THE EFFECTS OF COVERT BORDERLINE NARCISSISTS WITH ANTISOCIAL AND PSYCHOPATHIC TENDENCIES IN EXTREME ENVIRONMENTS ON BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR

Abstract

Individuals with covert borderline-narcissistic and psychopathic traits present unique neurobiological and behavioral profiles that are markedly challenged by extreme environments such as war zones, military deployments, and space missions. This paper synthesizes current neuroscience and psychological research on these personality traits, focusing on brain structure and function (e.g. limbic and prefrontal cortical regions, neurotransmitter systems, neuroplastic changes), stress reactivity (hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis dysregulation and cortisol response), and behavioral outcomes (heightened impulsivity, moral disengagement, and group cohesion disruption). Findings indicate that borderline personality pathology is linked to hyper-reactive limbic circuitry and serotonergic dysregulation, narcissistic personality features correspond to altered fronto-insular networks and elevated stress hormone reactivity, and psychopathic tendencies involve diminished fear responses and impaired amygdala–prefrontal connectivity. In high-stress, high-isolation settings, these neurobiological vulnerabilities can be amplified, leading to impulsive decision-making, reduced moral restraint, and fractures in team dynamics. We discuss how such traits may both hinder and, in limited ways, help performance under duress, and we highlight implications for personnel selection, stress management interventions, and leadership in extreme environments. All conclusions are drawn from peer-reviewed literature, with an emphasis on integrating neuroscientific evidence and psychological theory to inform future research and practical management of at-risk individuals in extreme settings.

Introduction

Extreme environments – including active combat zones, prolonged military deployments, and long-duration space missions – impose extraordinary psychological stress on individuals and teams. In these settings, latent personality traits can heavily influence coping and behavior. This paper examines the intersection of personality pathology (specifically covert borderline narcissism and antisocial/psychopathic traits) with the demands of extreme environments. Covert borderline narcissism is characterized by the emotional instability and fear of abandonment seen in borderline personality disorder (BPD) combined with the insecurity and self-focus of vulnerable (covert) narcissism. Individuals with this profile may outwardly appear high-functioning yet harbor hypersensitivity to threats to their self-image, oscillating between grandiosity and shame. Antisocial and psychopathic traits, on the other hand, involve callousness, lack of remorse, impulsivity, and often a charm or manipulative demeanor (Hare, 1991). These “dark” personality features are comparatively rare in the general population (~1% prevalence of psychopathy in males) but are overrepresented in high-risk settings like prisons and may surface in military contexts

This review focuses on how such personalities function neurobiologically and behaviorally under extreme stress. We first provide a neuroscience background on each trait constellation, summarizing key brain regions, neurotransmitter systems, and stress-response patterns involved. We then discuss how extreme environments can amplify these neurobiological predispositions – for example, how chronic combat stress or isolation may exacerbate emotional dysregulation in a borderline-narcissistic individual or further blunt fear responses in a psychopathic individual. Next, we explore behavioral dynamics, including the tendency toward impulsive actions, moral disengagement from usual ethical standards, and disruption of group cohesion and performance. Throughout, we draw on peer-reviewed studies from psychiatry, neuroscience, and military psychology to ground our discussion in empirical evidence. By understanding these interactions, we aim to inform better management and support strategies for at-risk individuals and their teams in extreme settings. The implications section will consider practical steps, such as screening and training, and the broader significance for team dynamics and mission outcomes.

Neuroscience Background of Personality Pathology

Borderline and Narcissistic Traits: Borderline personality disorder is strongly linked to dysfunction in brain networks governing emotion regulation. Structural and functional neuroimaging shows that BPD is associated with abnormalities in the limbic system (including the amygdala and hippocampus) and the prefrontal cortex. Studies have found that the amygdala and hippocampus can be up to ~16% smaller in BPD patients, potentially as a result of early trauma-related neuroplastic changes (Lis et al., 2007). Functionally, individuals with BPD show reduced glucose metabolism in frontal cortical regions and heightened activity in limbic regions, suggesting that a “rational” prefrontal regulatory system fails to properly modulate an “impulsive” emotional brain. This pattern aligns with BPD symptoms of intense, poorly controlled emotions and impulsive aggression. Serotonergic neurotransmission is implicated as well: BPD’s hallmark behaviors – affective lability, impulsivity, and self-destructive urges – are linked to serotonergic dysregulation (Hansenne et al., 2002). Challenge tests and pharmacological studies indicate blunted central serotonin activity in BPD, and treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors often alleviates impulsive-aggressive symptoms (Hansenne et al., 2002). In short, a BPD profile often involves an overactive amygdala (hypersensitive threat/emotional responses) alongside underactive or structurally impaired frontal control and deficient serotonin-mediated impulse control mechanisms.

