text:
July 1912), extinct with the death of the second baronet on 28 July 1959.
 * Prescott of Theobald's Park (C. 9 December 1794), extinct with the death of the seventh baronet.
 * Watson of Newport (C. 13 February 1918), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Williams of Glynwr (C. 10 July 1935), extinct with the grantee's death.

1960

 * Denys of Stratford Place (C. 23 November 1813), extinct with the death of the fourth baronet.
 * Foster of Norwich (C. 3 August 1838), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Fry of Oare (C. 29 July 1929), extinct with the grantee's death.
 * Glyn of Farnborough (C. 21 January 1934), extinct with the grantee's death on 1 May 1960.
 * Magnay of Postford House (C. 8 November 1844), extinct with the death of the third baronet on 4 September 1960.
 * Rankin of Broughton Tower (C. 5 March 1937), extinct with the grantee's death on 11 October 1960.
 * Samman of Routh (C. 19 January 1921), extinct with the death of the second baronet.

1961

 * Cooper of Hursley (C. 26 July 1905), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Paul of Paulville (C. 20 January 1794), extinct with the death of the sixth baronet.
 * Sassoon of Bombay (C. 9 February 1909), extinct with the third baronet on 13 August 1961.
 * Savory of The Woodlands, Bucks (C. 24 March 1890), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Scott of Lytchet Minster (C. 8 September 1821), extinct with the death of the seventh baronet.
 * Smith of Kidderminster C. (30 June 1920), extinct with the death of the second baronet.

1962

 * Blair of Harrow Weald (C. 19 June 1945), extinct with the grantee's death on 18 September 1962.
 * Cornwall of Holcombe Burnell (C. 26 June 1918), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Madge of St Margaret's Bay (C. 26 May1919), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Mallaby-Deeley of Mitcham Court (C. 28 June 1922), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Nugent of Portaferry (C. 4 July 1961), extinct with the grantee's death on 18 August 1962.
 * Peyton of Doddington (C. 18 September 1776), extinct with the death of the seventh baronet.
 * Philipps of Picton (C. 23 July 1887), extinct with the death of the fourth baronet.
 * Pollock of Edinburgh (C. 2 February 1939), extinct with the grantee's death.
 * Pryse of Gogardden (C. 28 July 1866), extinct with the death of the fifth baronet.

1963

 * Anderson of Harrold Priory (C. 15 June 1920), extinct with the grantee's death on 11 April 1963.
 * Cross of Marchbank Wood (C. 5 July 1912), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Cunningham of Hyndhope (C. 7 July 1942), extinct with the grantee's death on 12 June 1963.
 * Hindley of Meads (C. 18 February 1927), extinct with the grantee's death on 5 January 1963.
 * Hollins of Greyfriars (C. 29 November 1907), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Morris of Nuffield (C. 27 March 1929), extinct with the grantee's death on 22 August 1963.
 * Murphy of Wyckham (C. 3 February 1912), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Price of Ardingly (C. 2 July 1953), extinct with the grantee's death.
 * Pryce-Jones of Dolerw (C. 4 July 1918), extinct with the death of the second baronet.

1964

 * David of Bombay (C. 12 December 1911), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Duncan of Horsforth Hall (C. 9 December 1905), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Lett of Walmer (C. 31 January 1941), extinct with the grantee's death on 19 July 1964.
 * Octerlony of Ochterlony (C. 8 December 1823), extinct with the death of the fifth baronet.

1965

 * Burrard of Walhampton (C. 3 April 1769), extinct with the death of the eighth baronet.
 * Jardine of Nottingham (C. 22 May 1919), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Jarvis of Hascombe Court (C. 24 January 1922), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Locock of Speldhurst and Hertford Street (C. 8 May 1857), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Steel-Maitland later Ramsay-Steel-Maitland, (C. 30 March 1935), extinct 1965 with the death of the third baronet.

1966

 * Butcher of Holland (C. 22 July 1960), extinct with the grantee's death on 11 May 1966.
 * Colman of Reigate (C. 29 January 1952), extinct with the grantee's death on 7 March 1966.
 * Greene of Nether Hall (C. 21 June 1900) extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Wells of Hove (C. 30 November 1948), extinct with the grantee's death.

