Reality Testing Is the First Forensic Question

Cole Allen, the suspect in the 2026 White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting, apologized to his parents in an email sent ten minutes before the attack. That apology is the clinical tell. It indicates intact reality testing, intact cognitive empathy, and an ideologically organized internal value system that overrode affective weight. It is the signature of personality-style violence, not psychotic-spectrum violence. Reality testing, the capacity to distinguish internal mental states from external reality, is the first forensic question in any case of human-caused harm. From political violence to everyday narcissistic abuse, the question of whether the perpetrator was perceiving the world as it is or perceiving a different one determines everything about the case that follows. This is the clinical field guide.

Reality is supposed to be the floor. The thing you can stand on. The shared agreement that the table is where the table is, that the conversation we just had is the conversation we just had, that the thing you remember happening is the thing that actually happened.

When someone you trust lies to you, repeatedly, over months or years, and their reality is fully intact the entire time, they know exactly what they are doing, it does not just hurt. It erodes your reality testing. The thing you stand on starts to feel less solid. You begin to wonder if your memory is right. If your perception is right. If the version of events you carry in your body is the version that occurred. That is what betrayal trauma is. That is what it does.¹

I am going to write this piece carefully. I am going to write it with the people in my caseload in mind, the ones who came to clinical work after their reality was attacked by someone whose own reality testing was never the problem. I am also going to write it with the public-record case of Cole Allen in mind, because the clinical question his case raises, the question of whether this is a personality-style presentation or a psychotic-spectrum presentation, has the same answer at its core. The answer is reality testing. And the way you read reality testing in a forensic context is the same way you read it in a betrayal-trauma context, except the axis is reversed. In a forensic case, the perpetrator’s reality testing is the question. In a betrayal-trauma case, the survivor’s reality testing is the question. Both depend on the same underlying clinical construct.

This is going to take some space.

Reality Testing Is the First Forensic Question

In thirteen years of clinical work across acute psychiatric settings, forensic Assertive Community Treatment teams, thirteen dialysis clinics, transplant social work, substance abuse treatment, and the Salvation Army’s Hurricane Sandy disaster response, the first question I have ever asked about a person whose behavior raised a forensic flag is the same question. Is this person perceiving the world as it is, or are they perceiving a different one?

That question is reality testing.²

Reality testing is the capacity to distinguish internal mental states (thoughts, feelings, fantasies, beliefs, intrusions) from external reality (what is actually happening in the world that other people share). It is one of the foundational ego functions in psychoanalytic theory and is operationalized in modern forensic and clinical psychiatry as the central question separating personality-organization-level psychopathology from psychotic-organization-level psychopathology. It is preserved in personality disorders, in neurotic-level functioning, and in most mood disorders. It is impaired, intermittently or persistently, in psychotic disorders.³

The reason this matters first, before any question about diagnosis or motive or character, is that reality testing determines what kind of case the case actually is. Forensic evaluators ask it first because it gates everything that follows. The competency-to-stand-trial assessment under 18 USC § 4241.⁴ The insanity-defense determination under M’Naghten or the ALI Model Penal Code §4.01.⁵ The treatment path. The legal disposition. The public-safety calculation. The risk of repeat. None of those questions can be answered without first answering whether the person was operating in shared reality at the time of the act.

There is a related but distinct axis that gets confused with reality testing in public discussion of these cases. That axis is empathy, specifically the distinction between cognitive empathy and affective empathy. Cognitive empathy is the capacity to understand another person’s mental state, to anticipate their experience, to read what they are feeling and why. Affective empathy is the felt resonance, the somatic uptake, the experience of being moved by another person’s experience.⁶ These two functions can dissociate. Personality-style violence and abuse typically involves cognitive empathy intact (the perpetrator knows what you are feeling) and affective empathy bypassed or absent (the perpetrator does not feel the weight of what they are doing to you, or feels it and overrides it on the basis of an internal value calculus that places self-narrative above your experience). Psychotic-spectrum violence typically involves both empathic functions distorted by the underlying perceptual disorganization, because the perpetrator is responding to a different perceived reality entirely.

The combination of intact reality testing plus cognitive empathy intact plus affective empathy bypassed is the architectural signature of personality-style harm. This is true at every tier of the antagonistic personality pyramid, from the explosive narcissistic parent at the bottom to the apex psychopath running a multi-decade fraud at the top. It is the through-line. It is also why the harm done at every tier of this pyramid is harder to integrate clinically than the harm done by psychotic-spectrum violence, which is genuinely random in a way that personality-style harm is not.

Now to Cole Allen.

What Cole Allen’s Apology to His Parents Tells Us

A few facts from the public record. Cole Tomas Allen, 31, of Torrance, California, is the suspect in the April 25, 2026 attempted assassination of President Trump outside the White House Correspondents’ Dinner at the Washington Hilton.⁷ He has been charged with attempt to assassinate the President, interstate transportation of firearms, and discharge of a firearm during a violent crime, and faces life in prison if convicted.⁸ He has not entered a plea. The Goldwater Rule applies in full force across the body of this article.⁹ I am not offering a diagnostic opinion. I am naming observable patterns in his reported public conduct, with citations to the original reporting. That distinction is ethically and legally load-bearing and I am going to honor it line by line.

Allen earned a mechanical engineering degree from the California Institute of Technology in 2017. He earned a master’s in computer science from California State University, Dominguez Hills in 2025. He worked part-time as a teacher at C2 Education, a tutoring service in Torrance, beginning in March 2020, where he received a Teacher of the Month award in December 2024. He was also a self-employed video game developer. By every public report from family, employer, and federal court filings, his functioning baseline was high and sustained over eight or more years.¹⁰

His sister told law enforcement that Allen had a tendency to make radical statements and that his rhetoric constantly referenced a plan to do something to fix what he saw as wrong with the world. She described him as highly intelligent, shy, socially reclusive, and a former devoted Christian. She reported that he had become involved in left-wing activism in Los Angeles, attended a No Kings protest, joined a network called The Wide Awakes, purchased two handguns and a shotgun, stored them at his parents’ home without their knowledge, and began regularly practicing at a firing range.¹¹

According to the FBI affidavit filed in support of the federal charges, Allen sent an email to members of his family approximately ten minutes before initiating the attack. The email specified grievances against Trump administration officials and policies, including immigration detentions, U.S. strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, the bombing of a girls’ school in Iran, and the Epstein scandal. In the email, Allen apologized to his parents and stated that he believed it was his duty to target Trump administration officials.¹² He had earlier referred to himself as a “friendly federal assassin.”¹³ After his arrest he told FBI agents he did not expect to live.¹⁴ Federal Election Commission records indicate he donated $25 to the ActBlue Democratic PAC for Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign in October 2024. Extremism analysts noted there is no public indication that Allen was steeped in conspiratorial thinking.¹⁵

That is the record as of the writing of this article on May 5, 2026. The clinical reading of that record, with reality testing as the first axis, is the following.

Sustained high-functioning over eight or more years is not consistent with first-break psychotic decompensation. First-break psychotic disorders in the schizophrenia spectrum typically present in late adolescence to mid-twenties for men, with prodromal functional decline visible to family, employers, and academic institutions over months before the acute episode.¹⁶ Completing a Caltech engineering degree in 2017, sustaining tutoring employment with a Teacher of the Month award in late 2024, and finishing a master’s degree in 2025 is incompatible with the functional trajectory of acute psychosis through that same period. Whatever the forensic evaluation will determine, it will not determine that Allen’s behavior in the months preceding the attack was the product of perceptual disorganization that other observers in his life would have noticed.

Multi-month organized planning is not consistent with psychotic-spectrum violence. Psychotic-spectrum violence is typically reactive, disorganized, defensive within a delusional frame, and cognitively chaotic in its execution.¹⁷ Acquiring three firearms over time, storing them concealed, practicing at a firing range, scouting the target hotel, drafting a structured grievance email with multi-point policy critique, and timing a delivery to family ten minutes before the action is the operational profile of an organized, reality-testing-intact actor working from an internal ideology.

The grievance email is itself a clinical document. Coherent multi-point policy critique requires intact reality testing. The targets cited (immigration detentions, drug-strike policy, Iran bombing, Epstein) are real, publicly reported policy and political controversies, not delusional content. Allen is not describing aliens, microchips, or messages from God. He is describing political grievances that have been the subject of mainstream news coverage. His value calculus diverges from social consensus on whether those grievances justify violence, but his perception of the grievances is anchored in shared reality.¹⁸

The apology to his parents is the clinical tell.

A psychotic actor in a delusional frame typically does not apologize to his parents for hurting them, because the action is experienced as salvific within the delusional frame. The actor believes he is saving the world, stopping the Antichrist, defending against a hallucinated threat. From inside the delusion, the parents are part of the salvation, not the cost. There is no apology because there is no cost. The apology is structurally incompatible with the delusional architecture. The fact that Allen apologized to his parents means he registered the cost. He could anticipate their grief. He retained sufficient affective signal to acknowledge the weight of what he was about to do to them. His cognitive empathy was operating at a level that allowed him to model his parents’ experience and address it. His affective empathy was sufficiently present to load the apology with felt content rather than write a flat strategic note.