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) – particularly the covert or vulnerable subtype – shares some features of emotional dysregulation with BPD (e.g. hypersensitivity to criticism) but presents distinct neural correlates. A consistent finding is reduced gray matter in the left anterior insula, a brain region integral to empathy and emotional resonance. In an MRI study of pathological narcissism, patients with NPD had significantly smaller left anterior insular cortex volume compared to healthy controls, and the degree of insular volume loss correlated with the severity of their empathy deficits (Schulze et al., 2013). This structural difference aligns with the clinical observation that narcissistic individuals can intellectually understand others’ emotions but have diminished compassionate response. Additionally, narcissism involves anomalies in frontal and limbic networks related to self-enhancement and threat reactivity. A systematic review by Jauk and Kanske (2021) concluded that grandiose narcissism is marked by heightened vigilance to ego threat and exaggerated physiological stress responses when the ego is challenged (e.g. negative feedback), as well as elevated basal stress indicators (such as cortisol) even at rest. In experimental settings, individuals high in narcissistic traits (especially males) exhibit increased cortisol reactivity during stressful public performance tasks (such as the Trier Social Stress Test) relative to non-narcissistic controls (Reinhard et al., 2012). Notably, this occurs despite narcissists’ self-reported calm or confidence, suggesting a discordance between outward self-assurance and covert neuroendocrine stress. Researchers have interpreted such findings using the “mask model” of narcissism – outward grandiosity compensates for an underlying fragile self, evidenced by chronic activation of the HPA (stress) axis (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Jauk & Kanske, 2021). In summary, narcissistic traits are underpinned by brain differences in social-affective circuits (e.g. insula hypostructure) and a tendency toward hyper-reactive stress physiology masked by defensive self-regulation.

Antisocial/Psychopathic Traits: Psychopathy is often considered from a neurodevelopmental perspective as a disorder of impaired fear conditioning and empathy. Neuroimaging and neurological studies support several key abnormalities. Structural MRI has shown that adult individuals with psychopathic or antisocial personality features have reduced volume in areas such as the amygdala (central to fear and emotional learning) and the orbitofrontal and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC, involved in impulse control and moral reasoning) (Raine et al., 2000; Gregory et al., 2012). For example, one study reported that violent offenders with antisocial personality disorder had significantly smaller amygdala and hippocampus volumes than controls. Likewise, antisocial individuals tend to have reduced prefrontal gray matter volume alongside chronically low autonomic arousal, a combination long theorized to underlie reduced restraint and fearlessness (Raine et al., 2000). Beyond static anatomy, functional connectivity between the amygdala and frontal lobes appears compromised in psychopaths. Intriguingly, a study of psychopathic individuals found abnormally poor connectivity between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex, meaning the “emotion-generating” limbic region and the “judgment” center of the brain are less synchronized (Motzkin et al., 2011) – a result that has been summarized in accessible form by Medical News Today. This neural disconnect likely contributes to psychopaths’ difficulty in incorporating emotional signals (like fear or others’ distress) into their decision-making; they literally may not feel the emotional weight of their actions as strongly as others do.