1967

 * Aylwen baronets of St Bartholomew's (C. 25 November 1949), extinct with the grantee's death.
 * Lee of Lukyns (C. 30 January 1941), extinct with the grantee's death.

1968

 * Cameron of Balclutha (C. 27 August 1893), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Cohen of Highfield (C. 19 December 1905), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Cross of Bolton-le-Moors (C. 15 August 1941), extinct with the grantee's death on 3 June 1968.
 * de Capell Brooke of Oakley (C. 20 June 1803), extinct with the death of the sixth baronet.
 * Layland-Barratt of the Manor House and of Tregarne Lodge (C. 23 July 1908), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Mowat of Cleckheaton (C. 25 June 1932), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Poynter of Albert Gate (C. 2 August 1902), extinct with the death of the third baronet.

1969

 * Cain of Wargrave (C. 29 January 1920), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Douglas of Maxwell (C. 17 June 1786), extinct with the death of the sixth baronet on 16 July 1969.
 * Monson of Thatched House Lodge (C. 23 February 1905), extinct with the death of the fourth baronet.
 * Tangye of Glendorgal (C. 10 July 1912), extinct with the death of the second baronet.

1970

 * Alison of Possil House (C. 25 June 1852), extinct with the death of the fifth baronet.
 * Bilsland of Park Circus (C. 25 November 1907), extinct with the death of the second baronet on 10 December 1970.
 * Dundas of Arniston (C. 18 June 1898), extinct with the death of the seventh baronet.
 * Evans of Tubbendens (C. 26 July 1902), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Hart of Kilmoriarty (C. 17 July 1893), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Rees of Aylwards Chase (C. 8 May 1919), extinct with the death second baronet on 24 July 1970.
 * Rowland of Taunton (C. 20 November 1950), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Sturdee of the Falkland Islands (C. 19 January 1916), extinct with the death of the second baronet.

1971

 * Dalrymple of New Hailes (C. 19 July 1887), extinct with the death of the third baronet on 29 June 1971.
 * Caine Baronet (C. 1937), 2 December 1971 with the grantee's death on 2 December 1971.
 * Godfrey of Bushfield (C. 17 June 1785), extinct with the death of the seventh baronet.
 * Hornby of Brookhouse (C. 21 February 1899), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Middlebrook of Oakwell (C. 4 February 1930), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Moore of Kyleburn (C. 20 September 1956), extinct with the grantee's death on 9 April 1971.
 * Nussey of Rushwood Hall (C. 22 July 1909), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Worthington-Evans of Colchester (C. 15 November 1916), extinct with the death of the second baronet.

1972

 * Cope of Hanwell (C. 29 June 1611), extinct with the death of the sixteenth baronet.
 * Hutchison of Hardiston (C. 1923), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Lane of Cavendish Square (C. 19 June 1913), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Molyneux of Sefton (C. 22 May 1611), extinct with the death of the fifteenth baronet.
 * Paul of Rodborough (C. 3 September 1821), extinct with the death of the sixth baronet.
 * Taylor of Cawthorne (C. 26 January 1963), extinct with the grantee's death on 26 July 1972.
 * Thomas of Yapton (C. 6 September 1766), extinct with the death of the seventh baronet on 23 July 1972.

1973

 * Ellerman of Connaught Square (C. 11 December 1905), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Lawson of Knavesmire Lodge (C. 26 December 1905), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Norie-Miller of Cleeve (C. 7 February 1936), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Selby-Bigge of King's Sutton (C. 14 February 1919), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Ward of Wilbraham Place (C. 20 January 1914), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Wernher of Luton Hoo (C. 2 August 1905), extinct with the death of the third baronet on 30 June 1973.

1974

 * Dawson of Appleton Roebuck (C. 2 July 1929), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Duncan of Jordanstone (C. 14 June 1957), extinct with the grantee's death on 30 September 1974.
 * Goldney of Beechfield and Bradenstoke Abbey (C. 11 May 1880), extinct with the death of the fourth baronet on 26 February 1974.
 * McCullagh of Lismarra (C. 1 July 1935), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Porter of Frimley (C. 27 June 1889), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Spears of Warfield (C. 30 June 1953), extinct with the grantee's death on 27 January 1974.
 * Wood of Hengrave (C. 14 February 1918), extinct with the death of the second baronet.