This is not the profile of apex psychopathy either. Apex psychopaths typically do not produce affectively loaded family apologies before action.¹⁹ They write strategic notes, manifestos, or nothing. The presence of an apology that addresses parental grief specifically argues that the affective register was not flat at the limbic level. It argues that ideology overrode affect rather than that affect was structurally absent.

What the apology rules out, in combination with the other reported facts, is severe psychotic-spectrum violence on one end and apex psychopathy on the other. What it leaves on the table, pending forensic evaluation, is some form of personality-organization presentation in which reality testing was intact, cognitive empathy was intact, an internal ideological value system overrode the affective weight of the harm, and the harm was experienced as morally justified by an internal calculus that places the cause above the cost. That zone of presentation is what the clinical literature calls the antagonistic personality spectrum, and within that spectrum it sits in a specific tier with specific features and a specific forensic profile.

I am going to map that pyramid in the next section. Before I do, I want to spend a moment on what severe mood-disorder and psychotic-spectrum violence actually looks like in clinical settings, because the contrast is what makes the rest of the field guide legible.

What Severe Psychotic-Spectrum Violence Actually Looks Like

I have worked with severe mood disorders and psychotic-spectrum disorders in inpatient psychiatric settings, on forensic Assertive Community Treatment teams, and in substance abuse treatment where stimulant-induced psychosis was a regular clinical reality. I have sat with patients in active psychosis. I have sat with families of patients whose first break presented as violence. The presentation is not what the public imagination thinks it is.

The hallmark of severe mood-disorder violence and psychotic-spectrum violence is not grievance. It is not organized planning. It is distorted perception. The voice in the room that is not there. The certainty that the news anchor on television is sending personal messages encoded in word choice. The belief that the medication being prescribed is poison. The conviction that a family member has been replaced by an identical-looking impostor (Capgras delusion). The conviction that a hidden organization is tracking the person through a microchip implanted during a routine medical procedure. The certainty that the targets of an action are not human in the actor’s perceived experience, or are evil entities in human form, or are part of a salvific narrative the actor is uniquely positioned to enact.²⁰

When violence occurs in this context, it is typically reactive, urgent, defensive, and chaotic. It does not involve months of planning. It does not involve target scouting and means acquisition stored at an unsuspecting parent’s home. It does not involve coherent multi-point policy grievance letters. It does not involve apologies to family members because the family members are part of the perceived salvific frame. The actor is in a different reality. The action makes sense in that reality. The action does not need an apology in that reality because the action is the right thing to do in that reality.

The functional decline preceding psychotic-spectrum violence is also visible to others. Schizophrenia first-break in men typically presents with prodromal symptoms over months: social withdrawal, declining academic or work performance, unusual ideation surfacing in conversation, sleep disturbance, sometimes self-isolation, sometimes increasing odd behavior noticed by family.²¹ The collateral history from family and employers is almost always available and almost always shows the slope downward. This is why psychiatric admission protocols rely so heavily on collateral. The patient in active psychosis often cannot accurately report their own history. The family can.

In Cole Allen’s case, the collateral history reported in the public record does not show that slope. The sister describes radicalization, ideological drift, sustained employment, sustained academic completion through 2025, and a coherent (if increasingly extreme) value system. The employer reports a Teacher of the Month award four months before the attack. There is no public reporting from family, employer, or any other collateral source describing prodromal psychotic symptoms, hallucinations, delusional content, disorganized speech, or acute functional decline.²² The ideology is present and visible. The psychosis is not.

This contrast is the foundation for the field guide that follows. The remainder of this article is going to map the pyramid of antagonistic personality styles, explain the inverted aggregate-trauma calculation that determines which tier of the pyramid causes the most clinical work in a private practice population, walk through the mask-of-sanity construct and what modern neuroscience has confirmed about the internal-external split in apex presentations, and return to where Cole Allen sits in that pyramid and why the clinical understanding of his case matters for the people in my caseload who are recovering from much more common forms of antagonistic-personality harm.

The Pyramid of Antagonistic Personality Styles

The clinical literature on antagonistic personality disorders has been organizing around two axes for forty years: self-regulation capacity and damage scope. The two axes track inversely. The better the self-regulation, the wider the damage scope, because regulation is what enables sustained planning, target selection, and concealment. The worse the self-regulation, the narrower the per-incident damage scope, because dysregulation is its own leash. The screaming narcissist at Thanksgiving dinner is bounded by their own inability to keep the act together. The apex psychopath running a thirty-year fraud is unbounded because they keep the act together for thirty years.

Across that two-axis space, the antagonistic personality presentations sort into a pyramid with five tiers. I am going to walk through each tier with reference to prevalence, scope, recognizability, and internal-state profile, drawing on DSM-5-TR criteria, the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised research base, Otto Kernberg’s clinical work on personality organization, and population-prevalence data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) where available. Reality testing is intact at every tier. That is the through-line. What changes is the relationship between regulation, scope, and visibility.

Tier 1 (Base) — Everyday Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Subclinical Antagonistic Features

Narcissistic Personality Disorder, DSM-5-TR diagnostic code 301.81, is defined by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy beginning by early adulthood, with five or more of nine specific criteria including grandiose sense of self-importance, preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, beliefs of being special, requirement of excessive admiration, sense of entitlement, interpersonal exploitation, lack of empathy, envy, and arrogant behaviors.²³ The lifetime prevalence in the U.S. general population, per Stinson and colleagues’ 2008 analysis of NESARC Wave 2 data, is 6.2 percent, with higher rates among men, younger cohorts, and divorced or separated individuals. Subclinical narcissistic features that fall short of full diagnostic threshold but produce comparable interpersonal harm are present in an additional 5 to 10 percent of the population by most estimates.²⁴

Self-regulation at this tier is low. The narcissistic injury cycle is the central regulatory failure: any perceived slight, criticism, or withdrawal of admiration produces an acute affective dysregulation event (rage, contempt, devaluation, withdrawal, sometimes manipulative self-harm threats), followed by attempts to repair the supply through grandiosity, charm, or further exploitation of the same target. The cycle is observable. The regulation is not.

Damage scope is narrow per event but extensive over time. The damage at this tier is dyadic and small-group: spousal, parental, sibling, close-workplace. The narcissistic parent traumatizes their children. The narcissistic spouse traumatizes their partner. The narcissistic boss traumatizes their direct reports. The chaos is visible to neighbors, in-laws, and HR departments, but the harm is structural to the relationships, not actionable in the legal sense. Most of the trauma I see in clinical work comes from this tier. Most of the betrayal-trauma cases. Most of the complex PTSD presentations. Most of the disorganized-attachment childhood histories. This tier is the bulk of the caseload, not the rare apex case.

Recognizability is high. Everyone in the family or friend group knows. The fights at family gatherings are recurring data points. The pattern is named privately. It is rarely named clinically because the person is not the patient (the survivor is) and the field’s diagnostic discipline (Goldwater Rule, professional ethics) prevents naming the absent person.

Internal state is unstable. The grandiose self-organization is fragile. Underneath the grandiosity is what Kernberg described as a primitive split between an idealized self-representation and a devalued self-representation, with the integration capacity that ordinarily produces a coherent self-experience missing or weak.²⁵ The narcissist is not internally regulated. They are externally inflated. The inflation is what produces the chaos: any pinprick deflates the structure, and the rage, withdrawal, or manipulation that follows is the regulatory failure made visible.

Tier 2 (Lower-Middle) — Borderline-Narcissistic Blend with Antagonistic Features

Borderline Personality Disorder, DSM-5-TR code 301.83, has a U.S. lifetime prevalence of 1.6 percent in the population per NESARC, with higher rates in clinical samples.²⁶ BPD is not in itself an antagonistic disorder; the diagnostic core is affective instability, identity disturbance, abandonment-driven relational chaos, and impulsivity. Many BPD presentations are not antagonistic at all and produce primarily self-directed harm. But there is a clinically recognizable subset, sometimes described in the literature as the borderline-narcissistic or antagonistic-borderline presentation, where the affective dysregulation of BPD combines with the entitlement and exploitation patterns of NPD to produce a multi-relational chaos pattern that exceeds either disorder alone.

This tier is responsible for what looks like serial relational dysfunction, repeated workplace blowups, family-system destabilization across multiple generations, and the chaotic-charming-cruel cycle that characterizes the most disorganizing forms of intimate-partner abuse. The regulation profile is low to moderate, with episodes of acute dysregulation interrupted by sustained periods of organized exploitation. The damage scope is multi-relational and accumulates across decades.

