#Machiavellianism

[oxenfreeao3]

I need Caitlyn “if I cannot become ungovernable I will become the government” Kiramman to have a full-on Machiavellian anti-hero arc so that The General Public finally takes her seriously.

Analysis:

I've mentioned it before, but Caitlyn's character embodies nearly all the traits of a Machiavellian with high cognitive empathy.

Firstly and most obviously, she manipulates systems and people to accomplish her goals. Vi would still be in Stillwater and much of Act II and III would not have happened if Caitlyn weren't willing to cleverly and unscrupulously lie and forge her way to success.

We can argue she's not a very good liar. I argue that doesn't really matter. One, her lies work. Two, she is clearly ready and willing to deceive so long as she thinks it's for a good reason. The inclination is what matters. I think the important question to ask is, "What is this character willing do to?"

Secondly, she's huge on agency. It's one of the main features of her character. She demonstrates (from the five-factor model): achievement-striving, assertiveness, self-confidence, emotional invulnerability, activity, and competence.

Regarding emotional invulnerability. I want to touch on this because I think it's missed. Caitlyn is an extremely guarded character. She reveals almost no personal information about herself, even to Vi. During high-stress situations, she flinches from her own vulnerability, tries to play it off, or compartmentalizes heavily.

Vi is the bleeding heart, the open book, the one who can't guard worth a damn (it's not even subtext, other characters say this to her face and I believe it has a dual meaning).

Meanwhile, Caitlyn waits until Vi is vulnerable with her and shows her respect before even giving Vi her name. (I have more to say about the "Cupcake" scene but that's for another time).

Other aspects of a Machiavellian character include:

Cynicism, selfishness, callousness, arrogance, deliberation and orderliness.

I argue that Caitlyn's character hints at the first one, gets away with the next three because she's "sweet," and blatantly embodies the last two.

Caitlyn in S1 is a sharp edge sheathed in kindness. We like what she's currently doing and think she's a Good Person because her trajectory aligns with our own sense of right and wrong. But Caitlyn is doing what she wants. What she thinks is right. Again, it's not subtext.

Marcus: "She does whatever she wants, I can't control her!"

And in S2, I think the same behaviors we currently love in her could easily be used to spin her down a corruption arc that leaves us a bit aghast -- but shouldn't leave us surprised.

I argue such an arc would be squarely in character.

Paraphrasing from the AMA:

"Everyone is a little bit opposite of who they are in Season One."

What will that mean for Caitlyn?

I don't know, but the recipe for a very interesting time is written all over her character.

[irradiatedwarlock]

The Kiss of Judas by Jakob Smits, 1906

That manipulative gremlin!

[literatureloverx]

“I feel no responsibility to those comrades who’ve lost their lives in my service. They chose to fight those battles, just as you chose, just as I… just as I have chosen this. But there is one thing I can do for them—for the dead. It is to win, and keep winning until I attain my dream. A dream they clung to and risked their lives for. I can’t just step over the bones of the dead in order to realise it. My dream is already smeared with blood. I don’t regret; I don’t feel guilty. But I’d rather sacrifice myself than watch any more innocent children die in the name of my dream.”

— Griffith from Berserk

In my view, Griffith embodies a disturbing blend of unhealthy obsession, Machiavellian cunning, moral detachment, a fractured sense of responsibility, delusion, and false heroism, each aspect interwoven with a chilling elegance.

His unhealthy obsession is clear in his relentless pursuit of his dream, regardless of the cost. When he states that he doesn’t feel responsible for the deaths of his comrades because they “chose” to fight, it highlights his singular focus on his goal, disregarding the human cost. His priority is his vision, and he reduces the sacrifices of others to mere choices rather than recognizing them as genuine acts of selflessness. Yet, despite this rationalisation, he still feels a sense of guilt. His obsession blinds him to the true cost of his ambition, allowing him to justify the loss of life while still struggling with internal conflict.

