Conflict Map: 7 Personality Types

Conflict Map Third Party in Conflict Consultation

Have you ever wondered why your interactions with certain people always unfold the same way? Why some conversations end in exhaustion, others in endless escalation, and with some people you simply cannot find common ground? The table below shows that the outcome of an interaction often does not depend on what you say, but on the unconscious assumptions both of you carry.

7 Personality Profiles in the Table

NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder)

Dominant strategy: grandiosity + devaluation. The agent requires constant admiration and perceives others primarily as a source of validation for their own exceptionality. Irreflexive: contributions from others do not enter their internal world model (inability to accept criticism).

Presupposition about the partner: "You exist for my validation."

BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder)

Dominant strategy: cyclic idealization and devaluation. The agent experiences intense emotions and oscillates between extreme idealization of the partner ("you will save me") and rejection ("you are abandoning me"). Fear of abandonment is the central motive.

Presupposition about the partner: "Either you save me, or you abandon me."

ASPD (Antisocial Personality Disorder)

Dominant strategy: instrumentalization. The agent perceives others as means to an end. Absence of empathy and emotional investment. Manipulation is purely strategic, without emotional "burden".

Presupposition about the partner: "You are a means to my end."

PPD (Paranoid Personality Disorder)

Dominant strategy: defense + counterattack. The agent chronically distrusts everyone, detects hidden motives even where there are none, and responds with preemptive counterattacks. Trust is structurally excluded.

Presupposition about the partner: "You want to hurt me, you're just hiding it."

OCPD (Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder)

Dominant strategy: procedural control. The agent clings to rules, perfection, and the "correct procedure". Flexibility is perceived as a threat. Functions well in hierarchical institutions where rigidity looks like competence.

Presupposition about the partner: "You must follow the correct procedure."

DPD (Dependent Personality Disorder)

Dominant strategy: dependency + capitulation. The agent needs guidance and approval, avoids conflict at all costs, and defers decision-making to authority. Autonomy is threatening for them.

Presupposition about the partner: "You decide, I adapt."

H (Healthy Agent)

Dominant strategy: authentic communication + boundaries. The agent has selective reflexivity: accepts relevant feedback but maintains boundaries. Does not use manipulative strategies (ethical choice). Cooperation is conditional on reciprocity.

Presupposition about the partner: "Relationships are mutual. Boundaries are natural."

Interactive Interaction Matrix

A → B	NPD	BPD	ASPD	PPD	OCPD	DPD	H
NPD	E/K	C	NE	E	NE	Ab	Ab/K
BPD	·	C	NE	C/K	C/K	C	C
ASPD	·	·	NE	NE	NE	Ab	NE
PPD	·	·	·	K	K	Ab	K
OCPD	·	·	·	·	NE	Ab	C/NE
DPD	·	·	·	·	·	Ab	Ab→K
H	·	·	·	·	·	·	NE+

E/C — Escalation / Collapse C — Cycle NE — Stable Nash Equilibrium C — Collapse Ab — Absorption NE (green) — Stable equilibrium NE+ — Positive cooperate/cooperate

The table shows the upper triangle (A × B, where A ≥ B in order). Empty cells are symmetric with the upper triangle.

Click a cell in the table to display the interaction detail.

Interaction Result Codes

E/C — Escalation or Collapse

Both agents mutually escalate. The result is either endless escalation or the collapse of the relationship. Nash equilibrium does not exist.

C — Cycle

Unstable symbiosis. Temporary equilibria alternate with crises. The cycle repeats with increasing amplitude.

NE — Nash Equilibrium (asymmetric)

Stable state, but asymmetric: one agent dominates. The equilibrium is stable but benefits unequally.

C — Collapse

Communication collapses. No stable configuration. The interaction typically ends with complete cessation of contact.

Ab — Absorption

One agent absorbs the identity or autonomy of the other. Stable state, but destructive for the absorbed party.