Recognizability is moderate. The chaos is visible but the charm is intermittent enough to maintain plausible deniability. Friends and extended family often see the survivor as the problem because they only catch glimpses of the behavior, while the survivor lives in the continuous version. Internal state is affectively dysregulated and interpersonally exploitative simultaneously, which is clinically the hardest combination to treat because the dysregulation argues for emotion-regulation skill-building (DBT, the Linehan approach) while the exploitation argues for character-disturbance-aware confrontation (the Simon approach), and integrated treatment models that hold both ends remain rare in the clinical training pipeline.²⁷

Tier 3 (Middle) — Antisocial Personality Disorder with Reasonable Regulation

Antisocial Personality Disorder, DSM-5-TR code 301.7, has a U.S. lifetime prevalence of approximately 3.6 percent per NESARC, with substantially higher rates in incarcerated populations.²⁸ The diagnostic core is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15, with three or more of seven specific criteria including failure to conform to social norms, deceitfulness, impulsivity, irritability and aggressiveness, reckless disregard for safety, consistent irresponsibility, and lack of remorse.

Self-regulation in ASPD ranges widely. The diagnostic criteria emphasize impulsivity, but a meaningful subset of ASPD presents with reasonable behavioral regulation in stake-controlled contexts (the person who steals from work but does not steal in front of police, the person who abuses a partner privately but presents professionally in public). This subset is the bridge from the chaotic lower-middle tier to the planned, sustained patterns of the upper-middle and apex tiers.

Damage scope at this tier expands beyond the dyadic. Workplace fraud, multi-victim domestic abuse with planning components, repeated criminal patterns that fall short of organized crime, and the predatory friendship/family pattern (the relative who exploits multiple family members across decades for money, housing, or labor) are characteristic. The recognizability is moderate to low: in respectable contexts the presentation is concealed, in less-respectable contexts the pattern is obvious to anyone watching.

Internal state at this tier is the cleanest match for what the public imagines when it hears “sociopath.” Antisocial values are intact and ego-syntonic. Empathy at the affective level is reduced or absent. Reality testing is intact. Cognitive empathy is intact (they can read the room). The combination produces calculated harm with an internal ethical framework that does not match social consensus but is internally coherent.

Tier 4 (Upper-Middle) — Malignant Narcissism

Malignant narcissism is the clinical construct introduced by Otto Kernberg, combining four features in a single presentation: pathological narcissism (grandiose self-organization at the personality-disorder level), antisocial features (exploitation, rule violation, willingness to harm for instrumental ends), paranoid features (suspicion, externalized blame, perception of self as righteously persecuted), and ego-syntonic aggression (the actor experiences harming others as morally aligned with self-narrative rather than as a violation of self-concept).²⁹ It is not a separate DSM diagnostic entity. It is a clinical configuration that sits at the intersection of NPD, ASPD, paranoid features, and grandiose ideation, with regulation capacity that exceeds Tier 1 and damage scope that exceeds Tier 3.

This is the zone of cult leaders, controlling executives, ideologically driven political-violence actors, and the high-conflict family patriarch or matriarch who runs a multi-generational system of harm with the conviction that they are righteously correct. The regulation capacity allows for sustained planning over months or years. The grandiose self-organization provides the narrative scaffolding. The paranoid features supply the grievance. The ego-syntonic aggression removes the internal friction that would slow a less-organized perpetrator.

Cole Allen sits in this tier on the public record. He has the sustained functioning capacity (Caltech engineering, master’s completion 2025, employment award December 2024). He has the grandiose self-organization (the “friendly federal assassin” self-label, the assumption of personal duty to act). He has the paranoid feature in the sense Kernberg meant: a sustained narrative in which the grievance was real, escalating, and required corrective action by him personally. He has the ego-syntonic aggression: the apology to his parents was for the cost of the action to them, not for the rightness of the action itself. The action was right within his frame. The cost was real but acceptable. This is exactly the configuration Kernberg describes, with the further detail that ideologically organized malignant narcissism (rather than purely self-interested malignant narcissism) directs the aggression toward symbolic targets representing the source of the grievance.

Recognizability is low. Malignant narcissists in upper-middle positions are typically described by the people around them as “intense,” “demanding,” “principled,” or “uncompromising” rather than as personality-disordered. The pattern looks like leadership until the moment it metastasizes into action. Internal state is the combination Kernberg named: grandiose plus paranoid plus ego-syntonically aggressive, with the regulation capacity to operationalize the configuration without internal conflict.

Tier 5 (Apex) — Successful Psychopathy

The apex of the pyramid is the configuration the literature calls successful psychopathy: high scores on Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised Factor 1 (interpersonal/affective: glibness, grandiosity, lack of remorse, lack of empathy, shallow affect, callousness, failure to accept responsibility) combined with low to moderate scores on Factor 2 (lifestyle/antisocial: impulsivity, irresponsibility, criminal versatility).³⁰ Hare Factor 1 is the core moral-affective dysregulation. Hare Factor 2 is the lifestyle-and-impulsivity dimension. When Factor 1 is high and Factor 2 is low, the result is the executive, the surgeon, the financier, the senior cleric, the long-running serial perpetrator. Population prevalence estimates for full psychopathy are typically 0.5 to 1.0 percent in the general population, with the “successful” subtype representing a fraction of that.³¹

Self-regulation at this tier is the highest in the pyramid. The person is meticulous, sustained, strategic, and externally controlled. The damage scope is the largest in the pyramid: vast, multi-decade, multi-victim, sometimes generational. Bernard Madoff’s investors. Ted Bundy’s victims. The CEO whose company causes mass harm to consumers, communities, or workers and who continues operating until either caught or never caught. The recognizability is the lowest in the pyramid until the moment the mask drops, which sometimes does not occur within the actor’s lifetime.

The internal state at this tier is the part the public imagination gets most wrong. The mask is most extreme at the apex, but the underlying impairment is also most extreme. The next section explains the neuroscience and clinical history of that distinction.

The Inverted Damage Calculation

Public discourse about antagonistic personality treats the pyramid as if damage scaled with tier visibility: the apex psychopath generates the most trauma because the apex psychopath does the most spectacular harm. The clinical population data shows the opposite. The damage calculation inverts at the population level once you weight per-incident scope against prevalence, proximity, and duration.

The per-incident scope at the apex is enormous. Tens to hundreds of victims for serial-violence presentations, hundreds to millions of victims for financial-fraud or corporate-harm presentations. The per-incident scope at the base is small: one spouse, four children, a dozen direct reports across a career.

The prevalence at the apex is rare. Successful psychopathy is a fraction of one percent of the general population. The prevalence at the base is common: 6.2 percent NPD lifetime per NESARC, plus an additional 5 to 10 percent subclinical antagonistic features, plus the borderline-narcissistic blend at meaningful additional rates. Between 10 and 20 percent of the general population presents with one of the lower-tier configurations across a lifetime.³²

The proximity at the apex is usually distant. The CEO of a fraudulent company is not in the household of the people whose retirement savings are wiped out. The serial-violence offender, by definition, is geographically distributed across victims who may not know one another. The proximity at the base is maximum. The everyday narcissistic parent IS the household. The everyday narcissistic spouse IS the partner. The everyday narcissistic boss IS the workplace. The proximity is total, the duration is decade-scale, and the exposure is daily.

The duration at the apex is bounded by capture or death. The Madoff Ponzi ran for decades but was bounded. The serial offender was bounded by capture. The duration at the base is unbounded by anything except mortality and physical separation. The narcissistic parent is the parent for the entire developmental period of the child. The narcissistic spouse is the spouse for the entire marriage. The dysregulation cascade through the family system extends multi-generationally because the children of a narcissistic parent often pick traumatized partners, raise children whose attachment systems are themselves disorganized by exposure to a parent whose own attachment was disorganized, and produce a generational arc where the original perpetrator is dead before the harm finishes propagating.³³

The math is straightforward. Aggregate trauma at the population level equals per-incident scope multiplied by prevalence multiplied by proximity multiplied by duration. The apex contributes a small number of high-scope cases. The base contributes a vast number of moderate-scope cases at maximum proximity for decade-scale durations. The base wins the aggregate calculation by orders of magnitude.

This is why most clinical work in private practice with personality-disorder-related trauma is bottom-tier work. The patients I see who are recovering from narcissistic abuse, betrayal trauma, complex PTSD, family-of-origin dysfunction, attachment disorganization, and identity erosion through chronic gaslighting are not, with rare exceptions, recovering from apex psychopathy. They are recovering from the everyday narcissistic parent, the everyday borderline-narcissistic-blend partner, the everyday workplace bully whose pattern fit Tier 2 or Tier 3 of this pyramid. The trauma is the same architecture (intact reality testing in the perpetrator, eroded reality testing in the survivor through chronic exposure), the recovery is the same clinical process (restoring the survivor’s capacity to perceive accurately and trust their perception), and the volume is enormous.