Machiavellianism is reflected in Griffith’s cold pragmatism. The statement “they chose to fight those battles” underscores his manipulative mindset—he views those around him as pawns who make decisions for themselves. His detached attitude toward their sacrifices reveals his willingness to justify their deaths as a means to an end, characteristic of Machiavellian behavior. Griffith sees people as tools in his grand plan, willing to use them without any emotional attachment or care for their fate. Yet, beneath this detached exterior, he is trapped in his own internal contradictions, experiencing deep guilt over the consequences of his actions.

By claiming, “I feel no responsibility…” one might assume that Griffith is emotionally disengaged from the suffering of others. However, this doesn’t reflect a lack of guilt or regret over the sacrifices of his comrades. Instead, he rationalises their deaths as choices they made, distancing himself from any moral burden. Despite his attempts to distance himself emotionally and justify his actions, he still grapples with guilt. He frequently reflects on the people who have died because of his dream, blaming both himself and his ambition inwardly, while outwardly justifying his actions. This creates an internal dilemma that tears at his psyche.

The following lines further reveal his breakdown through a false sense of responsibility: “But there is one thing I can do for them—for the dead. It is to win, and keep winning until I attain my dream. A dream they clung to and risked their lives for.” Here, Griffith imposes a sense of responsibility that is partially delusional. He convinces himself that the best way to honor the dead is by achieving the dream they “clung to.” However, this sense of responsibility isn’t genuine; it’s a mental construct meant to rationalise his obsession. The weight of this perceived duty serves as psychological justification for continuing to sacrifice others. It’s not true selfless responsibility, but a coping mechanism that allows him to maintain his focus on his goal while masking the emotional turmoil that accompanies it.

Griffith is deluded into believing that the end justifies the means. He says, “I can’t just step over the bones of the dead in order to realise it,” suggesting that he retains some moral boundary. However, his insistence that he must fulfill the dream “for the dead” is itself a delusion, because it enables him to overlook the horrific consequences of his actions while still rationalising them as necessary for the greater good. He convinces himself that his dream will somehow redeem the sacrifices made in its name, even as he continues down a path paved with violence and betrayal.

Finally, Griffith’s false heroism is evident in his belief that his pursuit of his dream is not only justified but noble. The line, “My dream is already smeared with blood,” reflects his internal conflict but also his refusal to turn back. By stating that he would rather sacrifice himself than watch innocent children die for his dream, he presents himself as someone burdened with a higher moral calling—sacrificing others for the “greater good.”

This is the essence of false heroism: Griffith sees himself as a hero because he believes he is making these sacrifices for a noble cause, when, in reality, his actions are self-serving and driven by ego.

The line, “But I’d rather sacrifice myself than watch any more innocent children die in the name of my dream,” is crucial in understanding Griffith’s self-perception as a tragic hero.

On the surface, it suggests a moment of self-awareness and even self-sacrifice, as he claims that he would put his own life on the line to prevent further innocent deaths. However, this statement also reflects Griffith’s deeply flawed understanding of his own moral standing. It implies that, despite the bloodshed he has already caused, he still believes his ultimate goal is noble enough to warrant such sacrifices.

His willingness to “sacrifice himself” is framed as a form of atonement, but it is also a manipulation of his guilt. The fact that he would rather die than let more innocents suffer reinforces his delusion that he is, in some way, the tragic hero of his own story—sacrificing others for the greater good, while seeing himself as burdened with a higher moral calling.

In reality, Griffith is not truly acknowledging the enormity of the harm he has caused, as he still justifies his violent and self-serving actions as being in service of a dream that transcends any personal guilt or regret. His attempt to position himself as a martyr only further illustrates the extent to which he is trapped in a cycle of delusion, convinced that his sacrifice will redeem him and make his dream legitimate, even at the cost of others’ lives.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Yascha Mounk

Published: Dec 21, 2024

After Donald Trump won reelection, scores of Americans once again failed to make good on their loudly shared and oft-repeated plan of moving to Canada; but a good number of them did partake in a different, rather less cumbersome, exodus. Complaining that Twitter had been unrecognizably transformed under the ownership of Elon Musk—whom they also blame for supporting Trump—hundreds of thousands of progressives decamped to Bluesky.