NE+ — Positive cooperate/cooperate

The only positive Nash equilibrium: H×H. Both cooperate as the default strategy. Stable and symmetric.

Why this tool exists and what it offers you

If you repeatedly encounter the same patterns in communication, exhaustion, escalation, the feeling of going in circles, it is probably not a matter of bad faith on the other side. It is a structural property of the interaction: the outcome of communication is largely determined by the unconscious assumptions each party brings, before the first word is spoken.

This table is not a diagnosis and not a prophecy. It is a terrain map: it helps to name what field you are playing on, what rules apply there, and where it makes sense to invest energy and where it does not. The more precisely you understand the structure of the field, the less energy you waste on strategies that cannot work there for structural reasons.

The key shift in thinking: stop looking for solutions in a domain where they do not exist. If your counterpart is structurally incapable of reciprocity, reflexivity, or compromise, then more arguments, more empathy, or more patience will not solve the problem; they deepen it. The table shows why.

This is the entry point. How to work with it further, which strategies make sense, and where to find support, that is the subject of deeper work and consultation.

Where we observe these dynamics in practice

Divorce and custody proceedings

The sharpest manifestation: NPD × H combination, where the H partner invests in argumentation but NPD irreflexively rejects every contribution. Court proceedings paradoxically strengthen NPD narrative dominance.

Workplace and management

ASPD × H or NPD × H in a work environment: the H employee invests energy into problem-solving while ASPD/NPD exploits and dominates the narrative. Mobbing as a structural phenomenon.

Couples therapy

NPD × BPD cyclic symbiosis or NPD × H asymmetry are the most common combinations in couples therapy. A therapist who identifies these patterns can target intervention more precisely.

School and education

ASPD × DPD or NPD × H patterns in student groups. Bullying as a structural manifestation of asymmetric absorption, not merely as a problem of individual character.

Family systems

Intergenerational transmission of patterns: NPD parent × DPD child (absorption of autonomy), or BPD parent × H child (cycle of crises). The matrix dynamics explain why therapy fails without understanding the structure.

Legal environment

PPD × OCPD communication collapse in court proceedings. ASPD × OCPD dominance: the psychopathic actor simulates procedural cooperation in an environment where the H agent has no mechanism to signal asymmetry.

The Healthy Agent Paradox

The table reveals an important paradox: the healthy agent (H) is structurally disadvantaged in interactions with dysfunctional profiles, even though their strategy (authentic communication, selective reflexivity, respect for the other's autonomy) is ethically and psychologically superior.

Why? Because dysfunctional profiles exploit precisely those qualities of the H agent that make them healthy:

NPD exploits H's reflexivity: H accepts feedback, NPD does not. H bears the asymmetric burden.
ASPD exploits H's cooperation: H plays cooperate as the default move, ASPD plays defect. Result: predation.
BPD exploits H's empathy: H responds to emotional signals, BPD escalates. H burns out.
DPD exploits H's sense of responsibility: H takes over decision-making for both. DPD provides no reciprocity.

Key insight

Understanding the structure of the field is the first prerequisite for a meaningful strategy. Once the H agent identifies which profile they are interacting with, they can:

Stop investing energy in strategies that cannot work.
Reset boundaries in line with the interaction structure.
Look for solutions elsewhere, where they exist.

How to read the table and what the model is not

What the table says

The structural outcome of the interaction of two personality patterns.
The existence or non-existence of Nash equilibrium in a given combination.
Typical dynamic patterns (escalation, cycle, absorption, collapse).
Where it makes sense to invest energy and where it does not.

What the table is not

It is not a diagnosis of people around you.
It is not a deterministic prediction of outcome.
It does not take into account specific context, history, or personal development.
It does not replace professional psychological help.