There is a second factor that compounds the inverted calculation. Bottom-tier perpetrators almost always get caught relationally. The chaos is visible. The pattern is known to extended family, friend groups, in-laws, coworkers, and neighbors. Everyone has a story. The “open secret” structure of family dysfunction means that the people in the system are aware that something is wrong. They lack the language, the framework, or the standing to name it. They work around it. They develop their own dysregulation in response. The spouse becomes hypervigilant. The children sort into survival roles (parentified child, scapegoat, golden child, lost child). The siblings of the survivor develop variations on the same survival roles in a different configuration.³⁴

Caught relationally, however, is not caught legally. Most low-regulation Cluster B abuse is emotional, manipulative, attachment-disrupting, psychologically coercive, and chronic. None of those qualifiers map cleanly to the legal system’s incident-based prosecution architecture. The legal system was built to handle discrete acts: the assault, the theft, the contract violation. It was not built to handle decade-long patterns of accumulated emotional harm where each individual event falls below any prosecutable threshold and the harm is the volume rather than any single act. The Cole Allen case is being prosecuted because the action was discrete, visible, and high-status-target. The narcissistic parent who emotionally destroys their child over twenty years produces no comparable system response because the legal architecture has no category for the harm.

Survivors at this tier carry a specific symptom in addition to the trauma: the absence of external validation. Their reality was attacked by an intact-reality-testing perpetrator. Nothing external corroborates the harm except the survivor’s own observation. The clinical work of recovery has to do double duty: heal the trauma and rebuild the capacity to trust the survivor’s own perception in a context where the social and legal systems offered no reinforcement that the perception was accurate.

The aggregate trauma volume in the U.S. mental health population maps to this tier of the pyramid. The mental health system, the field I work in, is overwhelmed because the upstream containment of the perpetrators that generate this volume of trauma does not exist. We treat the survivors. We do not, in any organized way, treat or contain the perpetrators. The reasons for that gap are the subject of the conclusion of this article. Before getting there, one more clinical concept needs to be in place.

The Mask of Sanity, and What Modern Neuroscience Confirmed

Hervey Cleckley published The Mask of Sanity in 1941. It is the foundational clinical text on psychopathy, predating Robert Hare’s checklist research by four decades and predating the modern neuroscience that confirmed Cleckley’s central observation by sixty years. The observation: the apex psychopathic presentation is characterized by an external mask of normal social functioning that conceals a profound underlying impairment in moral, emotional, and relational capacity. The mask is not health. The mask is the dysregulation hidden behind regulation.³⁵

Cleckley described patients who presented as charming, articulate, employed, sometimes professionally accomplished, who had committed serious harms (theft, fraud, sometimes violence) without the affective signals that ordinarily accompany serious moral transgression. They expressed remorse strategically rather than feelingly. They formed superficial relationships that did not deepen. They could read social cues with precision and use that reading instrumentally. The internal architecture, when Cleckley pushed past the mask in clinical interviewing, was missing the moral-affective regulatory machinery that the rest of the population takes for granted.

Robert Hare’s research program, beginning in the 1970s and continuing across his career, operationalized Cleckley’s clinical observations into the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL), now in its revised form (PCL-R). The two-factor structure of the PCL-R formalizes the mask-vs-impairment distinction. Factor 2 (lifestyle/antisocial) captures the visible dysregulation: impulsivity, criminal versatility, juvenile delinquency, parasitic lifestyle. Factor 1 (interpersonal/affective) captures the underlying moral-affective impairment that the mask conceals: glibness, grandiosity, lack of remorse, lack of empathy, shallow affect, callousness, failure to accept responsibility.³⁶ The successful psychopath is high on Factor 1 and low on Factor 2: maximum underlying impairment, minimum visible dysregulation. The mask works.

Modern functional neuroimaging has confirmed the mask-vs-impairment structure at the brain level. Kent Kiehl’s research group, beginning in the 2000s, has consistently shown that individuals high on PCL-R Factor 1 demonstrate reduced amygdala activation in response to emotional stimuli (particularly stimuli involving distress in others), reduced ventromedial prefrontal cortex activation in moral-cognition tasks, and altered connectivity in the limbic-prefrontal circuits that ordinarily integrate affective signals into moral decision-making.³⁷ The same individuals can show normal performance on cognitive-empathy tasks (they accurately identify what another person is feeling) while showing markedly abnormal patterns on affective-empathy tasks (they do not feel the other person’s distress in their own body the way control subjects do). Behaviorally, they may appear regulated. Internally, the regulatory architecture is profoundly impaired.

This finding has direct implications for the pyramid. Better external presentation does not correlate with better internal regulation. It correlates with better concealment of worse internal regulation. The volatile narcissist at the base of the pyramid is internally unstable in a way that produces visible chaos. The successful psychopath at the apex is internally impaired in a way that does not produce visible chaos because the same regulation capacity that conceals the impairment is itself an indicator of the impairment’s depth. The mask is the diagnostic feature. The mask is also the reason the apex tier remains uncontained for long enough to do vast harm.

This brings the pyramid back to Cole Allen. The apology to his parents is, among other things, evidence that he is not at the apex. Apex psychopathic presentations characteristically do not produce affectively loaded family apologies before action. The presence of an apology that addresses parental grief specifically, with felt content rather than strategic phrasing, argues that Allen retained limbic-affective registration of the cost of his action to the people he loved. The mask, in other words, did not cover everything. The ideology overrode the affect. It did not extinguish it.

That distinction matters clinically and legally. The forensic disposition for malignant-narcissism-adjacent ideologically organized antisocial presentation is different from the forensic disposition for apex psychopathy. Treatment paths differ. Long-term containment calculations differ. Risk assessment differs. The next section, the clinical depth section, walks through these forensic and treatment dimensions in detail before the article circles back to the survivor population at the bottom of the pyramid and the structural failures that have left them carrying the aggregate burden.

Reality Testing as a Clinical Construct, in Detail

The reason reality testing is the first forensic question is that the rest of the diagnostic and legal apparatus is built on top of it. The DSM-5-TR organizes its psychotic disorders chapter around reality-testing impairment as the defining feature.³⁸ The same diagnostic system organizes its personality disorders chapter around enduring patterns of inner experience and behavior that deviate markedly from cultural expectations, with reality testing implicitly intact as a precondition (a person whose reality testing is acutely impaired is, by definition, not in a stable personality-organization state, even if a personality disorder is also present).³⁹ The ICD-11 makes the same distinction in its rewrite of the personality disorder section, which moved the diagnostic field toward dimensional assessment of severity (mild, moderate, severe) and prominent trait domains (negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition, anankastia) while preserving the underlying assumption that reality testing is the threshold question separating personality disorders from psychotic disorders.⁴⁰

Operationally, a forensic evaluator assessing competency to stand trial under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 is asking whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings.⁴¹ Reality testing is the underlying ego function that makes that ability possible. A defendant in active psychosis cannot consult rationally because the consultation is happening in two different perceived realities. A defendant with a personality disorder and intact reality testing can consult rationally. The competency determination is a reality-testing determination at its core.

The insanity defense is similarly reality-testing-anchored. Under the M’Naghten standard, the question is whether the defendant, at the time of the act, was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act, or if they did know it, that they did not know what they were doing was wrong.⁴² Both prongs require an assessment of the defendant’s perceived reality at the moment of the act. Under the ALI Model Penal Code §4.01 standard, the question is whether, at the time of the conduct, the defendant lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of the conduct or to conform their conduct to the requirements of law.⁴³ Both standards reduce to: was the defendant operating in shared reality, and did their understanding of that shared reality include the wrongness of the act? In personality-style violence with intact reality testing, both standards almost always fail to support an insanity defense, because the defendant knew what they were doing and knew it was legally wrong; they simply operated under an internal value system that placed something else above legal compliance. In psychotic-spectrum violence with impaired reality testing, both standards become live questions.

The same distinction governs treatment-path determination after disposition. Psychotic-spectrum disorders are responsive to antipsychotic medication, milieu treatment, and the long-term integrated care model that the Assertive Community Treatment teams I worked on were designed to provide. The medication targets the dopaminergic and other neurotransmitter dysregulation that produces the perceptual disorganization. The milieu provides containment, stability, and a consistent reality-testing reference for a person whose internal reference is unreliable. ACT teams provide community-based wraparound care that can sustain a patient’s functioning over years.⁴⁴ Treatment of personality disorders is fundamentally different. Medication is auxiliary at best (sometimes used to address comorbid depression, anxiety, or affective dysregulation). The primary treatment is character-disturbance-aware psychotherapy, which is engagement-dependent in a way that psychotic disorder treatment is not. The personality-disordered patient often does not present for treatment because reality testing is intact and the internal experience does not register as illness. The clinical disengagement is the central treatment problem at every tier of the antagonistic personality pyramid.

