User talk:Maria.styron/sandbox

I think you have a great idea of adding information about how Machiavellians are smoother/ more convincing. If you plan to just add one or two sentences on it, I would suggest adding it to the abilities section. However, I think it would be a good addition to add a section about deception if you can find enough information about how Machiavellians can be more convincing than those without that trait.
 * I also agree that adding a section about deception and Machiavellians would be a great addition and would help explain what Machiavellianism is and how to recognize it. However, I have not been able to find any reliable sources that are actually talking about deception. I am still looking for sources but I doubt that I will find any that will contribute to the article in any significant way. Jadeynmetcalf (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Jadeynmetcalf

I also agree that some of the subsection could use some more information. For your example you used etiology, I may suggest having brief explination of what that word means, or at least link it to a wiki page that explains what etiology is. Another suggestion I could make on adding to that section, would be to add the findings of the research of the "Kiddie mach" test.
 * I also agree that the Etiology section needs a lot of work. I was thinking that we could completely get rid of the section because everything that is written there, belongs in a different section and doesn't explain the etiology of Machiavellianism.Jadeynmetcalf (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Jadeynmetcalf

One last thing to consider is that the last sentence in the Abilities sub section gives off the impression that the writer is trying to persuade you into thinking something, instead of posing the article encyclopedically, using words like "If" and "actually" as they are here, seem to make it sound like the writer is trying to convince you that you probably shouldn't believe what follows. One way you could possible way to reword this could be "There has not been enough research yet to show whether or not high machs are skilled at manipulation, however it has been found thus far, that it is unrelated to cognitive abilities as such."
 * I really like the new sentence that you wrote. It sounds a lot better than what is already written in the original article. I have also noticed that a lot of the sections and information sound persuasive and need to be rewritten. I am currently in the works of trying to redo them.Jadeynmetcalf (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Jadeynmetcalf

Even with those few suggestions, I still think you have a great start to improving the article. Clm893 (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with a lot of what you are saying for their edits. Having the origin of construct edit I think is good as it shows the difference between people with high score versus low score for this personality trait. I agree that the etiology part of the article should be fleshed out more in the wikipedia article. I think a draft of a new potential etiology section should be worked on to see if it fits well in the article, maybe information about how genetic and environmental influences are tested for etc. I also think some more sources to use for your draft would be beneficial for your draft, having only one makes it a little bit hard to find new information to add to the article.
 * Thank you! I am currently looking for more sources. I have found a few more that I think will be beneficial but they are a little older. They are from the early 2010s, it has been hard finding sources taht offer new information on Machiavellianism. I am also trying to make sure that the section "Origin of construct" actually talks about the origin and the history behind Machiavellianism and not so much on how to identify it within someone and how they compare to others that have a different score as them. Jadeynmetcalf (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Jadeynmetcalf
 * I also think more information in the opportunism and motivation sections could be added - maybe more information about ho this can be seen in the real world, or what implications this personality trait has. I think you have a good start to your draft, but it still needs a lot of work. I think taking those three sections (etiology, motivation and opportunism) and trying to rewrite them with new sources would be a great addition to the article. SLS559 (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)