelligence grandiose narcissist.

Diplomacy and narcissism rarely go hand-in-hand.

Whilst there are benefits to narcissistic traits in some contexts, having the self-awareness to recognise when you are derailing yourself and the situation is less likely to be prevalent when the individual also has lesser cognitive abilities.

The impact on diplomacy and relationships can be huge. Narcissistic traits in leaders can complicate negotiations, erode alliances, and escalate conflicts. Worse still, the individual might not only not realise, they may paint themselves as either the hero or the victim of the situation. “Have you ever said ‘thank you’?” is just one example of being the victim of the situation. Endorsing the comment about not wearing a suit in the President’s presence being a lack of respect is another.

A wolf in lamb’s clothing

In our analogy, Zalensky is portrayed as the lamb. But our analogy is flawed. Just as Trump is no wolf, he is no lamb.

Zalensky did not timidly respond to accusations of muddying the water. He was not eaten. The lamb stood his ground – in his third language – in a hostile, outnumbered environment where he was most clearly an outgroup member.

In social psychology, we look at ingroup and outgroup membership. This refers to how individuals categorise themselves and others into social groups, which can influence attitudes, biases, and behaviours.

An ingroup is the group to which a person belongs and identifies with. People tend to favour their ingroup, showing loyalty, trust, and a sense of shared identity. This might be through shared beliefs or values, language, attire, race, religion, status – a range of identifiers that we recognise in others that make us feel more as “one of them”. If you’ve ever travelled abroad, you might find yourself forming connections with strangers that share your language, come from the same location or are simply wearing a sports team’s jersey that you also support.

However, ingroup focus can lead to ingroup bias, where members view their own group as superior or more deserving.

Zalensky was definitely in the outgroup. With a different language, status, clothing and visiting “their” camp, he was perceived as different or outside Trump’s circle. People often view outgroup members with suspicion, hostility, or stereotyping, a phenomenon known as outgroup derogation.

These dynamics play a key role in tribalism, groupthink, and political polarisation, shaping how people treat those inside versus outside their perceived social group.

Trump and his circle operated as a dominant ingroup, reinforcing their shared sense of power and superiority. Within this group, members often amplify each other’s views, reward displays of loyalty, and engage in ingroup bias – where they excuse or justify behaviour that might otherwise be seen as inappropriate.

The bullying of Zelensky was not just about him as an individual; it was a performance for the ingroup, reinforcing their cohesion by collectively demeaning an outsider.

Some media outlets will feel they are part of Trump’s ingroup. Without watching those news outlets, we might still place a bet with good odds that they will also mimic and justify the behaviours they report on from that meeting.

Zelensky, as a foreign leader seeking aid, was positioned as an outgroup member – someone who needed something from the ingroup but was not part of it. In classic outgroup derogation, he was mocked and diminished, not based on merit but because he was an outsider challenging the ingroup’s dominance.

But Zalensky did not play the lamb. The fact that he carried himself with dignity only exacerbated the need for the ingroup to assert control through belittlement, a common tactic in narcissistic group dynamics where power must be reaffirmed through humiliation rather than cooperation.

You’re not in the wolfpack

Grandiose narcissists thrive in environments where ingroup validation is constant, and outgroup members serve as props for dominance displays.

Trump’s behaviour – mocking, intimidating, and surrounding himself with laughing allies – is consistent with narcissistic leadership styles, where control and image matter more than diplomacy or strategy.

The event wasn’t just a political exchange; it was an illustration of ingroup self-aggrandisement through outgroup humiliation, driven by a leader whose need for dominance outweighed diplomatic necessity.

The onlookers – including world leaders that weren’t physically presence – may have enabled these behaviours. Either actively through their participation in the outgroup derogation (it was a press reporter that asked about the lack of suit and JD Vance that laughed and smirked throughout) or through their inaction in calling out the treatment of Zelensky post-event.

It will be interesting to see what – if any – action the international community takes.

Culture is often determined by the behaviours you tolerate. The culture of world leadership is no different. What will we tolerate? What behaviours will become normalised in this Trumpian era through the ambivalence of other leaders?

The legacy of the crow and the lamb

In the end, the White House press meeting between Trump and Zelensky served as a striking example of how grandiose narcissism and low intelligence can distort diplomacy and international relations.

Like the wolf in Aesop’s tale, Trump’s actions weren’t driven by any real reason or justification but by a need to assert power, to humiliate an outgroup member, and to receive the adulation of his ingroup. For Trump, Zelensky was not an ally to negotiate with, but an outsider to be diminished – a tool in the performance of dominance.

Yet, as Zelensky showed, dignity and restraint are not merely weaknesses. By standing his ground with calmness and respect, he became the antithesis of the exaggerated self-importance that Trump clung to. Far from the lamb meekly submitting, Zelensky embodied a quiet strength that outshone the petty theatrics of his hosts.

Ultimately, the tragedy of this encounter is not just the bullying or the humiliation, but the missed opportunity for productive dialogue and genuine international cooperation. In the world of narcissistic leadership, where self-interest and ego often trump (pun intended) diplomacy, the true costs are not always immediately visible. But the effects of eroding relationships, sowing distrust, and undermining respect will be felt long after the cameras have turned off and the applause has faded.

In the grand stage of geopolitics, there’s no place for the fragile self-importance of a crow in peacock feathers. True leadership is defined not by the loudest voice or the cruellest jabs, but by the ability to elevate those around you, to seek common ground, and to foster mutual respect – even with those who may seem, at first glance, like outgroup members.

Until then, the world will continue to watch as the wolves of ego strut across the stage, too caught up in their own show (and too unintelligent to recognise) that they’re alienating the very allies they need to survive.

Not that the low intelligence grandiose narcissist would recognise this need.

References:

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Kelly, J. F. (2018). Interview with The New York Times. The New York Times.

Mattis, J. (2019). Excerpts from the Washington Post interview. The Washington Post.

McMaster, H. R. (2017). Interview with The Atlantic. The Atlantic.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Tillerson, R. (2017). Excerpts from the CBS interview. CBS News.