Widely touted as a “kinder, gentler” alternative to X, Bluesky aims to emulate the up-to-date news and specialized information-sharing in which Twitter has traditionally excelled. It also promises to cut all the toxicity. In the past weeks, the platform announced plans to quadruple the number of moderators it employs. "We’re trying to go above what the legal requirements are, because we decided that we wanted to be a safe and welcoming space,” Aaron Rodericks, the head of the Trust and Safety Team at Bluesky Social, vowed.

The platform has some features that really do put the user in charge in appealing ways. In traditional social media networks, the executives of profit-driven companies control the algorithm that governs the content which is presented to individual users. Especially on micro-blogging platforms like Twitter, this feature—since well before Musk turned it into X—meant privileging controversial posts that elicit angry debate over milder, more consensual ones. On Bluesky, each user can choose between a great variety of open-source algorithms, which theoretically makes it possible to curate a less rage-inducing experience.

When Bluesky launched, I hoped that it would succeed. But the platform has quickly shown that it is hard for any social network to deliver on its promise of being the place for a kinder or gentler discourse. At its best, Bluesky has become a giant progressive echo chamber, with Blue MAGA accounts freely sharing “misinformation” such as the notion that the vote count in the 2024 election was fraudulent because millions of Democratic votes inexplicably went missing. At its worst, it openly revels in violence—so long as that violence can make a claim, however tenuous, to defend or avenge righteous victims.

In accordance with the platform’s policy of moderating content much more aggressively than X has done under Musk, Bluesky’s moderators have been quick to act when users flout the site’s ideological consensus. In the last weeks, both small accounts with few followers and well-known writers with an established audience have seemingly been banned for such trivial “infractions” as suggesting that the Democratic Party leaving X would be a counterproductive form of “purity politics.” And yet, it was on Bluesky that prominent journalists—including, but not limited to, the infamous Taylor Lorenz—openly rejoiced in the murder of Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare. As long as progressives perceive the victim of a crime to be morally evil, the moderators on Bluesky appear to believe that threatening violence against them is justifiable.

More recently, Bluesky users with major followings reveled in the prospect of violence against Jesse Singal, a center-left journalist who has ended up in progressive crosshairs because of his reporting about detransitioners and involvement in other heated debates regarding trans issues. Some consisted in crude death threats: “I think Jesse Singal should be beat to death in the streets,” one wrote. But a surprising number explicitly justified calls for violence as being necessary to defend themselves against the ways in which he supposedly put them at risk. “Jesse Singal and assorted grifters want us dead so i similarly want him dead,” another user wrote.1

Though they blatantly violated Bluesky’s restrictive community guidelines, the platform hardly took action against such accounts. It even failed to ban users who shared what they believed to be Singal’s private address or made especially graphic threats against him. Evidently, the people making decisions for the kinder, gentler platform don’t mind actual death threats—as long as they are directed against those who, in their judgment, have it coming to them.

What can possibly explain the descent of a platform populated by progressives who claim to abhor all forms of violence into an echo chamber that revels in violence against anyone who defies its taboos or threatens its ideological conformity?

Some of the dynamic likely has to do with the nature of social media in general, and of microblogging platforms like Twitter and Bluesky in particular. There is also an ideological element—a justification of violence has been interwoven with far-left ideology for well over a century. But as I puzzled over the strange transformation of Bluesky, I was also reminded of a series of interesting social science papers published over the course of the last years. They suggest that the tendency to justify violence by the need to help virtuous victims serves a strategic purpose that is less than benign—and may even have worrying psychological roots.

-

Traditionally, most people have wanted to avoid being seen as a victim.

In “honor” societies, like the aristocratic milieus of early modern Europe, the impression that you could not defend yourself spelled dishonor and invited further attacks. When someone failed to pay you the respect to which you believed to be entitled, you did not claim to be a victim; you challenged them to a duel.

The same aversion to casting yourself as a victim persisted even after feudalism gave way to capitalism, and aristocratic “honor cultures” transformed into bourgeois “dignity cultures.” For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, people who were maltreated in some way would insist that such forms of disrespect did not have the power to undermine the dignity we all have as humans. If the duel is the canonical encapsulation of honor culture, the canonical encapsulations of dignity culture are an adult’s determination to keep a “stiff upper lip” in the face of adversity or a child’s resolve that “sticks and stones may break my bones but words shall never hurt me.”