The cognitive-versus-affective empathy distinction is the second clinical construct that runs through every tier of the pyramid. The neuroscience and clinical research on this dissociation has matured substantially since Decety and Moriguchi formalized it in 2007.⁴⁵ Affective empathy, the somatic-emotional resonance with another person’s experience, depends on limbic and paralimbic circuits including the amygdala, anterior insula, and rostral anterior cingulate cortex. Cognitive empathy, the inferential capacity to model another person’s mental state, depends on more dorsal frontal and temporoparietal regions. The two systems can dissociate clinically. Individuals high on PCL-R Factor 1 typically show normal or even elevated cognitive empathy with attenuated affective empathy, which is the neuroscience version of “they know exactly what they are doing to you and they can read your reaction precisely; they simply do not feel the weight of it the way the rest of the population does.”⁴⁶ Baskin-Sommers, Krusemark, and Ronningstam’s 2014 work specifically on empathy in narcissistic personality disorder found a similar dissociation pattern in NPD: affective empathy reduced while cognitive empathy intact or partial, with the configuration intensifying under conditions of perceived threat to the grandiose self.⁴⁷

The egosyntonic-versus-egodystonic distinction completes the clinical picture. An action is egosyntonic when it aligns with the actor’s self-concept and produces no internal friction. An action is egodystonic when it conflicts with the actor’s self-concept and produces internal distress, intrusive guilt, or compulsive review.⁴⁸ Personality-style harm is overwhelmingly egosyntonic. The narcissist’s exploitation feels justified within their internal value system. The malignant narcissist’s ideologically driven aggression is experienced as righteous. The psychopath’s manipulation is experienced as instrumental and unproblematic. The lack of internal friction is what allows the behavior to repeat and escalate. The clinical absence of egodystonic distress is also what makes the patient unlikely to seek treatment voluntarily, which is the engagement gap that limits clinical intervention at every tier.

The combination of these constructs (reality testing intact + cognitive empathy intact + affective empathy bypassed + ego-syntonic experience of the harm) is the architectural signature of personality-style violence and abuse across every tier of the pyramid, from the everyday narcissistic parent at the bottom to the apex psychopath at the top. The differences between tiers are quantitative within this architecture: how much regulation, how wide a scope, how concealed an internal state. The architecture itself is the constant.

Where Cole Allen Sits in the Pyramid

Applying the framework to the public record of Cole Allen produces a defensible observable-pattern placement without crossing into diagnostic claim. He sits in the upper-middle of the pyramid: the malignant-narcissism-adjacent or ideologically organized antisocial-with-grandiose-features tier. The placement honors the Goldwater Rule because it is anchored in his reported public conduct rather than in any clinical evaluation, and it offers a pattern observation rather than a diagnostic label.

The four Kernberg features map to specific reported behaviors. Pathological narcissism: the “friendly federal assassin” self-label is grandiose role-identification, the assumption of personal duty to act on behalf of an ideological cause is grandiose self-elevation, the willingness to die for the cause indicates a self-organization in which the cause is fused with self-concept rather than evaluated separately from it.⁴⁹ Antisocial features: target scouting, multi-month means acquisition (three firearms stored at unsuspecting parents’ home), regular firing-range practice, willingness to violate federal law and threaten the life of another person are explicit antisocial behaviors regardless of ideological motivation. Paranoid features: the grievance narrative, while anchored in real political controversies (immigration detentions, drug-strike policy, Iran bombing, Epstein), was structured as a sustained system of perceived injustice requiring corrective action by a single individual, which is the paranoid-narrative configuration even when the content of the grievance is shared by other reasonable observers. Ego-syntonic aggression: the apology to his parents was for the cost of the action to them, not for the rightness of the action itself; the action was experienced as morally aligned with self-narrative.

What rules out the apex tier is the apology itself. Apex psychopathic presentations characteristically do not produce affectively loaded family apologies before action. They produce strategic communications, manifestos, or silence. The presence of an apology that addresses parental grief specifically and is loaded with felt content rather than instrumental phrasing argues that Allen retained limbic-affective registration of the cost of his action to the people he loved. The mask, in PCL-R terms, did not cover Factor 1 completely. Affective empathy was reduced or overridden, not absent. This is the clinical feature that distinguishes the upper-middle tier from the apex.

What rules out psychotic-spectrum presentation is the entire functional record that this article has already worked through: sustained Caltech-level academic and professional performance over eight years, organized planning with a multi-month arc, coherent multi-point grievance content anchored in shared reality, retained affective signal in the apology, no reported prodromal symptoms or functional decline, no reported delusional content or hallucinations, no reported disorganized speech. First-break psychosis at age 31 is rare to begin with, and a first break that produced this specific configuration of behaviors is functionally incoherent with the diagnostic profile of any psychotic-spectrum disorder.

The forensic disposition that follows from this placement is reasonably predictable. Competency to stand trial will likely be confirmed (reality testing intact). The insanity defense under M’Naghten or ALI will be very difficult to support (the defendant knew the act was legally wrong, as evidenced by the apology to parents and the structured grievance letter that frames the act as a moral exception to legal compliance rather than as a non-violation of legal rules). The defense team has signaled a possible pre-trial release motion and has not signaled an insanity defense as the primary strategy.⁵⁰ What remains live, clinically, is a forensic evaluation that may produce findings relevant to mitigation at sentencing rather than at trial, particularly if the evaluation surfaces personality-organization features or co-occurring conditions that the public record does not show.

The Survivor Mirror: Narcissistic Abuse and Betrayal Trauma

The same architecture that defines personality-style violence at the perpetrator level produces the most disorganizing form of trauma at the survivor level. The axis is reversed. In a forensic case, the perpetrator’s reality testing is intact while the survivor’s is being eroded by sustained deception and value-calculus override. In a betrayal-trauma case, the perpetrator’s reality testing is intact, the perpetrator knows exactly what they are doing, and the survivor’s reality testing is being eroded by repeated micro-distortions delivered with full perpetrator awareness over months, years, or decades.

This is the architecture of betrayal trauma described by Jennifer Freyd in 1996 and elaborated across the subsequent literature.⁵¹ Betrayal trauma is not defined by the severity of any single event. It is defined by the structural relationship between perpetrator and survivor, where the harm comes from a person on whom the survivor depended for safety, attachment, identity coherence, or material survival. The survivor’s attachment system, which is biologically organized to maintain proximity to caregivers and partners, has to negotiate the impossible task of staying connected to a person who is also the source of harm. The negotiation costs reality-testing capacity. The survivor learns to ignore, minimize, dissociate from, or reframe evidence of the harm in order to preserve the attachment. The technical clinical term is “betrayal blindness.”⁵² The lived experience is that the survivor’s perception of what happened, what is happening, and what their own feelings about it are becomes disorganized.

This is the through-line. The chaotic narcissistic parent at the base of the pyramid produces children with disorganized attachment, the most damaging attachment style in the empirical literature, formed when the caregiver IS the source of fear.⁵³ The same children, as adults, present in clinical care with attachment dysregulation, complex PTSD, dissociative symptoms, identity confusion, and the specific symptom of pervasive mistrust in their own perception of reality. The borderline-narcissistic blend partner at Tier 2 produces partners with hypervigilance, somatic stress responses, and the specific cognitive-emotional cluster that survivors of narcissistic abuse describe as “I don’t know what’s real anymore.” The malignant-narcissistic family patriarch or matriarch at Tier 4 produces multi-generational systems where the entire family’s reality testing is calibrated to the perpetrator’s narrative, with truth-tellers exiled and complicit family members protected.

The clinical work of recovery has to do double duty. It has to address the trauma symptoms (the dissociation, the hypervigilance, the somatic dysregulation, the identity confusion) and it has to rebuild the survivor’s capacity to perceive accurately and trust their perception. The second task is the harder one. Trauma-symptom treatment has well-developed evidence-based protocols (EMDR, prolonged exposure, cognitive processing therapy, narrative exposure therapy, sensorimotor psychotherapy, and trauma-focused CBT all have meaningful empirical support).⁵⁴ Reality-testing repair after sustained narcissistic abuse does not have a single named protocol; it is integrative work that draws on attachment-based therapy, parts work (Internal Family Systems and similar frameworks), narrative reconstruction, somatic anchoring of perception, and the long slow process of validating the survivor’s observations against external corroborating reality.⁵⁵

The clinical observation I hold most strongly after thirteen years of this work is that the survivor’s reality testing is recoverable. It comes back. The process is slow, often nonlinear, sometimes painful, and almost always longer than the survivor anticipated when they started clinical work. But the underlying architecture is intact in the survivor. The damage was done from the outside by someone whose own architecture was also intact (just calibrated differently). The repair work is real and the repair is real. The patient who walks into my consult room nine months into clinical work and says “I trust what I saw now, I trust what I felt, I trust my read of that room” is the patient whose reality testing has come back online. That is the repair. That is what the work produces when the work is done well.

