I have been meaning to make this post for a while, and now since I convinced myself to stop procrastinating and putting it off, here it goes.

Who is this sub for?

Anyone interested in the topic (or topics) are welcome to post here. Freedom of expression is guaranteed.

If you are interested in Machiavelli, feel free to post here. If you are familiar with the secondary sources/history, also feel free.

However polls that I have made show that the vast majority of you are here to discuss the psychology trait also dubbed "Machiavellianism", so if you are interested in that, also feel free.

If you are a "High Mach", feel free to talk about your experiences.

If you are someone who knew a person high on this scale, feel free to share.

If you simply want to learn more about the topic, then you are in the right place.

Who will not like this sub?

If you are are here because of some "self improvement" sigma guru group, this is not the place for you.

If you think Machiavellianism is a form of superpower or black magic that can be "learned", "practiced", or anything else, this is not the place for you.

If you think "High Mach" is a label for which you can slap on and off like a t shirt, this is not the place for you.

If you are here to learn simple social interaction, this is not the sub for you.

If you think High Machs are badass, hyper trained 5-D chess playing chad bad boys that have a grand strategy and win at everything, this is not the place for you.

A note that I would like to add (and will go further into in a post) is that the vast majority of High Machs are unaware of who they are, and those who are self aware usually don't pay much attention to it, unless they are more egotistical. The vast majority of "Machiavellianism" related subs for instance, usually feature socially inept losers (have to call a spade a spade) who couldn't talk their way out of a paper bag, let alone be a manipulator. You know who you are. If this describes you, then you will have a hard time fitting in here.

Another note:

A good number of you are also here because you believe that you will learn some special "manipulation tactics" from trained 4-D chess players. While not specifically disallowed, posts like this do nothing more than drag in the losers and posers, particularly because:

1. You don't know, nor can't know, whether or not the person behind the post is telling the truth

2. If you have to ask "how do I manipulate people" or "what are manipulation tactics I could use?", then there is something wrong with you, because every human outside of those disabled can manipulate and deceive. It is well documented in mammal species. Also, you are an example of a Low Mach. By asking these sorts of questions, you are quite literally admitting that you do not resort to manipulation to suit your ends, and this because you don't have the personality differences necessary to do such. (Hmmmm, I wonder what that is called?)

I get this question on all of our subs.

Just stop.

Not only does asking this make you look lazy, but it makes you appear to have no common sense as well.

Why do I say this?

At the click of a button, you can access everything Machiavelli ever wrote or said, and you wont have to worry about being scammed in the process.

For example, a list of Machiavelli's works can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli#Works

and here:

https://iep.utm.edu/machiave/#SH6a

• The Prince (preferably the Mansfield or Connell translation),

• The Discourses on Livy (multiple good translations but the Mansfield-Tarcov translation is the most widely used),

• The Art of War (Lynch trans.),

• and the Florentine Histories (Mansfield-Banfield translation)

are the only books that you need to read.

There are also other works by Machiavelli, but most of you are probably are going to merely skim The Prince, just for the quotes (which many do not understand anyway), and to tell other people in the hopes you will impress them. (The more people that do this, the less impressive it is)

As for similar books, I would recommend:

• Plato's Republic

• Aristotle's Politics (cf. book V)

• Works by Xenophon

• Of course Titus Livius

• Erasmus "Education of a Christian King"

You get my point, any work on political philosophy will suffice.

Stop looking for "modern day" equivalents, because there aren't any. I have covered this in a very lengthy comment here

As for the other concept named "Machiavellianism" in psychology, which actually has nothing to do with Machiavelli at all in any capacity, there is much content to soak up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism_(psychology)#Sources

There is 50+ years of academic literature on this topic, so this should whet your beak a little.