But as Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning have argued in The Rise of Victimhood Culture, we are now entering a new era. Dignity culture is waning rapidly. In its place, we are witnessing the rise of victimhood culture. This new dispensation “differs from both honor and dignity cultures in highlighting rather than downplaying the complainants’ victimhood.” Under these circumstances, people who portray themselves as victims enjoy an elevated moral status. And that, Campbell and Manning write in one of their papers, “only increases the incentive to publicize grievances, and it means aggrieved parties are especially likely to highlight their identity as victims, emphasizing their own suffering and innocence.” (Anyone who has spent time on social media—whether it be Bluesky or Instagram or TikTok—in the decade since Campbell and Manning first wrote that line can’t help but feel that it has proven to be prophetic.)

Ekin Ok and three co-authors from the University of British Columbia pick up on this thread in a 2021 paper published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Because of the spread of egalitarian values and the paramount importance they give to alleviating suffering, Ok et al argue, contemporary Western democracies have become highly responsive to people who are perceived as victims. Under these circumstances, making a claim to victim status may allow a great variety of people “to pursue an environmental resource extraction strategy that helps them survive, flourish, and achieve their goals.” As a result, “claiming one is a victim has become increasingly advantageous and even fashionable.”

But being a victim may not be enough. Even in contemporary Western societies, the perceived moral status of the victim is likely to influence how much assistance they will receive. As Ok et al demonstrate, for example, respondents are more likely to offer financial assistance to a man who gets shot while volunteering at a charity softball game than they are to a man who gets shot while patronizing a strip club. For “victim-signalling” to have the desired effect, it needs to be accompanied by “virtue-signalling.”

Some people, of course, really are “virtuous victims.” They have suffered genuine injustice. But since managing to establish your status as a virtuous victim is potentially lucrative, it also stands to reason that others will falsely claim to fall into this category. As Ok et al write, some people “intentionally and repeatedly convey their victim status as a manipulative strategy with the explicit aim of altering the behavior of receivers to the signaler’s advantage.”

The authors of the study even have a hypothesis about who is most likely to do that. People with Dark Triad traits such as narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, they argue, are especially likely to engage in “self-promotion, emotional callousness, duplicity and [a] tendency to take advantage of others.” Narcissists seek the limelight. Machiavellians are obsessed with gaining and exercising power over others. Psychopaths don’t care about social norms and disregard others’ emotions. People with all three traits are thus likely to be hugely overrepresented in the “subset of the population both adept at and comfortable with using deception and manipulation to attain personal goals.”

In a succession of clever tests, Ok et al provide plausible evidence that their theory is borne out by reality. Their first striking empirical finding is that people with dark personality traits are also more likely to falsely portray themselves as victims. In one of their studies, they ask you to imagine that you are an intern who is asked to work closely on a project with a peer who is competing for the same full-time job. The other intern is friendly to your face but you get a bad vibe from him. He doesn’t take your suggestions seriously, and you suspect that he may be talking badly about you behind your back. How do you respond?

That seems to depend on who you are. Asked to report on the behavior of the other intern, most participants in the experiment shared some negative opinions but refrained from making false or exaggerated statements. Respondents who had scored high on the dark personality triad, by contrast, were more likely to falsely report that the other intern had engaged in discriminatory behaviour such as making “demeaning or derogatory comments.”

The paper’s second striking empirical finding shows that the tendency of people with dark personality traits to falsely claim being a virtuous victim may also give them cover for engaging in bad behavior. In another experiment, they asked respondents to play a simple coin flip game, which was manipulated in such a way that its participants could easily use deception to increase their monetary payoff. It turns out that people who have portrayed themselves as virtuous victims were far more likely than their peers to lie and to cheat.

This helps to explain some of the features about Bluesky and other social media platforms that might otherwise feel puzzling. The kinds of claims to virtuous victimhood that are so common on that forum don’t just create cover for manipulative people to serve their own ends; they also seem to create license for disregarding moral norms—whether these consist in a prohibition of lying about others to ostracize them or (apparently) even calling for them to be killed.

