I will immediately assume that they haven’t read Machiavelli.
Probably exerts a lot of energy fitting into their idea of who they should be compared to others.
That they take themselves WAY too seriously and they’re trying to get whoever’s listening to think that way as well.
They are flat out lying. Machiavellians tend to be manipulative and giving this knowledge away defeats the goals and purpose of machiavellianism.
Like beating someone to death for not believing you’re a pacifist.
Edit: See my other posts for a better take on what’s going on here.
A true Machiavellan tells you the other person is the Machiavelli type.
Cringe edgelord. Or just a delusional idiot.
Because of the evil implied in machiavellianism, I’m sure they have plenty of unsavory behavior they would love to see your reaction to.
True Machiavellian character would not disclose it if they are aware of it.
Move on, ignore and, if possible, block.
There is more to it I think. In a masters level course I took, our Instructor was a nearly retired Ph.D in Taxation. He had spent a lifetime in the halls of corporate power as an expert, conducting research and giving policy advice to corporations, governments and institutions.
Among the friendly banter during breaks, some interesting conversations came up about ethics in business. He interjected and offered an explicit personal opinion. He was very clear he was speaking as a person eating his lunch, not as our instructor and in no way does what he was about to say reflect the course material in any way:
If you want to understand how corporations’ executives and more importantly, how Boards of Directors, and a lot of high level civil servants and political actors really measure performance under these ethical scenarios, read Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. It explains everything.
I read it the next day. Then I went on to read Xenophon’s “The Education of Cyrus” because Machiavelli referred to it in the book.
Edit: Having read a few more of OPs responses, I think OPs subject is just saying they agree with/admire Machiavelli’s The Prince, and to the point of my story, so do a LOT of powerful people. You know, the types who tend to score high on the DSM’s dark triad and run global corporations.
That’s different from someone saying “I’m Machiavellian”, which is what OP asked. But taken at face value, without context, one would understand we are talking about someone labelling themselves as such.
Agree completely. My original terse comment was based on this very assumption. Having read more of OPs comments, I think the latter is more apt.
Attention-seeking. An edgelord, basically.
If they’re actually serious, they might be saying it to inure you to the future bad behavior they wish to exhibit.
Either way, doesn’t sound like a pleasant acquaintance.
Do people unironically say that about themselves? That’s really weird.
Yes. They say they follow the principles of Niccolò Machiavelli and call themselves Machiavellian.
Theyre an idiot and you shouldn’t bother with them.
Definitely don’t try to debate such a person. You’ll quickly find you’re the muddy pig and the only thing that’s moved is time.
That sounds ridiculous.
They’re saying they want to manipulate and abuse people but are bad at it.
Like thanks for the warning dude.
Ah. So they read The Prince, and they admire the self-centered, amoral pursuit of political power.
We call those people conservative or fascist, depending on the degree of ideological rigour and if any off flavours are present.
To answer your question, I consider the dish ruined. It should be discarded and you should try anew from scratch.
Sociopath, most likely.
Without context and tone, no idea.
Cringe
Pretentious attention-seeker.
My impression would be that they’re an idiot and overestimate their own intelligence. They also probably complain online that women won’t date them, and most likely voted Republican.
My impression would be that they’re an idiot and overestimate their own intelligence. They also probably complain online that women won’t date them, and most likely voted Republican.
Republican vote aside (the world does not end at the US borders, mind you, and most of us humans living on this planet your country is mercilessly wrecking havoc upon are not US citizens), I would quite agree.
‘Machiavellian’ is not something one will say about themselves, it’s something one will say about someone else. Oftentimes misusing it. Hence the importance of reading that (short) book written by Machiavelli, ‘The Prince’ in which he explains how to be, well, a prince in various types of princedoms. He also shows how ‘bad’ actions may be the right actions for that prince, but it’s far from being limited to that idea.
Republican vote aside
I said that with the assurance that the reader, whomever they are, would read it and associate that part with whatever the conservatives in their country are called.
Uh… it was like the default example for “evil leader” before Hitler.
Sounds like someone who wants attention. Enjoys the edginess and obvious absurdity in a statement like that.