At the neurochemical level, psychopathic traits have been linked to atypical reactivity in stress and reward systems. A hallmark of psychopathy is blunted stress reactivity – for instance, lower than normal cortisol release in response to stressors. Johnson et al. (2015) found that in non-incarcerated adults, higher psychopathic trait scores predicted significantly smaller increases (or even decreases) in cortisol during a psychosocial stress test, indicating an underactive HPA axis response (Johnson et al., 2015). Similar results have been observed in criminal offenders: psychopathic individuals showed significantly lower cortisol levels under stress than non-psychopaths\. This dampened physiological arousal dovetails with other evidence of low fearfulness – for example, reduced startle reflex and skin conductance in anticipation of aversive stimuli (Patrick et al., 1993) – and may help explain the cool, fearless demeanor of many psychopaths. On the other hand, there is some evidence for dysregulation in neurotransmitter systems associated with impulse and aggression. Low serotonin activity has been associated with the callous-unemotional dimension of psychopathy: one study of antisocial youth found that boys with high callous-unemotional traits had significantly lower serum serotonin levels than those with lower CU traits (Moul et al., 2018). Dopamine, the neurotransmitter of reward, may also play a role in the bold and impulsive behavior seen in psychopathy. Research suggests that psychopathic individuals have an overactive dopaminergic reward system, leading to strong approach behavior unrestrained by fear of punishment (Buckholtz et al., 2010). In sum, the neurobiology of psychopathy is characterized by an emotional detachment (amygdala-prefrontal dysfunction producing lack of empathy and fear) combined with intact or exaggerated reward-seeking drives, and a stress response profile that is unusually hypo-reactive in situations that normally provoke anxiety.

Environmental Amplification of Traits in Extreme Settings

In extreme environments, the baseline neurobiological differences described above do not exist in a vacuum – they interact with intense external stressors and can be pushed to their limits. War zones and combat deployments subject individuals to life-or-death threats, sleep deprivation, traumatic violence, and moral dilemmas, all of which activate stress pathways and test emotional regulation. Space missions, while not combative, involve prolonged isolation, confinement, and reliance on a small team under high-stakes conditions. These settings can amplify personality-related tendencies through neuroplastic changes and situational demands.

One important pathway of amplification is through the stress (HPA) axis and neuroplasticity under chronic stress. For a borderline-narcissistic individual, the chronic hyperarousal of combat may lead to persistently elevated cortisol levels, which over time can damage brain regions like the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex (through stress-induced neurotoxicity). This could exacerbate the pre-existing reductions in hippocampal volume and frontal regulatory control in BPD, further impairing emotion regulation. In fact, BPD shares some neuroendocrine features with post-traumatic stress disorder, including episodic cortisol spikes and possible adrenal exhaustion in the face of prolonged trauma (Yehuda et al., 2004). Thus, a soldier with borderline features might initially react to combat stress with extreme emotional volatility and panic (reflecting an overactive amygdala and HPA axis); over repeated deployments, they may experience “burnout” or a blunted stress response akin to complex PTSD, accompanied by worsened dissociation or depression. Neuroplastic changes – such as further amygdala sensitization (increasing hypervigilance and startle) or frontal cortex functional changes – can entrench maladaptive responses. Similarly, someone high in vulnerable narcissism could experience an endless cycle of ego threat in a harsh military hierarchy: frequent insults to their self-esteem (e.g. harsh criticism from superiors or failures in the field) keep their physiological stress arousal high. Over time, this may lead to chronic HPA axis activation and even immune impairment (as suggested by research on narcissism and health)j. The individual’s coping strategy might shift toward deeper withdrawal or defensive grandiosity, as their brain increasingly associates the environment with personal inadequacy. In space missions, the stressors are more social and sensory (loneliness, monotony, lack of privacy). An astronaut with covert narcissistic traits may initially manage by masking insecurity with professionalism, but the prolonged lack of external validation and the need to take orders in a confined setting can fray that mask. We might predict outbursts or depressive episodes if their fragile self-worth erodes under isolation – consistent with the idea that narcissistic individuals are vulnerable to destabilization when their usual supports (achievement, admiration) are removed.