-

When the study by Ok et al first came out, it made some minor waves. My fellow Substacker and recent podcast guest Rob Henderson argued that people with dark personality traits do what they can in any particular social environment to obtain benefits like prestige or material wealth. In current circumstances, he concluded, “those with dark triad traits might find that the best way to extract rewards is by making a public spectacle of their victimhood and virtue.” The psychologist and podcaster Scott Barry Kaufman put a similar conclusion even more starkly: “Some people,” he wrote, just “aren't good-faith actors in this ‘victimhood space.’”

At the time, I found the paper by Ok et al to be intriguing. And I knew that both Henderson and Kaufman usually have a good nose for bullshit. And yet, I have refrained from writing about its findings until now. After all, social psychology suffers from a serious replication crisis. Time and again, findings that are a little too neat or pleasing—from the idea that a child’s ability to resist the temptation of eating a marshmallow predicts later life outcomes to the promise that striking a “power pose” can set you up for success in a job interview—turned out to be dubious or outright false. And isn’t there something a little too neat about the idea that all of those people attesting to their superior virtue are secretly just narcissists and psychopaths trying to manipulate you?

It also seemed to me that a piece of the puzzle was still missing. Some of the people who target others on social media really do portray themselves as virtuous victims. They claim that they are part of the group which the victim of their attacks has supposedly targeted. And many of them clearly have self-serving goals, ranging from increasing their social clout to asking followers to donate cold, hard cash. But others who gang up on, or even threaten violence against, anybody who breaks perceived community norms don’t claim to be victims themselves; rather, they invoke the existence of supposed victims as an excuse to engage in cruel behavior. For all of its strength, there is something about the phenomenon I’ve been trying to make sense of that Ok’s paper can’t quite explain.

But then my research assistant sent me a new paper about the same subject. In a major effort, Timothy C. Bates and five of his colleagues at the University of Edinburgh set out to test whether the finding by Ok et al would replicate. Based on a larger dataset and employing alternative ways to measure key concepts like virtuous victim signalling, they came to an unambiguous conclusion: virtuous victim signalling really does seem to be driven by what they call “narcissistic Machiavellianism.”

More importantly, the paper by Bates et al also adds the missing piece of the puzzle. The “willingness to assert victimhood,” they hypothesize, may also “be amplified by the motive of sadistic pleasure in the downfall of weakened opponents.” In other words, the people who invoke the need to defend victims in order to justify treating others poorly don’t necessarily have a concrete strategic goal in mind; some of them do so because they are looking for a socially sanctioned outlet for their sadistic instincts. In those cases, the cruelty is the point.

To demonstrate that this is indeed the case, Bates et al use a standard battery of questions to measure respondents’ tendencies towards sadism, asking them such questions as whether they would be willing to purposely hurt people if they didn’t like them. They then test whether people with such sadistic tendencies are also more likely to score high on what they call the “victimizer scale,” which asks them to report on such questions as whether they have recently “enjoyed helping cancel someone;” whether they have “joined in on the persecution and condemnation of an individual or group accused of victimizing others;” and whether they have “sought to hurt the reputation of someone accused by others of victimizing.”

Two things are especially notable about this. First, not all sadists claimed that they themselves were virtuous victims. But second, the claim that they were acting on behalf of such victims—whether themselves or others—was the crucial fig leaf they needed to get away with their behavior. This finding, Bates et al argue, supports

the suggestion that sadism may be adapted to exploit strategic opportunities, specifically the legitimization of punishing and inflicting harm on individuals or groups which is created by successful virtuous victim signalling. If individuals high on Machiavellianism and narcissism exploit the resource-release response of nonvictims, sadism appears, as predicted, to exploit the opportunity created by victims in the form of the moral license granted by non-victims, legitimizing attacks on the victimizer by removing moral protection from those accused.

-

Many people really do suffer genuine injustices. It is on the whole a good thing that contemporary societies are much more likely to give people who claim to have suffered undeserved misfortune a respectful hearing than they might have gotten in the past. While trying to keep a “stiff upper lip” may have its uses, we certainly wouldn’t want people to fear advocating for a more just society, or coming forward about ways in which they have been maltreated, because doing so might undermine their dignity or bring shame upon them.