1975

 * Blake of Langham (C. 8 October 1772), extinct with the death of the sixth baronet.
 * Charles of The Abbey Grange and Manchester Square (C. 20 March 1928), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Hawkey of Woodford (C. 5 July 1945), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Mappin of Thornbury (C. 27 August 1886), extinct with the death of the sixth baronet.
 * Verner of Verner's Bridge (C. 22 July 1846), extinct with the death of the sixth baronet on 27 March 1975.

1976

 * Beauchamp of Grosvenor Place (C. 27 June 1911), extinct with the death of second baronet on 25 August 1976.
 * Byass of Port Talbot (C. 30 January 1926), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Cunningham of Crookedstone (C. 22 November 1963), extinct with the grantee's death on 29 July 1976.
 * Lyle of Westbourne (C. 22 June 1932), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Rose of Leith (C. 2 July 1935), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Wilson-Drummond of Hawthornden (C. 27 February 1828), extinct with the death of the sixth baronet.

1978

 * Dimsdale of Goldsmiths and Lancaster Street (C. 23 July 1902), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Harvey of Threadneedle Street (C. 19 January 1933), extinct with the third baronet.
 * Lewis of Essendon Place (C. 11 February 1918), extinct with the death of the second baronet on 18 July 1978.
 * Wingate of Dunbar and Port Sudan (C. 6 July 1920), extinct with the death of the second baronet on 31 August 1978.

1979

 * Barwick baronets of Ashbrooke Grange (C. 1 February 1912), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Church of Woodside, Bellshill and Harley Street (C. 28 June 1901), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Clark of Edinburgh (C.28 September 1886), extinct the death of the third baronet.
 * Findlay of Aberlour (C. 25 June 1925), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Fraser of Ledeclune (C. 27 November 1806), extinct with the death of the sixth baronet.
 * Metcalfe of Chilton (C. 21 December 1802), extinct with the death of the eighth baronet.
 * Perks of Wykham Park (C. 24 July 1908), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Stewart of Fingask (C. 10 December 1920), extinct with the death of the second baronet.

1980

 * Chamberlain of London (C. 22 February 1928), extinct on 24 December 1980 with the death of the fifth baronet.
 * Champneys of Littlemeads (C. 13 July 1910), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Duff of Vaynol Park, Carnarvon (C. 1 August 1911), extinct 3 March 1980 with third baronet.
 * Gunter of Wetherby Grange (C. 18 April 1901), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Harmsworth of Moray Lodge (C. 1 July 1918), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Hume-Williams of Ewhurst (C. 28 November 1922), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Lennard of Wickham Court (C. 6 May 1880), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Orr-Lewis of Whitewebbs Park (C. 12 February 1920), extinct with the death of the second baronet.

1981

 * Brocklehurst of Swythamley Park (C. 27 August 1903), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Dundas of Beechwood (C. 24 August 1821), extinct with the death of the sixth baronet.
 * Richardson of Weybridge (C. 26 July 1929), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Shore of Healthcote (C. 27 October 1792), extinct with the death of the seventh baronet.
 * Simpson of Bradley Hall (C. 1 February 1935), extinct with the death of the third baronet.

1982

 * Bolton of West Plean (C. 25 Jan 1927), extinct the death of the second baronet.
 * Pearson of St Dunstan's (C. 12 July 1916), extinct with the death of the second baronet on 6 November 1982.

1983

 * Beauchamp of Woodborough (C. 4 October 1918), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Evans of Rottingdean (C. 21 November 1963), extinct with the grantee's death.
 * Macpherson-Grant of Ballindalloch (C. 25 July 1838), extinct with the death of the sixth baronet.
 * Mitchell of Tulliallan and Luscar (C. 6 September 1945), extinct with the grantee's death on 8 April 1983.
 * Watson of Sulhamstead (C. 11 July 1912), extinct with the death of the second baronet.