For individuals with psychopathic traits, extreme environments can in some ways activate their strengths even as they amplify risks. In a combat zone, a psychopathic soldier’s low fear and blunted cortisol response can mean they remain remarkably calm under fire – a trait that might confer tactical advantage in firefights or high-pressure decisions. Indeed, psychopathy has been hypothesized as potentially adaptive in war fighters insofar as fearlessness and focus under threat are useful (Dutton, 2012). Such an individual might make swift, cool-headed decisions that others would be too paralyzed by fear to execute. However, the same lack of innate stress reactivity can lead to excessive risk-taking and lack of learning from dangerous near-misses. Normally, stress and fear serve as teachers to avoid reckless behavior, but a psychopathic person in a war zone might repeatedly volunteer for or initiate extremely risky maneuvers, underestimating threats (their underactive amygdala simply does not register what would terrify others). Over time, repeated exposure to violence and sanctioning of aggression can further desensitize neural responses to suffering – essentially reinforcing neural pathways that bypass empathic or fearful inhibition. Combat may thus deepen callousness: e.g. neural responses to viewing distress or pain in others, already low in psychopaths, might diminish further due to habituation. On the flip side, some psychopathic individuals might find that war provides a rewarding outlet for their dominance and thrill-seeking drives. Dopaminergic reward circuits could become tuned to the “high” of combat, making peaceful life feel dull and leading to difficulties adjusting after deployment.

Another aspect of extreme environments is moral and social context, which can amplify latent moral deficits. In war, the normal social sanctions against violence are lifted to an extent; killing enemy combatants is even rewarded. This can dangerously empower those with pre-existing moral deficits. A soldier high in psychopathic traits may take extreme actions with little guilt, possibly sliding into atrocities or war crimes because the environment provides both opportunity and justification (moral disengagement is easier when orders and ideology encourage dehumanizing the enemy). Research indicates that moral disengagementprocesses are heightened in military contexts – individuals convince themselves that ethical standards do not apply, through mechanisms like euphemistic labeling (“collateral damage” instead of killing civilians) and dehumanizing the opponent (Bandura, 1999). Those with narcissistic or psychopathic dispositions likely find these cognitive shifts easier to adopt. For example, narcissistic entitlement could amplify displacement of responsibility: “I deserve to come out on top; any collateral damage is not my fault.” A psychopathic individual may not even need to consciously disengage morals – lacking empathy, they naturally operate as if the moral constraints are irrelevant. Recent survey research by Gulevich et al. (2024) supports this: they found that Dark Triad traits (psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism) positively predicted support for excessive military violence, particularly violence targeting civilians, and that this relationship was mediated by moral disengagement cognitions (e.g. seeing the enemy as deserving of harm). In other words, those high in dark traits more readily endorse unethical uses of force, in part because they more readily turn off their moral self-regulation.

Extreme physical conditions might also play a role in amplifying these personalities. In space missions, factors like microgravity, confinement, and sensory deprivation can have subtle effects on the brain and behavior (Kanas, 2015). For instance, long-duration spaceflight can alter neurovestibular function and has been associated with changes in the volume of certain brain regions (e.g. fluid shifts affecting the frontal lobes). While speculative, one could imagine that an astronaut with borderline tendencies might experience exacerbated mood swings if neurological homeostasis is disturbed by the space environment (e.g. sleep cycle disruptions intensifying their emotional instability). Similarly, confinement stress might amplify a narcissist’s reactive anger when minor interpersonal frictions occur, as there is literally no escape or large social circle to dilute conflicts – every slight becomes a major issue. The concept of environmental neuroplasticity suggests that the brain will adapt to the stimuli it receives; in extreme settings, this adaptation might solidify the maladaptive patterns. For example, a team member who repeatedly must suppress empathy to carry out tasks (like a medic triaging who to save or a pilot bombing a target) might show reduced activation in empathy-related brain circuits over time – effectively, the environment is training a psychopathic-like response. In sum, extreme environments can push individuals with covert BPD/narcissistic or psychopathic traits deeper into their neuro-biological extremes, whether by overwhelming an already fragile emotion-regulation system, or by reinforcing a cold and fearless operating mode through repeated exposure and reward.

Behavioral Dynamics: Impulsivity, Moral Disengagement, and Group Disruption

The neurobiological tendencies described above manifest in distinct behavioral patterns that can significantly impact missions and teams. Three interconnected outcomes of interest are impulsivity, moral disengagement, and group disruption. Each is a potential liability in high-stakes environments, and individuals with borderline-narcissistic or psychopathic traits often exhibit these behaviors in exaggerated forms.