Literature and Sources

Clinical basis of personality disorders

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing. DSM-5: standard diagnostic classification of personality disorders, the basis for definitions used in the profile cards (NPD, BPD, ASPD, PPD, OCPD, DPD).
Kernberg, O. F. (1984). Severe personality disorders: Psychotherapeutic strategies. Yale University Press. Object relations theory as the basis for understanding narcissistic, borderline, and antisocial structure; definition of "splitting" as the key mechanism of BPD and NPD.
Millon, T., Grossman, S., Millon, C., Meagher, S., & Ramnath, R. (2004). Personality disorders in modern life (2nd ed.). Wiley. Taxonomy of personality disorders and their interaction patterns; basis for defining the dominant strategies of each profile.
Lachkar, J. (2004). The narcissistic/borderline couple (2nd ed.). Brunner-Routledge. Monograph dedicated to the NPD × BPD dyad, clinical studies of "toxic symbiosis".

Game theory: cooperation, defection, and Nash equilibrium

Nash, J. F. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48–49. The original paper defining Nash equilibrium: no player has an incentive to unilaterally change strategy. The basis for encoding outcomes in the table.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books. Tit-for-tat as an evolutionarily stable strategy: cooperate as the default move, reciprocity without resentment. Basis for H×H NE+ and for understanding why ASPD (defect) dominates in one-shot games.
Coleman, P. T. (1995). Conflict, power, and social order. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution. Jossey-Bass. Application of game theory to interpersonal conflicts with asymmetric power structures.

Psychopathic manipulation and exploitation

Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised. Multi-Health Systems. Standard tool for measuring psychopathy; basis for defining the ASPD dominant strategy (defect) and the ability to identify and exploit the emotional needs of others.
Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. HarperCollins. Application of psychopathic manipulation in a corporate environment; basis for the ASPD × OCPD dynamic.
Dutton, D. G. (2007). The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate relationships (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. Dynamics of dominance-submission in intimate relationships; basis for NPD × DPD and ASPD × DPD absorption.

Burnout, trauma, and the H agent in asymmetric relationships

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Burnout. In G. Fink (Ed.), Stress: Concepts, cognition, emotion, and behavior. Academic Press. Burnout in asymmetric relationships; basis for NPD × H and DPD × H dynamics (the H agent bears all the burden).
Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery. Basic Books. The psychological impact of chronic exposure to narcissistic or antisocial behavior on healthy individuals; basis for understanding why the H agent in an NPD/ASPD environment gradually loses trust in their own perception.
Bancroft, L. (2002). Why does he do that? Inside the minds of angry and controlling men. Berkley Books. The mechanism of "reality takeover" and passive control; basis for PPD × DPD and ASPD × DPD absorption.

Attachment theory and emotionally focused therapy

Johnson, S. M. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy (2nd ed.). Brunner-Routledge. EFT framework: anxious-pursuer × withdrawn-defender as an analogy for BPD × OCPD or BPD × PPD dynamics.
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. Guilford Press. Emotional dysregulation as the core of BPD; basis for understanding BPD × BPD, BPD × H, and BPD × DPD patterns.

Evolutionary psychology and paranoia

Raihani, N. J., & Bell, V. (2019). An evolutionary perspective on paranoia. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(2), 114–121. Paranoid prior as an adaptive Bayesian update in an environment with unreliable agents; basis for PPD × NPD and PPD × H dynamics, where the authentic behavior of the H agent paradoxically increases PPD suspicion.
Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18(3), 523–599. The evolutionary basis of antisocial behavior as a frequency-dependent strategy: defect is advantageous when rare in the population, but self-destructive when too widespread. Basis for ASPD × ASPD (defect, defect) NE.

Want to understand if this matches your situation?

Leverage 12 years of experience with optimizing defensive strategies.
Invest your energy where it has real structural impact.

I want a consultation

This tool is intended for educational and analytical purposes. The information provided here does not constitute a psychological diagnosis or therapeutic recommendation. If you are dealing with difficult interpersonal situations, we recommend consulting a qualified professional.

Part 2 of 3

You know how two parties work. Let's add a third player.

Judge, mediator, employer. Their personality profile determines the outcome of a dispute more than the facts.

Continue to Part 2

Conflict Map:7 Personality Types