Search Salon

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Recently in Salon Books

Book Bag
Guided tours of dystopia
The author of "Birds of America" selects five favorite novels about the future.
By Lorrie Moore
[09/13/99]

Reviews
"The Great Shame; and the Triumph of the Irish in the English-Speaking World"
A writer of Irish extraction explores Australia and North America in a quest to uncover Ireland's history.
By Mary Elizabeth Williams
[09/13/99]

Interview
Grumpy old archetypes
James Hillman, bestselling author and gadfly to the therapy movement, talks about the fine art of aging gracefully.
By Steve Perry
[09/10/99]

Ivory Tower
The first day of the last year
After poker, sex and forgetting, I face a room full of faces and suddenly remember.
By David Alford
[09/10/99]

Reviews
"Ringing for You"
Another post-"Bridget Jones" novel tackles the subject of a single woman's love life. Yawn.
By Stephanie Zacharek
[09/10/99]

Complete archives for Books

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Machiavelli's survival-of-the-shrewdest philosophy has obvious parallels to evolutionary theory (were he writing today, he might thank, fawningly of course, Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins in his acknowledgements), and the researchers have embraced him as a sage. "Machiavelli seems to me to have been a realist, who accepted that self-interest was ultimately what drove people, and emphasized that the best way to achieve one's personal ends was usually through social, cooperative and generous behavior -- provided that the costs are never allowed to outweigh the ultimate benefits to oneself," says Byrne. Though the biologists' work doesn't draw directly on Machiavelli's texts, his steel-fisted, velvet-gloved approach provides the perfect model for the behavior they describe.

Also Today Machiavelli personality test Are you a Machiavellian at heart? Take Christie's test.

Evolutionary biology isn't the only academic discipline to borrow from Machiavelli: Psychology got there first. Almost 50 years ago, a Stanford psychologist named Richard Christie set out to ascertain just how many modern-day adherents Machiavelli had, and how they differed from those who disavow his ideas. Christie created a personality test based on statements taken from "The Prince": "Most people forget more easily the death of their parents than the loss of their property," for example, and "The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that the criminals are stupid enough to get caught." Test-takers were asked to rate how strongly they agreed with Machiavelli's acid observations. Those who endorsed Machiavelli's opinions Christie dubbed high Machs; those who rejected them out of hand were low Machs. Most people fall somewhere in the middle, but there's a significant minority at either extreme.

The unusual origins of Christie's test set it apart from the carefully constructed instruments psychologists ordinarily use. The survey itself measures only one thing -- whether the test-taker subscribes to the ideas of a 16th century Italian political philosopher. But here's the rub: In subsequent experiments in his lab, Christie found that our reactions to Machiavelli act as a kind of litmus test, delineating differences in temperament that he confirmed with more traditional personality inventories. High Machs, he determined, constitute a distinct type: charming, confident and glib, but also arrogant, calculating and cynical, prone to manipulate and exploit. (Think Rupert Murdoch, or if your politics permit it, Bill Clinton.)

Christie and his collaborator, Florence Geis, had deeply mixed feelings about high Machs, especially after watching them trounce other players in games the psychologists set up and observed in their lab. "Initially, our image of the high Mach was a negative one, associated with shadowy and unsavory manipulations," they wrote in their 1970 classic, "Studies in Machiavellianism" (Academic Press). "However, after watching subjects in laboratory experiments, we found ourselves having a perverse admiration for the high Mach's ability to outdo others in experimental situations." Almost against their will, they were impressed by the high Machs: "Their greater willingness to admit socially undesirable traits compared to low Machs hinted at a possibly greater insight into and honesty about themselves."

Next page | Was Mother Teresa a higher being or a higher Mach?