Talk:Machiavellianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
When Machiavelli says "end justifying the," what does that mean and why does he say that?
A merge would be acceptable as long as it is made clear that the philosophy of Machiavellianism does not directly reflect the intended philosophy of Machiavelli. These are two separate ideas, but people may search for them together. A merge would make the site as a research tool more efficient.
Contents |
[edit] Merge Machiavellianism and Niccolò Machiavelli
This article should not be merged with the article on Machiavelli himself. Machiavellianism as a philosophy has acquired a much larger scope than the biography of Machiavelli. Merging the two articles would be like merging the life of Freud with an article on Freudian Analysis- The two are related, but Freudian Analysis has been developed and referenced by a great many practitioners and has grown outside the life of Freud himself. Ofcourse it is a given that articles can reference each other heavily. Alevion 15:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose merge: One article is about a man and the other about a philosophy he inspired. Niccolò's article is big enough already. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: As the article itself states, the concept of Machiavellianism dates back to ancient times, and has also been used by many others after Machiavelli. The concept is a philosophy that is not exclusive to Machiavelli, hence it shouldn't be merged. That would be like merging Buddha with Buddhism, Confucius with Confucianism, Aristotle with Aristotelianism, Christ with Christianity, Muhammad with Islam, etc. Jagged 85 01:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
No. Merging this article is a really bad idea. This article is about a "spinoff" theory of Machiavellianism; a psychological model about degrees of Machiavellian personality. Moreover, this article is very narrow, incomplete, and only loosly related to the historical character. --NoiZy 16:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Merging the article would be correct. I agree that topics such as Buddha and Buddhism and Freud and Freudian Analysis should not be merged, however, the term "Machiavellian" is directly related to the man himself and his theories. Also, many people may search for one or the other and merging the two would create easier access to the relevant information.
No. I'm not sure how many people discussing this have actually read Machiavelli. This article has almost nothing to do with his teachings. The Prince was written exclusively for rulers and aspiring rulers. Machiavelli never believed the common man should act in these ways, which in my mind really debunks the entire connection this article has to him. Spyde 19:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Merge: I am wholeheartedly in agreement with Noizy. This article isn't at all philosophical, it is psychological. More to the point, it is a psychological model based on a narrow aspect of Machiavelli's characterization of mankind. I think the strongest reason to reject merging the articles is that fact that psychology, as a western science, was coined, at its earliest, after Machiavelli's death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_psychology#The_Beginnings_of_Western_Psychology). Machiavellianism, the psychological idea, is distinct from the man after whom it is named. SJCstudent 07:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose merge: 'Machiavellianism' is a position in the moral universe, which existed before Machiavelli and is not inspired by him - the label has stuck and we should leave it as it is, unless someone comes up with something more suitable. Caritato 19:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Machs
Any notable people taken the Mach IV test? Some examples (especially politicians) would be interesting, but I guess they wouldn't be too keen to make their results public... LukeSurl t c 12:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RE: Merge
This article is exceedingly poorly written, and contains only a single source, linked to a popular personality test site, thus carrying very little weight. The article is divided to two highly specious categories, on what basis I cannot quite determine, lacking sources at it does. Bearing in mind the article's poor state, its lack of sources, and that Maciavellianism is not, as far as I can determine, a recognised psychological category or personality disorder (and nothing in the article to suggest otherwise), I cannot see what would be lost my merging this article with Niccolò Machiavelli86.0.203.120 (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What about...
What about the people who are so Machiavellian that they know not to tell the psychologists that? 68.97.181.129 (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV tag added
Because the article defines 'high machs' and 'low machs' in the intro as being determined by a multiple-choice test (without a citation, no less), then later generalises about the personalities of those who fall into the two aforementioned categories. It's silly, and it's POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.114.119 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Intro Cleanup
I removed the line "Some definitions describe "machiavellianism" to mean boring to the point of tears." from the introduction. It doesn't cite a source, has a grammatical error, and it just seemed really out of place in the article as a whole. This page still needs a lot of work if anyone is up to the task. 155.92.113.164 (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup?
Someone who has time should probably fix this article. It seems like one person wrote the whole thing without citing any sources. Jermor (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. There are no citations (you can't count a personality test as a citation) and the whole article should be deleted if there fails to be sufficient and legitimate citations. Doctormanhattan (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