1984

 * Campbell of Milltown (C. 10 January 1917), extinct with the death of the fourth baronet.
 * Pechell of Paglesham (C. 1 March 1797), extinct with the death of the ninth baronet.
 * Stern of Strawberry Hill (C. 31 July 1905), extinct with the death of the second baronet.

1985

 * Flavelle of Toronto (C. 18 July 1917), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Langman of Eaton Square (C. 21 July 1906), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Waechter of Ramsnest (C. 13 February 1911), extinct with the death of the second baronet.

1986

 * Douglas of Glenbervie (C. 30 September 1831), extinct with the death of the fifth baronet on 9 June 1986.
 * Hoare of Fleet Street (C. 6 December 1962), extinct with the grantee's death.
 * Lambert of Beau Parc (C. 3 July 1911), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Nicholson of Luddenham (C. 8 April 1859), extinct with the death of the third baronet.

1987

 * D'Avigdor Goldsmid of Somerhill (C. 22 January 1934), extinct with the death of the third baronet on 6 September 1987.
 * Fraser of Dineiddwg (C. 16 January 1961), extinct with the death of the second baronet on 5 May 1987.
 * Fry of Woodburn (C. 6 February 1894), extinct with the death of the fifth baronet.
 * Hooper of Tenterden (C. 11 July 1962), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Middlemore of Selly Oak (C. 27 May 1919), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Stephen of De Vere Gardens (C. 29 June 1891), extinct with the death of the fourth baronet.

1988

 * Adair of Flixton Hall, Suffolk (C. 2 August 1838), extinct with the death of sixth baronet on 4 August 1988.
 * Readhead of Westoe (C. 20 January 1922), extinct with the death of the third baronet.

1990

 * Harmood-Banner of Liverpool (C. 26 February 1924), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Houldsworth of Heckmondwike (C. 25 January 1956), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Mellor of Culmhead (C. 24 January 1924), extinct with the death of the third baronet.

1991

 * Blades of Cobham (C. 14 January 1922), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Mathias of Vaendre Hall (C. 28 June 1917), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Nicholson of Winterbourne Roy (C. 21 March 1958), extinct with the grantee's death on 14 July 1991.
 * Ritchie of Highlands (C. 23 January 1918), extinct with the death of the second baronet.

1992

 * Benn of Rollesby (C. 17 June 1920), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Hamilton of Ilford (C. 10 June 1937), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Moore of Colchester (C. 25 October 1923), extinct with the death of the second baronet.

1993

 * Christison of Moray Place (C. 28 November 1871), extinct with the death of the fourth baronet on 21 December 1993.
 * Hulton of Hulton Park (C. 23 December 1905), extinct with the death of the fourth baronet.
 * Summers of Shotton (C. 2 February 1952), extinct with the death of the second baronet.

1994

 * Astley of Everley (C. 15 August 1821), extinct with the death of the sixth baronet.
 * Llewellyn of Baglan (C. 20 January 1959), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Neville of Sloley (C. 2 July 1927), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Nugent of Dunsfold (C. 27 January 1960), extinct with the grantee's death on 16 March 1994.
 * Winn of Nostel (C. 3 December 1660), extinct with the death of the thirteenth baronet.

1995

 * Erskine of Rerrick (C. 5 July 1961), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Wallace of Braywick Lodge (C. 30 May 1815), extinct with the death of the seventh baronet on 22 January 1995.

1996

 * Corbet of Moreton Corbet (C. 3 October 1828), extinct with the death of the seventh baronet.
 * Hanson of Bryanston Square (C. 6 June 1887), extinct with the death of the fourth baronet.
 * Harris of Cheeping Wycombe (C. 24 January 1953), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Levy of Humberstone Hall (C. 4 February 1913), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Schuster of Collingham Road (C. 24 July 1906), extinct with the death of the third baronet.

1997

 * Gibson of Great Warley (C. 1 February 1926), extinct with the death of the fourth baronet.
 * Gough of Edgbaston (C. 6 April 1728), extinct with the death of the eleventh baronet.
 * Holland of Westwell Manor (C. 17 February 1917), extinct with the death of the third baronet.