Heightened Impulsivity: Impulsivity – acting without adequate forethought or consideration of consequences – is common in both BPD and antisocial personality disorder. Under extreme stress, impulsivity can worsen. A person with borderline traits, flooded by intense emotion or fear in a war zone, might make rash decisions such as leaving a defensive position without orders or impulsively firing on a non-confirmed target out of anger or panic. Neurobiologically, surges of cortisol and catecholamines (fight-or-flight chemicals) can temporarily weaken prefrontal inhibitory control, effectively “hijacking” the brain into reactive mode. For someone whose baseline prefrontal regulation is already compromised (as in BPD or psychopathy), this stress-induced frontal impairment is amplified. For example, research has linked acute stress to reduced connectivity in frontal networks in antisocial individuals, which correlates with poorer executive function under pressure. Thus, in a crisis, these individuals are at elevated risk of acting first, thinking later. In space missions, an impulsive act could mean breaching protocol – e.g. a narcissistic individual might impulsively try a risky maneuver to prove their competence, or a borderline individual might in a moment of despair do something dangerous like disabling a system or ignoring a safety check. Impulsivity is also tied to thrill-seeking behavior. A psychopathic soldier, unperturbed by fear, may volunteer for needless high-risk raids or drive vehicles at reckless speeds, putting others at risk. While a certain level of bold action is valued in military contexts, when taken to extremes without coordination, it jeopardizes missions. It is worth noting that impulsivity in these personality disorders can sometimes be situationally advantageous – for instance, rapidly returning fire or seizing an unexpected opportunity in battle. However, the key issue is poor impulse control rather than calculated risk-taking. The challenge is that extreme settings continually provide triggers (anger, fear, provocation) that can ignite impulsive actions, so the baseline disinhibition of these individuals translates into real tactical and safety hazards.

Moral Disengagement and Ethical Violations: As noted, extreme environments often require actions that would normally be morally reprehensible (using lethal force, leaving a crewmate behind in a life-or-death scenario, etc.). Most people experience moral conflict and distress (which can manifest as PTSD or moral injury after the fact), but individuals high in narcissistic or psychopathic traits may more easily shed these moral restraints. Moral disengagement refers to the cognitive process of turning off one’s internal moral compass, and it operates through mechanisms like justifying one’s harmful actions, minimizing the harm done, or blaming the victim (Bandura, 1999). Psychopathic personalities, due to their empathy deficit and lack of guilt, often exhibit a chronic form of moral disengagement – they do not internalize societal moral rules strongly in the first place. In combat, this trait can manifest as unhesitating lethal forceeven in ambiguous situations (e.g. firing on possible civilians because it poses no psychological distress to err on the side of violence). Historical analyses of war crimes have sometimes pointed to psychopathic individuals as more willing participants in atrocities, as they are unencumbered by the remorse or horror that restrain others. Narcissistic individuals might engage in moral disengagement via entitlement (“the rules don’t apply to me or to us, we’re special”) and via blaming enemies or even subordinates for anything that goes wrong. Their need to maintain a grandiose self-image can lead to externalization of blame, a known mechanism in moral disengagement. For instance, if civilian casualties occur, a narcissistic commander might rationalize it as the fault of the enemy for hiding among civilians (attribution of blame), thereby avoiding any dent in their moral self-view. Furthermore, narcissistic and antisocial personalities are skilled at language that sanitizes wrongdoing. Euphemistic labeling – calling a heinous act by a neutral term – is easier when one’s own emotions are not strongly appalled by the act. Research on military aggression has found that individuals higher in the Dark Triad are more likely to endorse statements that reframe or minimize harm (e.g. agreeing that “collateral damage is just part of war”), indicating a disposition toward cognitive rationalization of violence (Gulevich et al., 2024). The behavioral outcome of such disengagement is an increased likelihood of unethical orders being followed (or given) and potentially illegal acts (excessive force, torture, etc.) being carried out. In space missions, moral disengagement might pertain to group relations – for example, scapegoating a crew member who is seen as “weak” or justifying ostracism or unequal treatment in order to preserve mission success. An individual with these traits could, under stress, treat a crewmate as less than human (dehumanization mechanism) if they perceive them as a liability, thus eroding the moral cohesion of the team.

