That article was probably seen by thousands of people before fam, come with new things
No, machiavellians are the epitome of machiavellian creatures. It seems that you seem to think that sociopaths are some sort of super human beings. They are not. Most sociopaths are impulsive and lack planning. This is contradictory and interferes with the ability to be truly cunning.
In relationships, sociopaths are the epitome of Machiavellian creatures. If they were astrological signs, they would be Geminis, with two distinct 'selfs' at work. They are duplicity incarnate, with a polished self shown to the world and a covert, hidden self that has a rigid and calculating agenda.
Machiavellianism is "the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct". using clever lies and tricks in order to get or achieve something
Cricket stated: source post
It seems that you seem to think that sociopaths are some sort of super human beings. They are not.
just a copy and link of an interesting article. thats all
It is worth discussing of what nature is the "duplicity" and impulse control. Some like to split hairs between sociopath and psychopath, often assigning sociopaths a more learned psychopathy (secondary?) and psychopaths neurologically imbued with their traits. Both sets have trouble with impulse control, from what I understand. However, more strategic cunning is often attributed to the psychopath, able to maintain a more consistent mask of civility while undertaking steps toward their agenda. A sociopath may be more opportunistic, but can probably approximate more believable behavior in the moment and aren't without their own innate manipulative repertoire.
However, these are very general opinions but maybe there's something along these lines worth exploring more.
That's an interesting evaluation that I hadn't really considered. It seems that a primary psychopath would be more machiavellian than a secondary psychopath/sociopath just based on the motivations of the actions of the affected individual, which of course will vary person to person. It seems psychopathy is more tuned to long-term "games" while sociopaths would have more of an affinity for the short-term.
If we really want to bring this home, we could bring in the (anecdotal) information our LSRP tests show. I have a higher secondary psychopath rating, and I am certainly less interested in the maintenance of a steady ascension scheme and don't really value power beyond immediate comfort, most of the time. I am interested in maintaining a certain status quo in order to avoid disruption, but as misanthropic and isolating as I am, I can't help but indulge whim when it strikes. However, my reticence and usually placid demeanor affords me enough wiggle room to turn spontaneity into (apparent) purpose. It's more of a plan around possible inconsistencies I myself will maybe incur. There is no "outing" with this admission, for it really isn't that different than what most people do, only I tend to consider it objectively and with purpose. It sort of has an "improvisational" feel, I can best describe.
Being higher primary psychopath, how would you describe yourself in similar terms?