1998

 * Roll of The Chestnuts (C. 4 November 1921), extinct with the death of the fourth baronet.

1999

 * Butt of Westminster (C. 25 July 1929), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Cayzer of Roffey Park (C. 7 January 1921), extinct the death of the second baronet.
 * Edwards of Treforis (C. 30 June 1921), extinct with the death of the second baronet.
 * Kennard of Fernhill (C. 11 February 1891), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Makins of Rotherfield Court (C. 9 January 1903), extinct with the death of the fourth baronet.
 * Middleton of Belsay Castle, Northumberland (C. 24 October 1662), extinct with the death of the tenth baronet.
 * Stewart of Stewartby (C. 4 March 1937), extinct with the death of the second baronet.

2002

 * Nepean of Bothenhampton (C. 16 July 1802), extinct with the death of the sixth baronet.
 * Owen of Orielton (C. 12 January 1813), extinct with the death of the fifth baronet.

2003

 * Bowman of Holmbury St Mary (C. 23 January 1884), extinct with the death of the fifth baronet.
 * Greenwood of Onslow Gardens (C. 8 February 1915), extinct with the death of the third baronet.

2004

 * Colyer-Fergusson of Spitalhaugh (C. 23 January 1866), extinct with the death of the fourth baronet.
 * Larcom baronets (C. 24 December 1868), extinct with the death of the fifth baronet.
 * Lewthwaite of Broadgate (C. 26 January 1927), extinct with the death of the fifth baronet.
 * Richardson of Eccleshall (C. 20 November 1963), extinct with the grantee's death on 15 August 2004.

2005

 * Ganzoni of Ipswich (C. 22 March 1929), extinct with the death of the second baronet on 3 December 2005.

2006

 * Bateson of Belvoir Park (C. 18 December 1818), extinct with the death of the seventh baronet on 20 August 2006.
 * Brickwood of Portsmouth (C. 29 June 1927), extinct with the death of the third baronet.

2007

 * Echlin of Clonagh (C. 17 October 1721), extinct with the death of the tenth baronet.
 * Prince-Smith of Hillbrook (C. 11 February 1911), extinct with the death of the fourth baronet.

2008

 * Frankland-Payne-Gallwey (C. 8 December 1812), extinct with the death of the sixth baronet.
 * Hamilton of Marlborough House (C. 26 January 1819), extinct with the death of the fifth baronet.
 * Hamilton of Trebinshun House (C. 26 August 1776), extinct with the death of the seventh baronet.
 * Wakeman of Perdiswell (C. 20 February 1828), extinct with the death of the sixth baronet on 25 November 2008.

2009

 * Lawes of Rothamsted (C. 19 May 1882), extinct with the death of the fifth baronet.
 * Thomas of Garreglwyd (C. 5 July 1918), extinct with the death of the third baronet.

2010

 * Wolfson of St Marylebone (C. 19 February 1962), extinct with the death of the second baronet on 20 May 2010.

2011

 * Perceval, of Kanturk (C. 9 September 1661), extinct with the death of the sixteenth baronet.

2012

 * Reade of Barton (C. 4 March 1661), extinct with the death of the thirteenth baronet.
 * Reid of Springburn and Kilmaurs (C. 26 January 1922), extinct with the death of the third baronet.
 * Williams of Castell Deudraeth and Borthwen (C. 28 July 1909), extinct with the death of the second baronet.

2013

 * Dupree of Craneswater (C. 24 January 1921), extinct with the death of the sixth baronet.
 * Staples of Lissan (C. 18 July 1628), extinct with the death of the seventeenth baronet.

2015

 * Dodds of West Chiltington (C. 10 February 1964), extinct with the death of the second baronet on 24 May 2015.
 * Hawley of Leybourne Grange (C. 14 March 1795), extinct with the death of the 8th baronet.
 * White of Boulge Hall (C. 14 June 1937), extinct with the death of the third baronet.

2016

 * Watson of Earnock (C. 15 July 1895), extinct with the death of the seventh baronet on 3 May 2016.