But to be sensible and sustainable, every social dispensation—whether it consists in an explicit set of rules or an implicit set of norms—must protect itself against bad actors. When a platform or political subculture allows anyone to portray themselves as victims without any real evidence, bad actors will recognize an opportunity to swoop in. And then these bad actors will quickly weaponize false claims to victimization as an excuse to harass or physically threaten people who supposedly have it coming to them. In a culture of victimhood that has no inbuilt defenses against bad actors, things will—as the recent blowup on Bluesky reminds us—always eventually get out of hand.

Every community, however noble its stated intentions and however progressive its purported values, needs a mechanism for defending itself against the small minority of people who are prone to exploit and manipulate their social environment. If yours doesn’t have one, it’s inviting the sadists, the narcissists and the psychopaths to run the show.

-

1 Like many of the things that are said or written about Singal, this claim of course lacks any basis in objective reality.

==

When victimhood is currency, expect counterfeiters.

We must fully depreciate "victimhood" as a form of social currency.

[mindfulhavens]

Seduction is not solely about physical beauty, but rather the psychology to create an irresistible allure.

By understanding both yourself and your target, crafting a compelling persona, and skillfully manipulating emotions and perceptions you can create attraction and build influenc

[scolothanatos]

Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince

Lalo and Nacho’s romance is a horror thriller because whenever something horrific happens I am thrilled.

[unsolicitedadvicecatlady]

I'm going to make a prediction:

Within the next two decades, Machiavellianism is going to be a diagnosable disorder.

That way, people with Chronic Asshat Syndrome will be able to hide behind their latest PDF copy of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and say, "The Devil made me do it!"

[the-666-system]

what does machiavellian mean?? (/genq)

In the field of personality psychology, Machiavellianism (sometimes abbreviated as MACH) is the name of a personality trait construct characterized by interpersonal manipulation, indifference to morality, lack of empathy, and a calculated focus on self-interest. Psychologists Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis named the construct after Niccolò Machiavelli, as they used truncated and edited statements similar to his writing style to study variations in human behaviors.

Their Mach IV test, a 20-question, Likert-scale personality survey, became the standard self-assessment tool and scale of the Machiavellianism construct. Those who score high on the scale (High Machs) are more likely to have a high level of manipulativeness, deceitfulness, and a cynical, unemotional temperament.

- Wikipedia

Here's the host's test results. Not all of us are machs, but the majority of us are, so we collectively identify as one.

Here's the test if you wanna take it!

[shiv-multifandom-mess]

[riddlesera]

Tom and his love for Machiavelli.

..will post the whole book as he reads it on my patreon - patreon.com/youraudiomystory

[mxbirdman]

Dumbledore and Machiavelli??

IM RESEARCHJNG MACHIAVELLI RN AND I CANT STOP DRAWING LINES BETWEEN HIS PHILOSIPHIES AND DUMBLEDORE

“immoral actions are ok in political situations” DUMBLEDORE???

“a good leader needs virtù; not the moral goodness virtue but a flexibility in order to go between good and evil for the greater good” DUMBLEY???

the main differences i see are machiavelli was mostly honest about it. like, bro went “yeah morals are iffy in politics” and yeah. but dumbledore was just like “i am Good! i am Light!”

rip machiavelli you would’ve had such a love hate relationship with dumbledore

[achilles22hector]

— The 33 Strategies of War, Robert Greene

The 33 Strategies of War is a military history and personal development book. It was written by American author Robert Greene in 2006. It is composed of discussions and examples of offensive and defensive strategies from a wide variety of people and conditions, applying them to social conflicts such as family quarrels and business negotiations.

[yulia-inferis]

[cateyes1901]

“Everybody sees what you appear to be; few make out what you really are”

Niccolò Machiavelli: The Prince 1513

[ashenchromatic]

getting people sleep deprived is like the morally correct version of getting them drunk

[nicole-survivor]

Watching Criminal Minds for the first time in a while and heard the term 'dark triad' referring to an unsub and was like... A-Level Psychology coming in clutch here. I remember this from my A2 year from the notes on criminal behaviours.