Group Disruption and Cohesion Breakdown: Extreme environments require tight teamwork and mutual trust – in battle, soldiers rely on each other for survival; in space, astronauts depend on flawless cooperation. Unfortunately, the very traits we discuss often directly undermine group cohesion. Individuals with borderline-narcissistic traits can be interpersonally volatile: they may form intense attachments or idealize comrades one moment and then swiftly devalue or accuse them the next (a phenomenon known as splitting in BPD). In a deployed unit, such behavior can create confusion and conflict – one day a borderline individual might view a peer as a lifesaver and insist on going on patrol only with that person, but a minor misunderstanding could trigger an angry outburst or feelings of betrayal, leading them to ostracize or even sabotage that same peer. This rollercoaster of loyalty and enmity can fracture the trust that is essential in combat units. Moreover, the chronic fear of abandonment in BPD might lead a soldier to overreact to any perceived sign of being left out (for instance, reacting violently to a rumor of reassignment or interpreting a delayed radio call as intentional neglect). The narcissistic side of a “covert” narcissist-borderline individual might manifest as sensitive pridewithin the team – they may demand recognition for successes and react poorly to constructive criticism, undermining the team’s learning and adaptation. They might also engage in one-upmanship or create divisions (seeking allies in the group who affirm their worth and demonizing those who don’t).

Those with psychopathic traits can be even more directly group-disruptive. Lacking empathy and prone to manipulation, psychopathic individuals in a team might exploit or deceive teammates for personal gain or amusement. In the military context, trust is literally a life-or-death matter; a psychopath’s egocentric decisions (such as hoarding supplies, shirking duty, or using others as “bait”) can put the whole unit at risk. Empirical research underscores the impact of psychopathic traits on group functioning: in an experimental study simulating group cooperation (using a repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma game), groups with a higher proportion of individuals high in psychopathic traits showed significantly lower cooperation levels than groups composed of low-psychopathy individuals (Testori et al., 2019). The presence of psychopathic personalities essentially eroded the group’s ability to work together for mutual benefit. Similarly, field observations suggest that highly psychopathic soldiers may ignore team protocols and act unilaterally, breaking the coordination needed in combat. They might also bully or intimidate more vulnerable team members (since callous aggression is a feature), which can destroy morale. In astronaut crews, while open psychopathy would likely be filtered out in selection, even subclinical features – like low empathy or thrill-seeking – could upset the delicate balance of expedition behavior. A crew member with these tendencies might violate safety rules for a personal experiment or fail to perform crucial supportive roles (like checking on a struggling crewmate) due to lack of concern, thereby weakening team resilience.

Narcissistic leaders in particular can poison group culture. If someone high in narcissism is in a position of authority (say a mission commander or unit leader), research shows they tend to foster conflictual, low-cohesion environments. They often make everything about themselves (“When me trumps we,” as one study title says) and react with hostility to dissent, leading to a culture of fear or sycophancy rather than honest communication. Chatman et al. (2020) found that organizations led by narcissistic CEOs exhibited lower collaboration and integrity at all levels; narcissistic leaders “infect” their groups by encouraging a climate of competition and self-interest instead of teamwork. Translating to a space or military setting, a narcissistic leader might undervalue crucial input from experts (“doesn’t listen to others” syndrome), make strategic decisions to glorify personal image rather than optimize mission goals, and fail to establish norms of respect and fairness. Over time, subordinates may mirror these toxic behaviors (or at least disengage from giving their best), resulting in a breakdown of unit cohesion and effectiveness. Even after such a leader is gone, the damage to the group’s culture can linger. For example, a military unit might develop an enduring habit of cutting corners or an every-person-for-themselves mentality if led by a narcissist who rewarded those who flattered him and punished those who questioned him.