2017

 * Campbell of Succoth (C. 17 September 1808), extinct with the death of the seventh baronet on 2 January 2017.
 * De la Bere of Crowborough (C. 18 November 1953), extinct with the death of the third baronet on 10 February 2017
 * Evans of Wightwick (C. 31 January 1920), extinct with the death of the second baronet on 30 August 2017.
 * Fayrer of Devonshire Street (C. 11 February 1896), extinct with the death of the fourth baronet on 9 March 2017.
 * Lyell of Kinnordy (C. 27 January 1894), extinct with the death of the third baronet on 10 January 2017.

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Kaliforniyka/List of all baronetcies


text:
Mean What You Say (Thad Jones/Pepper Adams Quintet album)

Mean What You Say is an album by the Thad Jones/Pepper Adams Quintet recorded in 1966 and released on the Milestone label.

Reception
Scott Yanow of Allmusic called the band a "high-quality hard bop unit" and stated "Jones and Adams always made for a potent team, but the rise of the Thad Jones/Mel Lewis Orchestra meant that this particular quintet only lasted a short time".

Track listing
All compositions by Thad Jones except where noted.
 * 1) "Mean What You Say" – 4:36
 * 2) "H and T Blues" – 7:42
 * 3) "Wives and Lovers" (Burt Bacharach, Hal David) – 4:55
 * 4) "Bossa Nova Ova" – 3:23
 * 5) "No Refill" – 4:38
 * 6) "Little Waltz" (Ron Carter) – 6:30
 * 7) "Chant" (Duke Pearson) – 5:20
 * 8) "Yes Sir, That's My Baby" (Walter Donaldson, Gus Kahn) – 4:06

Personnel

 * Thad Jones- flugelhorn
 * Pepper Adams – baritone saxophone
 * Duke Pearson – piano
 * Ron Carter – bass
 * Mel Lewis – drums


text:
Ryan Pini

Ryan John Pini MBE (born 10 December 1981 in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea) is a 4-time Olympic swimmer from Papua New Guinea. He swam for PNG at the 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016 Olympics; also serving as the PNG flagbearer in 2008 and 2016. He is the first PNG swimmer ever to reach an Olympic final.

Pini competes for the Boroko Swim Club.

2002 Commonwealth Games
At his first ever Commonwealth Games, Pini made the semifinal in all 4 events contested (50m/100m Butterfly, 50m Freestyle and 50m Backstroke)

2004 Summer Olympics
Pini competed in the 100m Butterfly at the 2004 Summer Olympics, finishing 18th.

2006 Commonwealth Games
At the 2006 Commonwealth Games, Pini became just the second individual from Papua New Guinea to win an individual gold medal at any Olympic or Commonwealth Games, when he won the Men's 100m Butterfly. In doing so, Pini also won Papua New Guinea's first ever swimming medal at an Olympic or Commonwealth Games. His winning time of 52.64 was enough to edge out Michael Klim of Australia and Moss Burmester of New Zealand.
 * [[Image:Med 1.png|Med 1.png]] 100m Butterfly

Pini also competed in the final of the Men's 50m Butterfly, finishing fifth, and made the semifinal of the Men's 100m Freestyle.

2007 World Aquatics Championships
Pini competed in the 2007 World Aquatics Championships in Melbourne.

He reached the 100m Butterfly and 50m Butterfly semifinals.

He competed in the heats of the 100m Freestyle.

2008 Summer Olympics
Pini was the flag bearer for Papua New Guinea at the Opening Ceremony of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.

Pini ranked first in the third heat of the Men's 100m Freestyle, but did not make a qualifying time for the semifinals. He also competed in heats for the 200m Freestyle.

Pini competed in the Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's 100m Butterfly, where he was Papua New Guinea's most widely anticipated chance at attaining a first Olympic medal. He competed in the finals, and finished 8th overall, in a tough line up which included American big fish Michael Phelps, who took gold. Pini was the first Papua New Guinean ever to swim an Olympic final.

2010 Commonwealth Games
Pini won Silver in 100m Butterfly Finals in a time of 52.50.
 * [[Image:Med 2.png|Med 2.png]] 100m Butterfly

Pini also competed in the final of the Men's 50m Butterfly, finishing 5th in a time of 23.88.

