Talk:Machiavellianism (psychology)/Archive 1

Deletion
Copied from User_talk:RHaworth today, before he removes it:
 * I'm highly dubious about this [his deletion of the article] - this content has been evolving since 2005 at the old Machiavellianism, now renamed Machiavellianism (politics), where you will see it in the history. If it really is a wholesale repeat, this is no doubt because the other source has copied Wikipedia. In any case, we need the subject and you should not have removed the whole article. Please restore it. Looking at the claimed source, clearly an essay by a not very good student, dated 2015, I recognise, copied wholesale near the top of page 18, a passage I wrote myself for St._Bartholomew's_Day_massacre "It was in this context that the massacre came to be seen as a product of Machiavellianism, a view greatly influenced by the Huguenot Innocent Gentillet, who published his Discours contre Machievel in 1576, which was printed in ten editions in three languages over the next four years....". You can see it in this version from 2010. The whole crappy piece is clearly made up largely by chunks of many WP articles - check out his section at the end repeating our article Machiavellianism in the workplace. The article even includes our old Machiavellianism, now renamed Machiavellianism (politics) in the bibliography, with the note "All websites have been seen between 10-20th of December 2015". Frankly, you should not have been fooled by this. The article gets lots of views and has many links to it. — Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have emailed you the text. Feel free to restore it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should I - I want the history too? Just de-delete it, or I'll get an admin who will. Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, someone else revived it, and I have now added the version you emailed me, so some other poor admin will have to do a history merge, since you evidently aren't going to. Another fine mess .... Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Title
Might Machiavellianism (psychology) be a better title for this article? It seems the trait is popularly just referred to as Machiavellianism, even if it was popularized from the scale. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree - this was what the talk sections leading up to the split at the old Talk:Machiavellianism (politics) proposed - see eg Talk:Machiavellianism_(politics). I think given there was consensus for this, I'll just move it. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can't because of the redirect. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement requires clarification
"Recently, new research gives support to a contrary viewpoint."

Contrary to the original assumption, or contrary to the previously stated research? Needs to be clarified. Zalmoxe (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

%/frequency in the population?
The Psychopathy article has a box at the right with "Frequency 1% of general population". Why not the others? Herewith a kick-off to get an idea of the total frequency - seems like 1% of population if we add all 4 up? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) "Narcissistic personality disorder affects an estimated 1% of the general population", as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism /  "In general, clinicians treat two of the traits (narcissism and psychopathy) as pathological, something that needs to be treated, and inherently undesirable, e.g. socially condemned or personally counter-productive. ... In the general population, the prevalence rates for sub-clinical and clinical psychopathy are estimated at around 1% and 0.2%, respectively." as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad;
 * 2) Psychopaths 1% of the general population, 3–4% for more senior positions in business, and 20% of prison population, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy;
 * 3) Machiavellianists ... no time to look up;
 * 4) Sadists ... no time to look up;

what seems to be the problem?
seems ok to me. The article doesn't seem to support what the infobox claimed. Why have you two reverted this removal? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Materialscientist, but I reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO due to what appeared to be edit warring and disruptive behavior on the anon's part (i.e. reverting repeatedly to maintain their preferred edit without discussing on the talk page). Materialscientist has engaged the editor on their talk page in a civil manner, and the editor in their edit summary. I'm not necessarily disputing the content being removed, but rather the editors disruptive conduct and lack of discussion. Bmf 051 (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The top right navigation menu
Hi everybody, when you navigate a bit on different articles on psychology, personality disorders - the infobox at the top-right (= templates in wikipedia terminology - those things between double "{{" ) could be improved - they're too different, don't link, don't match-up, use other classification logics - and then the combination with the bottom page section "See also". Anybody can help? I guess we'll see each other at the discussion page of the Portal:Psychology? Greetings, SvenAERTS (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * {{hidden ping|SvenAERTS}}Are you talking about expanding the infobox, or adding something else? – Thjarkur (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * {{hidden ping|Þjarkur}} Hi, yes, the "infobox" - that's the term I was looking for, thy. Yes, I noticed that surfing from one article to the other - narcissism, psychopaty, machiavellianism, sadism, sociopathy, culturopathy - the infobox is very different; we need help to improve that. Thy SvenAERTS (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * {{hidden ping|Þjarkur}} How do you create that "hidden ping" ? I'm still struggling with that "talk back" button - whereas actually I want that "hidden ping" - that's PHP right? Does that "hidden ping" have anything to do with the "talk back" feature - like it is generated by the talk back button or something? Thy  SvenAERTS (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * {{hidden ping|SvenAERTS}}You pinged me correctly. A ping results in a notification like you've received now. Talkback is just writing "I've responded to you here" on someone's talk page. Regarding the infoboxes, some of these items include a "Medical"-style infobox since they're disorders, others only include an image since they're more general concepts. I do however feel that they are consistent enough, not sure how it could be improved. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Classification of this disorder in the the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)?
I think articles in the Portal:Psychology are linked a.o. via their mention in the WHO - International Classification of Diseases (ICD) - well, at least I find other personality disorders mentioning their ICD. Can anybody help? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Content Gaps
There are a lot of content gaps on this page. Even though there are links to other articles in some categories to other related subjects, the categories for this article are still lacking, such as the category of Machiavellianism in the Workplace. I think this category could have gone much more in depth without taking up a whole article's worth of information. The article also did not go super in depth about the traits of Machiavellianism. It mentioned personality tests for Machiavellianism, but it did not give any sample items.Maria.styron (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

=Wiki Education assignment: Personality Theory==

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone
— Assignment last updated by Samarahzeinou (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone
— Assignment last updated by Psychologylearner1 (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 1101 033
— Assignment last updated by Mhalldow (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)