In summary, the behavioral dynamics in extreme environments for these personality types tend to skew towards increased risk and decreased group stability. Impulsivity can lead to tactical errors or accidents; moral disengagement can lead to breaches of rules of engagement or mission ethics; and disruptive interpersonal behavior can reduce unit/crew performance and increase the likelihood of mission failure. It is crucial to note, however, that not all manifestations are negative in every circumstance. A degree of fearless impulsivity might occasionally save lives (for instance, an antisocial-leaning soldier running through gunfire to rescue a comrade without hesitating). Also, moral disengagement might shield an individual from crippling guilt that could otherwise make them ineffective (some detachment is necessary for soldiers to function in war). And a narcissistic leader’s grandiosity could inspire a team if coupled with genuine vision and if kept in check by other team members. The key challenge is moderation and control – traits that in moderation might be manageable or even beneficial become dangerous at extremes, especially when compounded by the pressures of extreme environments.

Implications and Conclusion

Understanding the interplay between these personality traits and extreme environments has practical implications for selection, training, and support of individuals in military and aerospace contexts. First, it suggests that screening and selection processes should continue to rigorously evaluate candidates for severe personality pathologies. Organizations like the military and space agencies typically have psychological evaluations; this research underlines the importance of detecting traits like unchecked narcissism, borderline instability, or psychopathic tendencies that could be detrimental. For instance, long-duration space missions require crew members who are resilient, cooperative, and stable under isolation. Selecting out a candidate with covert narcissistic-borderline traits (who might hide pathology in short-term assessments but could become unstable over time) may prevent major mission disruptions. In military recruitment, while mild psychopathic traits (fearlessness, stress tolerance) might be advantageous in special operations forces, one must be cautious about individuals with high antisocial tendencies assuming leadership roles or positions where ethical judgment is paramount.

Second, for individuals with these traits who are already in service or selected (either because their traits were subtle or developed later), targeted training and monitoring can mitigate risks. Stress inoculation training, for example, might help those with borderline traits by gradually acclimating them to high-stress stimuli and teaching emotion-regulation strategies (breathing techniques, cognitive reframing) to use in the field. Likewise, ethics training that emphasizes empathy and the rules of engagement could counteract an inherent tendency toward moral disengagement. In the military, clear leadership oversight and mentorship can help keep a narcissistic or psychopathic-leaning individual in check – for instance, pairing them in teams where another member has high agreeableness and can model cooperative behavior, or rotating roles to prevent power from consolidating with a toxic leader. Unit cohesion drills and frank discussions about interpersonal dynamics could surface issues early; research shows strong unit cohesion itself is protective against misconduct and even lowers PTSD risk post-deployment (Brailey et al., 2007). If a team knows one member has a “difficult” personality, they can be taught strategies to manage conflict (e.g. not taking bait during provocations, setting firm boundaries, and reporting concerns up the chain of command).

From a neuroscience perspective, interventions that target physiological regulation might be especially useful. For instance, if we know a narcissistic individual has an exaggerated cortisol response to ego-threat, training them in biofeedback or mindfulness could potentially reduce that physiological spike, thereby preventing an overreaction. Similarly, for psychopathic individuals with blunted stress responses, certain stimulant or adrenergic medications (in controlled scenarios) could be explored to ensure they have appropriate arousal in critical moments (though this is speculative and ethically complex). There is emerging interest in pharmacological interventions that increase empathy or social bonding (e.g. oxytocin) – theoretically, such approaches could be tested in controlled ways to see if they improve team dynamics for individuals with low empathy. However, one must tread carefully; changing someone’s fundamental personality is difficult, and the emphasis should likely remain on managing behavior rather than expecting to alter core traits.

Leadership doctrine and policy might also be informed by these insights. For example, the military could implement ethical risk assessments before high-pressure deployments. If a unit has several members with identified antisocial tendencies, commanders might proactively enforce stricter rules of engagement and monitor for any signs of misconduct, knowing those individuals are at higher risk of crossing lines. NASA, in planning long-term missions to Mars, is actively researching team composition – our discussion suggests that even a single member with poor impulse control or antagonistic traits could jeopardize an entire mission. Thus, crew assignments might benefit from psychological “mix” considerations, ensuring balanced personalities (previous NASA analog studies have noted that crews with too many dominant personalities fare poorly). If exclusion isn’t feasible, perhaps autonomous mission protocols can be designed to minimize the chances for an impulsive human error – for instance, critical spacecraft controls could have built-in delays or require consensus from multiple crew members, to prevent a single impetuous actor from doing harm.