Pini qualified for the 100m Freestyle Semifinal but had to pull out due to illness and to concentrate on the 50m Butterfly Final.

2012 Summer Olympics
Pini competed in the 100m Butterfly at the 2012 Summer Olympics, finishing 26th.

2016 Summer Olympics
Pini competed in the 100 m Butterfly event at the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. He finished in 30th place in the heats with a time of 53.24 seconds. He did not advance to the semifinals.

Training
Pini trains under super coach Rick Van Der Zant and alongside ex Australian swimming representative Andrew Mewing. His other training partners include Jackson Van Der Zant, Sam James, Adam Hosking, and Josh Smith.

Early life
Pini was born and raised in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea and is the third youngest of four children (2 older brothers and 1 younger sister). His parents Kevin and Sarenah Pini own a family business, Theodist, based in PNG.

Pini began swimming at the age of six and attended lessons at Boroko Amateur Swimming Club. By the age of six, he held a national record for his age group (8 and under).

Graduating from Port Moresby International High School in 1999, Pini then moved to Brisbane to further his studies and to eventually pursue his swimming career.

Shoulder injuries have hindered Pini, with his fourth shoulder operation done in January 2011.

Personal life
Pini married Brisbane born Carly Vincenzi in October 2011 at Stradbroke Island.

In his spare time, Pini enjoys wake boarding, kite surfing, diving and motor bike riding in PNG as well as snow boarding in Canada.

Honours and awards
After his victory in the 100m Butterfly at the 2006 Commonwealth Games, Pini was ranked number one in the world for the event and held this ranking for 4 months.

Pini has also received the following awards:

• Member of the Order of the British Empire – 2005 (for services to swimming)

• Papua New Guinea SP Sportsman of the Year Award – 2003, 2004, 2005, 2011, 2015

• Papua New Guinea SP Lifetime Achievement Award – 2008

• The ONOC Male Oceania Athlete of the Year Award – 2015

• South Pacific Games Male Swimmer of the Meet – 2003 (won 7 events, 4 in Games Records)

Career best times
Long course (50-metre pool)

Short course (25-metre pool)

Out of the pool
• Sponsorships: Bank South Pacific (2011 to current), Airlines PNG (2007 to 2009)

• Ambassadors: Bank South Pacific (2011 to current), Airlines PNG (2007 to 2009)

title: Ryan Pini


text:
willful ignorance

Noun

 * 1)  A decision in bad faith to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt.

Translations

 * Finnish: tarkoituksellinen tietämättömyys
 * French: aveuglement volontaire
 * German:
 * Italian: ignoranza attiva
 * Polish: celowe niedostrzeganie

title: willful ignorance


text:
Evolutionary Biology

Life on Earth is astonishingly complex. There are tens of millions of living species, or kinds of organisms. Some endangered species have just a few individual organisms, while others have quadrillions. Every individual organism is, all by itself, an extremely complicated object, with many interacting parts. Further, organisms interact with other organisms, of the same species and of other species, to form an inconceivably complex network of causes and effects.

Evolutionary biology studies the origin and methods of this complexity. Evolutionary biologists try to answer questions like: Why are there so many species, and how did they come to be? What are the relationships between species and how did these relationships arise? How did organisms develop their intricate structures and ways of life? Why do species become extinct? How did life originate in the first place?

In the last two hundred years, great advances have been made in answering many of these questions. An overarching theory, the theory of evolution by modification and natural selection, first expounded by Charles Darwin in the 1850's, has been very successful at explaining the origin of life's complexity in general, although many puzzling questions remain unanswered.

This book will present our current understanding of how life on Earth got the way it is, and describe current research directions in this profound and fascinating field.