The contrast with severe psychotic-spectrum disorder is instructive. Reality-testing impairment in psychotic disorders is fundamentally different in mechanism. The dopaminergic and glutamatergic dysregulation that produces psychotic symptoms is a biological system in disorder. Antipsychotic medication, milieu, and integrated care can stabilize the system. The reality testing that comes back online with effective treatment is the patient’s own. Reality-testing erosion in betrayal-trauma survivors is biological too (the limbic-prefrontal stress response system is profoundly altered by chronic exposure to interpersonal threat) but the underlying architecture of perception is intact. The system was attacked from the outside. The repair work restores access to a capacity that was never lost, just suppressed or overridden by chronic interpersonal injury.

The Antagonistic Personality Pandemic and the Hands-Off Posture That Made It Worse

This is the structural argument the article has been building toward. The clinical reality of antagonistic personality styles, mapped across the pyramid with prevalence and proximity weighting, is that they constitute a public-health-scale aggregate-trauma generator that has been documented in the serious clinical literature for at least thirty years and has not produced a coherent field response. Judith Herman wrote in 1992 that “the more powerful the perpetrator, the greater the prerogative to name and define reality, and the more completely his arguments prevail.”⁵⁶ Lundy Bancroft’s 2002 Why Does He Do That? mapped the systematic ways in which institutions (family courts, clergy, therapists, in-laws, workplaces) protect abusers because abusers cooperate with institutions and survivors do not.⁵⁷ George Simon’s In Sheep’s Clothing and Character Disturbance argued that clinical orthodoxy under-recognizes character pathology because the diagnostic system is mood-and-anxiety-centric and the field’s training pipeline emphasizes empathic engagement with patients in distress, which works for patients in distress and fails for patients whose pattern is to produce distress in others.⁵⁸ Christopher Lasch’s 1979 The Culture of Narcissism anticipated the empirical narcissism-rise data that Twenge and Campbell published thirty years later.⁵⁹ Ramani Durvasula’s 2024 It’s Not You is the most prominent current popular-clinical voice making the survivor-side argument.⁶⁰ Bandy Lee’s organization of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump in 2017 and her subsequent 2020 firing from Yale produced the most visible recent test case for the question of whether the clinical field’s professional-ethics framework is functioning as designed or has expanded into a de facto gag order.⁶¹

Each of those voices owns one piece of the argument. Nobody currently owns the synthesis. The synthesis is this:

Four converging structural failures have produced a system in which the bottom of the pyramid generates the largest aggregate trauma volume in the population, the clinical field treats the survivors at the back end of that volume, and the upstream containment that would reduce the volume does not exist.

Failure one: clinical training and treatment infrastructure. Personality disorders, particularly the antagonistic cluster, are widely treated as untreatable, and “untreatable” has functioned in the field as a permission slip to not develop integrated treatment models. Marsha Linehan’s Dialectical Behavior Therapy revolution for borderline personality disorder demonstrated that a personality disorder previously considered treatment-resistant could be addressed with a structured, evidence-based, manualized approach. Comparable model development for narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and the malignant-narcissism configuration has not occurred at the same scale. The clinical training pipeline produces practitioners equipped to treat depression, anxiety, PTSD, BPD, and substance use disorders with evidence-based protocols, and unequipped to treat the rest of the antagonistic pyramid with anything approaching the same rigor. The engagement problem (these patients rarely present for treatment voluntarily) is a real clinical limit. It is also used as a reason to not develop the engagement-architecture infrastructure that would change the equation.

Failure two: the legal infrastructure of pattern-based harm. The U.S. legal system is built around discrete-act prosecution. Assault, battery, fraud, theft, harassment with a specific pattern of contact: these are prosecutable when they occur as discrete acts above a threshold. The architecture of harm at the bottom of the antagonistic pyramid is not discrete-act. It is multi-decade pattern-based harm in which each individual event falls below any prosecutable threshold and the harm is the volume and the structure of the relationship rather than any single act. Family court is the closest the legal system comes to addressing pattern-based harm, and family court is widely documented to produce poor outcomes for survivors of personality-disordered partners precisely because the court’s adversarial structure favors the partner who cooperates with the court (typically the personality-disordered parent presenting plausibly) over the partner who is exhausted, dysregulated, and articulating a complex multi-year pattern (typically the survivor). The legal architecture produces no upstream containment for the bulk of antagonistic-personality harm in the population.

Failure three: the Goldwater Rule overreach. APA Ethics Code Section 7.3 was designed in 1973 to prevent the kind of unethical mass diagnostic claim that occurred in the 1964 Fact magazine survey, in which over a thousand psychiatrists offered armchair diagnoses of a presidential candidate they had never examined.⁶² The rule’s original intent was narrow and clinically defensible: do not offer professional diagnostic opinions about public figures you have not personally evaluated. Over the subsequent five decades the rule has expanded in field practice into a near-total prohibition on clinical commentary about public figures’ observable behavior patterns, even when the reporting is exhaustive and the patterns are clinically relevant to the public’s understanding of consequential decisions. The 2017-2020 controversy around Bandy Lee’s organization of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump and her subsequent termination from Yale produced no field-wide reform of the rule’s scope and no clarifying guidance distinguishing pattern observation from diagnostic claim. The result is a chilling effect on clinical voices in public discourse precisely when those voices are most needed for public clinical literacy. The rule, as currently practiced, protects the professional standing of psychiatrists at the cost of withdrawing clinical literacy from public conversation about pattern-based harm. As a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, the analogous discipline applies under NASW Code of Ethics; this article has worked carefully within that discipline by naming observable patterns rather than offering diagnostic claims, which is the distinction the rule was originally designed to enforce, and which the expanded application has obscured.⁶³

Failure four: shame removal as cultural project. Shame as moral degradation of a person’s worth (you are a bad person, you do not deserve dignity, you should disappear) is correctly identified as toxic and rightly removed as a tool of social control. Shame as social-emotional regulator (the action you took violated a shared norm, the people around you are signaling that violation, the signal is information you should integrate) is necessary infrastructure for a functioning social-moral system. The two were conflated in the cultural project of stigma reduction over the last forty years, with substantial benefits for mental illness destigmatization and substantial costs for the social regulation of antagonistic behavior. The personality-style perpetrator is calibrated by external consequence, not by internal distress (because there is no egodystonic distress to calibrate against). When external consequences are softened, removed, or rendered unavailable through institutional protection, the calibration disappears. Donna Hicks’s Dignity framework distinguishes between dignity-violation responses (necessary, signal of norm violation, regulatory) and shame-as-degradation (toxic, identity-attacking, anti-regulatory).⁶⁴ The field-wide and culture-wide loss of the distinction has removed a primary source of upstream containment for the bottom and middle tiers of the pyramid.

The Cole Allen case is illustrative not because his actions are typical of antagonistic personality at the population level, but because the disparity between system response to his case and system response to the bottom-tier majority makes the structural argument visible. Cole Allen produced a discrete, high-status-target action; the federal apparatus, the forensic evaluation system, the magistrate-court attention, the news cycle, the defense bar’s resources, and the public-safety architecture have all activated in response. The 6.2 percent NPD lifetime prevalence equivalent of harm at the dyadic and family level produces zero comparable activation. The same mental health system absorbs the resulting trauma at the back end (the survivors fill private-practice caseloads for years or decades) without any commensurate upstream investment in containment. The disparity is the proof of thesis.

What the field can do differently is not impossible. Develop integrated treatment models for antagonistic-personality presentations, on the DBT-for-BPD template, with engagement-architecture infrastructure that addresses the voluntary-presentation problem. Train clinicians to name patterns in clinical work with survivors (private validation of accurate perception is part of trauma recovery; the field has been overcautious about this and the cost has been paid by survivors who needed corroboration of their own observations). Push back on the Goldwater Rule’s expanded application via APA reform proposals that re-anchor the rule in its original narrow scope. Build character-disturbance-aware family-system clinical infrastructure capable of holding both DBT-style emotion regulation work and Simon-style character-disturbance confrontation in integrated treatment. Develop public clinical literacy about the pyramid and the architecture of personality-style harm; this article is one instance of that work and there should be a thousand more.

What this means for the reader depends on who you are.

If you are a survivor of narcissistic abuse, betrayal trauma, or family-of-origin harm, your trauma source is a structural failure of the field and the legal system, not a personal weakness. Your pattern recognition is real. Your reality testing is recoverable through clinical work. The system’s failure to catch the harm upstream is not your fault. The clinical work I do every week with people in your position produces real repair. If you live in New York or Maine, my consultation availability is below. If you live elsewhere, the resources at the close of this article will help you find a clinician in your area who is competent for this work.

If you are a clinician reading this, the work is in the field’s failure to develop infrastructure for the antagonistic side of the pyramid. The survivor work is real and important. The architecture work is what makes the survivor work less necessary.

If you are at a policy or institutional level, the mental health system’s overload maps to the absence of upstream containment for personality-style harm. Funding the back end without funding the front end produces the system you are looking at.