Lastly, this line of inquiry has implications for post-mission/post-deployment support. Individuals with these personality traits may have different trajectories of post-traumatic adjustment. A psychopathic individual might have lower incidence of classic PTSD (since they are less affected by fear conditioning), but they could have other problems such as sustaining violent behaviors or struggling to reintegrate into civilian life with any sort of structure. Borderline and narcissistic individuals might experience severe depression or identity crises after leaving an extreme environment – a narcissist who thrived on the adrenaline and clear purpose of war could feel aimless and react with irritability or substance abuse (the “hero to zero” problem). Mental health services should tailor approaches: for example, therapy for a returning veteran with narcissistic traits might focus on finding new, healthy sources of esteem and teaching humility and coping with frustration, whereas for someone with borderline traits, therapy might focus on processing traumas and establishing stable relationships outside the context of deployment.

In conclusion, the convergence of modern neuroscience and psychology provides a deeper understanding of how covert borderline-narcissistic and psychopathic personality features play out in the most demanding environments humans face. Key brain systems – from the fear circuits of the amygdala to the self-regulatory circuits of the prefrontal cortex – underlie the emotional storms of borderline personality, the defensive grandiosity of narcissism, and the cold-hearted decisiveness of psychopathy. When the heat of battle or the loneliness of space presses on these systems, they shape behavior in powerful ways: sometimes leading to heroism and cool competence, but often courting disaster through unchecked impulsivity, breakdown of moral judgment, or corrosive effects on team unity. By recognizing these patterns, organizations can better prepare and respond – selecting the right individuals, equipping them with tools to manage their tendencies, structuring teams and missions to mitigate risks, and providing support when needed. This synthesis of research underscores that extreme environments act as a magnifying glass for personality: illuminating both the vulnerabilities and the potentials that lie within individual brains. Ongoing research – particularly prospective studies in military cohorts and analog space habitats – will be crucial to further unravel these complex interactions and help ensure both mission success and the well-being of those who venture into extremes.

References

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209bpastudies.org bpastudies.org.

Chatman, J. A., O’Reilly, C. A., & Doerr, B. (2020). When “me” trumps “we”: Narcissistic leaders and the cultures they create. Academy of Management Discoveries (in press)newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu.

Gulevich, O., Osin, E. N., & Chernov, D. (2024). Dark Triad and the attitude toward military violence against civilians: The role of moral disengagement. European Journal of Social Psychology, 54(6), 1127–1140researchgate.net researchgate.net.

Hansenne, M., Pitchot, W., & Ansseau, M. (2002). Serotonin, personality and borderline personality disorder. Acta Neuropsychiatrica, 14(2), 66–70pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

Johnson, M. M., et al. (2015). The association between affective psychopathic traits and cortisol response to stress. Hormones and Behavior, 72, 20–27pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

Jauk, E., & Kanske, P. (2021). Can neuroscience help to understand narcissism? A systematic review of an emerging field. Personality Neuroscience, 4, e3pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

Landay, K., & Frieder, R. E. (2018). Cold-blooded killers? Rethinking psychopathy in the military. In Occupational Stress and Well-Being in Military Contexts (Vol. 16, pp. 23–47)digitalcommons.unf.edu.

Lis, E., Greenfield, B., Henry, M., Guile, J. M., & Dougherty, G. (2007). Neuroimaging and genetics of borderline personality disorder: a review. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience, 32(3), 162–173pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

Reinhard, D. A., Konrath, S., Lopez, W. D., & Cameron, H. G. (2012). Expensive egos: Narcissistic males have higher cortisol. PLoS ONE, 7(1), e30858journals.plos.org journals.plos.org.

Schulze, L., et al. (2013). Gray matter abnormalities in patients with narcissistic personality disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 47(10), 1363–1369psychcentral.com psychcentral.com.

Testori, M., Hoyle, R. B., & Eisenbarth, H. (2019). How group composition affects cooperation in fixed networks: Can psychopathic traits influence group dynamics? Royal Society Open Science, 6(3), 181329pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.