If you recognize patterns in yourself reading this, the clinical infrastructure for your work is underdeveloped, which is the field’s failure rather than yours. The shame I am naming as social-emotional regulator is the feedback you would benefit from receiving in a system that knew how to give it. Reasonable next steps include personal psychotherapy with a clinician trained in character-disturbance work and a willingness to engage the egodystonic friction the work will produce in you, which is itself a sign that change is possible.

If You’re Reading This and Recognizing Your Life

I am Matthew Sexton, LCSW. I run a small out-of-network telehealth practice in New York and Maine for adults who want depth work, structural understanding of what happened to them, and a clinical relationship that does not flinch when the material gets specific. If you are in NY or ME and this article describes a pattern in your life: book a 20-minute consult. The consult is free. The fit-check is mutual.

If you are a healthcare worker or clinician in NY or ME: same intake. I see other clinicians and have for years. The peer angle is part of the practice.

If you are outside NY or ME: the Psychology Today out-of-network filter is a reasonable starting point. Search for clinicians who list narcissistic abuse, complex PTSD, betrayal trauma, or character-disturbance-aware therapy in their specializations. Ask in the consult call whether they have experience with the specific tier of the pyramid you are recovering from. If they have not heard of the pyramid framework or do not have language for the architecture of personality-style harm, they are not the right clinician for this work; find someone who does.

If you are a healthcare-leadership reader interested in workforce mental health programs that address character-disturbance dynamics in organizational settings: the Mental Wealth Solutions Inc. consulting line works with healthcare and mid-market leadership on second-victim protocol, peer support program design, and the structural mental-health infrastructure that this article argues is missing.

If you are in crisis: call or text 988. Emergency: 911. Physician Support Line: 1-888-409-0141 (free, confidential, for physicians and medical students). Maine Crisis Line: 1-888-568-1112. NYC: NYC Well 1-888-NYC-WELL. Frontline Workers Counseling Service is also available for healthcare workers nationally.

---

Matthew Sexton is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, founder of Mental Wealth Solutions, and the lead clinician at Matthew Sexton, LCSW, PLLC. He has worked across acute psychiatric settings, forensic Assertive Community Treatment teams, thirteen dialysis clinics, transplant social work, substance abuse treatment, and the Salvation Army’s Hurricane Sandy disaster response. He writes on the architecture of personality-style harm, betrayal trauma recovery, healthcare worker burnout and moral injury, and the structural failures of the mental health field. Reach him at matthewsextonlcsw@mentalwealthsolutions.org.

---

Educational content from a licensed clinician. Not therapy. Not a treatment plan. Reading this does not create a therapist-client relationship. If you need clinical care in New York or Maine, schedule a consultation at matthewsextonlcswpllc.org. If you are outside those states, reach out to your primary care physician or use the SAMHSA National Helpline (1-800-662-4357) for a treatment-locator referral.

This piece names an observable pattern in a public figure’s reported conduct. It is not a clinical diagnosis. The Goldwater Rule applies: ethically, I cannot diagnose someone I have not personally evaluated. Public-figure analysis here follows the New York Times v. Sullivan actual-malice standard — pattern naming based on reported public conduct, not pathology assignment. Citations link to primary news sources; verify against the original reporting before drawing conclusions.

If you or someone you know is in crisis, call or text 988 (Suicide and Crisis Lifeline) or chat at 988lifeline.org/chat.

References

Footnotes

1. Freyd JJ. Betrayal trauma: The logic of forgetting childhood abuse. Harvard University Press, 1996. The foundational text on betrayal-trauma theory; subsequent literature includes DePrince AP & Freyd JJ. Forgetting trauma stimuli. Psychological Science, 2004;15(7):488-492. ↩

2. Kernberg OF. Severe Personality Disorders: Psychotherapeutic Strategies. Yale University Press, 1984. Reality testing as differentiating axis between neurotic, borderline, and psychotic personality organization. ↩

3. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). Washington, DC: APA Publishing, 2022. Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders, pp. 101-138; reality testing impairment as defining feature of psychotic disorders. ↩

4. 18 U.S.C. § 4241 (Determination of mental competency to stand trial to undergo postrelease proceedings). Available: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4241 ↩

5. M’Naghten’s Case, 10 Cl. & Fin. 200, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (H.L. 1843); American Law Institute, Model Penal Code §4.01 (1962). The two principal U.S. legal standards for the insanity defense, both of which depend on reality-testing assessment as a foundational input. ↩

6. Decety J, Moriguchi Y. The empathic brain and its dysfunction in psychiatric populations: implications for intervention across different clinical conditions. BioPsychoSocial Medicine, 2007;1:22. DOI: 10.1186/1751-0759-1-22. Foundational delineation of cognitive vs affective empathy as dissociable functions. ↩

7. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. Suspect in White House Correspondents’ Dinner Shooting Charged with Attempt to Assassinate the President. April 27, 2026. Available: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/suspect-white-house-correspondents-dinner-shooting-charged-attempt-assassinate-president ↩

8. Federal Court for the District of Columbia, United States v. Cole Tomas Allen, criminal complaint and arraignment proceedings, April-May 2026. Plea status pending. Preliminary hearing scheduled May 11, 2026. ↩

9. American Psychiatric Association. The Principles of Medical Ethics With Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry, Section 7.3 (The Goldwater Rule). APA, 2017. Available: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/ethics. The analogous discipline in social work practice is codified in NASW Code of Ethics standards on competence and professional integrity. ↩

10. NPR. What we know about Cole Allen, suspected White House Correspondents’ dinner shooter. April 26, 2026. Available: https://www.npr.org/2026/04/26/g-s1-118826/cole-allen-suspected-white-house-correspondents-dinner-shooter-profile ↩

11. CBS News. What we know about the suspect in shooting at White House Correspondents’ Dinner. April 27, 2026. Available: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-correspondents-dinner-shooting-suspect-cole-allen/ ↩

12. NBC News. White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting suspect Cole Tomas Allen charged with attempted assassination. April 27, 2026. Available: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/live-updates-correspondents-dinner-shooting-suspect-trump-writing-rcna342249 ↩

13. Washington Post. Correspondents’ dinner shooting suspect called himself ‘friendly federal assassin.’ April 26, 2026. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/04/26/whcd-shooting-suspect/ ↩

14. CBS News. Judge says he’s ‘very troubled’ by accused White House Correspondents’ Dinner gunman’s treatment in jail. May 5, 2026. Available: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-very-troubled-jail-cole-allen-accused-correspondents-dinner-gunman/ ↩

15. NPR. With no radical footprint, what drove suspect to try and assassinate Trump? April 28, 2026. Available: https://www.npr.org/2026/04/28/nx-s1-5801467/cole-allen-suspect-washington-correspondents-dinner-shooting ↩

16. Kahn RS, Sommer IE, Murray RM, Meyer-Lindenberg A, Weinberger DR, Cannon TD, O’Donovan M, Correll CU, Kane JM, van Os J, Insel TR. Schizophrenia. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 2015;1:15067. DOI: 10.1038/nrdp.2015.67. Age-of-onset profile and prodromal trajectory. ↩

17. Volavka J. Violence in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Psychiatria Danubina, 2013;25(1):24-33. PMID: 23470603. Reactive vs organized violence patterns in psychotic disorders. ↩

18. Gill P, Horgan J, Deckert P. Bombing alone: Tracing the motivations and antecedent behaviors of lone-actor terrorists. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2014;59(2):425-435. DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.12312. ↩

19. Hare RD. Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), 2nd Edition. Multi-Health Systems, 2003. Factor 1 (interpersonal/affective) features include glibness, grandiosity, lack of remorse, lack of empathy, and shallow affect. ↩

20. Freedman D, Hemenway D. Precursors of lethal violence: A death review study of severe mental illness. Social Science & Medicine, 2000;50(12):1757-1770. PMID: 10798329. Detailed clinical profiles of psychotic-spectrum violence cases. ↩

21. Yung AR, McGorry PD. The prodromal phase of first-episode psychosis: past and current conceptualizations. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1996;22(2):353-370. DOI: 10.1093/schbul/22.2.353. Foundational text on prodromal symptoms and functional trajectory preceding first-break psychosis. ↩

22. Corner E, Gill P. A false dichotomy? Mental illness and lone-actor terrorism. Law and Human Behavior, 2015;39(1):23-34. DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000102. Empirical analysis showing that the presence of mental illness in lone actors does not establish causal pathway from illness to attack; ideological organization frequently coexists with personality features rather than psychotic disorders. ↩

23. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). Washington, DC: APA Publishing, 2022. Narcissistic Personality Disorder, code 301.81, pp. 760-763. ↩

24. Stinson FS, Dawson DA, Goldstein RB, Chou SP, Huang B, Smith SM, Ruan WJ, Pulay AJ, Saha TD, Pickering RP, Grant BF. Prevalence, correlates, disability, and comorbidity of DSM-IV narcissistic personality disorder: results from the Wave 2 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 2008;69(7):1033-1045. PMID: 18557663. Lifetime NPD prevalence 6.2 percent. ↩

25. Kernberg OF. Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism. Jason Aronson, 1975. Foundational text on the structural model of personality organization and the splitting defense in narcissistic pathology. ↩

26. Lenzenweger MF. Epidemiology of personality disorders. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 2008;31(3):395-403. PMID: 18638641. BPD lifetime prevalence approximately 1.6 percent in U.S. general population. ↩

27. Linehan MM. Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder. Guilford Press, 1993. The foundational text on Dialectical Behavior Therapy. The DBT outcome literature for BPD is robust; comparable evidence-based treatment models for NPD remain underdeveloped, a gap discussed below. ↩

28. Compton WM, Conway KP, Stinson FS, Colliver JD, Grant BF. Prevalence, correlates, and comorbidity of DSM-IV antisocial personality syndromes and alcohol and specific drug use disorders in the United States: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 2005;66(6):677-685. PMID: 15960559. ASPD lifetime prevalence approximately 3.6 percent. ↩

29. Kernberg OF. Aggression in Personality Disorders and Perversions. Yale University Press, 1992. Definitive elaboration of the malignant narcissism construct. ↩

30. Hare RD, Neumann CS. The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy: Development, structural properties, and new directions. In Patrick CJ (Ed.), Handbook of Psychopathy (pp. 58-88). Guilford Press, 2006. Two-factor structure of psychopathy and the Factor 1 vs Factor 2 distinction. ↩

31. Hall JR, Benning SD, Lilienfeld SO. Successful psychopaths: Definitions, sources of influence, and recent advances. In Patrick CJ (Ed.), Handbook of Psychopathy. Guilford Press, 2006. Successful psychopathy as a configuration of high Factor 1 and lower Factor 2, with population prevalence estimates. ↩

32. Lenzenweger MF, Lane MC, Loranger AW, Kessler RC. DSM-IV personality disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Biological Psychiatry, 2007;62(6):553-564. PMID: 17217923. Composite Cluster B prevalence estimates including NPD, BPD, ASPD, and HPD. ↩

33. Lyons-Ruth K, Jacobvitz D. Attachment disorganization from infancy to adulthood: Neurobiological correlates, parenting contexts, and pathways to disorder. In Cassidy J, Shaver PR (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications, 3rd Edition (pp. 667-695). Guilford Press, 2016. Disorganized attachment as the multi-generational mechanism of cascade. ↩

34. Schore AN. Affect Regulation and the Repair of the Self. W.W. Norton, 2003. Affect regulation theory and the dysregulated parent’s influence on the developing child’s neurobiological self-regulation capacity. ↩

35. Cleckley HM. The Mask of Sanity: An Attempt to Clarify Some Issues About the So-Called Psychopathic Personality. Mosby, 1941 (5th edition 1976). Foundational clinical text on psychopathy. ↩

36. Hare RD. Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), 2nd Edition. Multi-Health Systems, 2003. The two-factor structure of psychopathy and clinical-administration manual. ↩

37. Kiehl KA. A cognitive neuroscience perspective on psychopathy: evidence for paralimbic system dysfunction. Psychiatry Research, 2006;142(2-3):107-128. PMID: 16712954. Foundational fMRI evidence for paralimbic and ventromedial prefrontal dysfunction in psychopathy. See also Blair RJR, The neurobiology of psychopathic traits in youths. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2013;14(11):786-799. PMID: 24105343. ↩

38. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). APA Publishing, 2022. Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders chapter, pp. 101-138. ↩

39. DSM-5-TR. Personality Disorders chapter, pp. 733-787. Diagnostic criteria require enduring pattern, significant distress or impairment, and pervasive inflexibility, with reality testing implicitly intact. ↩

40. World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11). WHO, 2019 (effective 2022). Personality Disorders 6D10-6D11. Available: https://icd.who.int/browse11 ↩

41. 18 U.S.C. § 4241. Available: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4241. The competency standard derives from Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960). ↩

42. M’Naghten’s Case, 10 Cl. & Fin. 200, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (H.L. 1843). The cognitive insanity standard adopted by most U.S. jurisdictions in some form. ↩

43. American Law Institute. Model Penal Code §4.01 (1962). The substantial-capacity test combining cognitive and volitional prongs; partially adopted in many U.S. jurisdictions. ↩

44. Bond GR, Drake RE, Mueser KT, Latimer E. Assertive community treatment for people with severe mental illness: critical ingredients and impact on patients. Disease Management & Health Outcomes, 2001;9(3):141-159. Foundational outcome literature on ACT teams for severe mental illness. ↩

45. Decety J, Moriguchi Y. The empathic brain and its dysfunction in psychiatric populations. BioPsychoSocial Medicine, 2007;1:22. DOI: 10.1186/1751-0759-1-22. ↩

46. Blair RJR. The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex: functional contributions and dysfunction in psychopathy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 2008;363(1503):2557-2565. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0027. ↩

47. Baskin-Sommers A, Krusemark E, Ronningstam E. Empathy in narcissistic personality disorder: from clinical and empirical perspectives. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 2014;5(3):323-333. DOI: 10.1037/per0000061. ↩

48. Salkovskis PM. Obsessional-compulsive problems: a cognitive-behavioural analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1985;23(5):571-583. Foundational delineation of egosyntonic vs egodystonic clinical experience. Cross-reference: Akhtar S. Broken Structures: Severe Personality Disorders and Their Treatment. Jason Aronson, 1992. ↩

49. Kernberg OF. Aggression in Personality Disorders and Perversions. Yale University Press, 1992. Definitive elaboration of the malignant narcissism construct, particularly Chapter 4 on grandiose self-organization in service of ideologically organized aggression. ↩

50. Newsweek. Cole Allen Gets Apology from Judge After Alleged Trump Assassination Plot. May 2026. Defense team filing context. Available: https://www.newsweek.com/cole-allen-grave-concerns-solitary-confinement-whcd-suspect-11909432 ↩

51. Freyd JJ. Betrayal Trauma: The Logic of Forgetting Childhood Abuse. Harvard University Press, 1996. Foundational text on betrayal-trauma theory. ↩

52. Freyd JJ, Birrell PJ. Blind to Betrayal: Why We Fool Ourselves We Aren’t Being Fooled. Wiley, 2013. Elaboration of betrayal-blindness as the survival-motivated suppression of accurate perception in attachment-bound contexts. ↩

53. Lyons-Ruth K, Jacobvitz D. Attachment disorganization from infancy to adulthood: Neurobiological correlates, parenting contexts, and pathways to disorder. In Cassidy J, Shaver PR (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment, 3rd Edition. Guilford Press, 2016. ↩

54. International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. ISTSS PTSD Prevention and Treatment Guidelines. ISTSS, 2018. Evidence-base review of trauma treatment protocols. Available: https://istss.org/clinical-resources/treating-trauma/new-istss-prevention-and-treatment-guidelines ↩

55. Cloitre M, Courtois CA, Charuvastra A, Carapezza R, Stolbach BC, Green BL. Treatment of complex PTSD: results of the ISTSS expert clinician survey on best practices. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2011;24(6):615-627. DOI: 10.1002/jts.20697. ↩

56. Herman JL. Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence — From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror. Basic Books, 1992 (updated edition 2015). The cited passage on perpetrator’s prerogative to define reality is from Chapter 1. ↩

57. Bancroft L. Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men. Berkley Books, 2002. Systematic mapping of institutional protection of abusers. ↩

58. Simon GK. Character Disturbance: The Phenomenon of Our Age. Parkhurst Brothers, 2010. Cross-reference: Simon GK. In Sheep’s Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People. Parkhurst Brothers, 1996/2010. ↩

59. Lasch C. The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. Norton, 1979. Foundational sociological text. Cross-reference: Twenge JM, Campbell WK. The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement. Free Press, 2009. ↩

60. Durvasula R. It’s Not You: Identifying and Healing from Narcissistic People. The Open Field, 2024. ↩

61. Lee BX (Ed.). The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President. St. Martin’s Press, 2017. The 2020 Yale termination of Lee produced subsequent litigation and remains the most visible recent test case for Goldwater Rule scope. See Lee BX, Profile of a Nation: Trump’s Mind, America’s Soul. World Mental Health Coalition, 2020. ↩

62. Ginsburg L. Senator Goldwater and the Goldwater Rule. American Journal of Psychiatry, 2017;174(11):1027-1029. Historical context of the 1964 Fact magazine survey and the 1973 codification of APA Ethics Section 7.3. ↩

63. National Association of Social Workers. NASW Code of Ethics. NASW Press, revised 2021. Standards 1.04 (Competence), 4.06 (Misrepresentation), and 5.02 (Evaluation and Research) collectively establish the analogous discipline for licensed clinical social workers commenting on public matters within professional scope. ↩

64. Hicks D. Dignity: Its Essential Role in Resolving Conflict. Yale University Press, 2011. The dignity-violation versus shame-as-degradation distinction, with the regulatory function of dignity-violation feedback as social-emotional infrastructure. ↩