Chapters

 * 1) /Early History of Life on Planet Earth/
 * 2) /Speciation/
 * 3) /Evolution before Darwin/
 * 4) /Darwin's Life and Impact/
 * 5) /Microevolution/
 * 6) /Phylogeny/
 * 7) /Primary endosymbiosis/
 * 8) /Secondary endosymbiosis/

Evolutie

title: Evolutionary Biology


text:
Incubus HQ Live

Incubus HQ Live is a participatory media exhibit and real-time documentary by American rock band Incubus in collaboration with Sony Music Entertainment and producer/director Marc Scarpa. Held in the summer of 2011, it allowed fan access and interaction with the band as they prepared for the release of their seventh studio album, If Not Now, When?. From June 30 to July 6 in a warehouse space in West Los Angeles, California, band members Brandon Boyd, Mike Einziger, Jose Pasillas, Ben Kenney and DJ Kilmore and their fans participated in instrument clinics, question and answer sessions, video chats and large art canvases where both band members and fans alike were encouraged to share original artwork. Each night, Incubus performed a fan created set-list, starting with their earliest material and culminating on the last night with a performance of If Not Now, When? in its entirety.

Events throughout the day and the nightly performances were streamed over the web from multiple points of view (professional and fan-held cameras alike) while participants from around the world shared in the experience through Twitter, Facebook, Livestream, TweetBeam and YouTube. The broadcast was viewed by nearly 2 million people over the course of the week.

The multi-platform, real-time approach to the documentary format allowed Incubus and their fans to reflect on what the music had come to mean to them over time, its significance for them in the moment and its potential and possibility for the future.

A special box set containing performances, interviews with the band members, archival footage and candid footage from over the course of Incubus HQ Live was released in July 2012.

title: Incubus HQ Live


text:
Talk:Home from the Sea (film)

AfC submission
User:Robert McClenon the film meets criteria 3 "Thee film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" for winning in the best actor category from the award given by Japan's oldest film magazine. It also meets other criteria being directed by a famous filmmaker and being noted as one of his important works. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Home from the Sea (film)


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local/efilmroom.com

Links

 * efilmroom.com resolves to [//<IP_ADDRESS> <IP_ADDRESS>]
 * Link is not on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the domainredlist.
 * Link is not on the Monitorlist.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.

Selected additions

 * Displayed 6 additions out of 6 total.	 For more info see WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/efilmroom.com

Entry
Log entry for the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist:

\befilmroom\.com\b          # ADMINNAME # see  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/Local/efilmroom.com ]]

Discussion
See COIBot report for more details.

New data reported. --COIBot (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

New data reported. --COIBot (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


text:
School talk:Mathematics/Facultative courses

The link to wikipedia turns up nothing for facultative. If you are going to use a term like facultative, you should probably ensure that wikipedia and wikionary both have entries for it. A quick google define: search yields mostly biology terms, but a few things about "optional" at the bottom. I would not presume to provide a definition for the wikis, however, as this is the first time I've ever heard the term.


text:
1920 Országos Bajnokság I (men's water polo)

1920 Országos Bajnokság I (men's water polo) was the 14th water polo championship in Hungary. There were four teams who played one round match for the title.

Final list
 * M: Matches W: Win D: Drawn L: Lost G+: Goals earned G−: Goals got P: Point


text:
Machiavellianism (psychology)

In the field of personality psychology, Machiavellianism (sometimes abbreviated as MACH) is the name of a personality trait construct characterized by interpersonal manipulation, indifference to morality, lack of empathy, and a calculated focus on self-interest. Psychologists Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis named the construct after Niccolò Machiavelli, as they used truncated and edited statements inspired by his works to study variations in human behaviors. Their Mach IV test, a 20-question, Likert-scale personality survey, became the standard self-assessment tool and scale of the Machiavellianism construct. Those who score high on the scale (High Machs) are more likely to have a high level of manipulativeness, deceitfulness and a cynical, unemotional temperament.

It is one of the dark triad traits, along with the subclinical versions of narcissism and psychopathy.

Adapting Machiavelli for psychometric use
In 1955, psychologist Richard Christie set out to study the thought processes and actions of those who manipulated others, such as political ideologues and religious extremists. He found that there was much literature on those who followed organizations and movements, but very little on those who led them. As Christie was developing a psychometric model for interpersonal manipulation, he was reminded of his encounter with Machiavelli's writings as an undergraduate, and wanted to use them in his research. In the 1960s, Christie and his colleagues would then develop a test using a selection of statements, including truncated and edited sentences that were similar to certain phrases found in Machiavelli's works such as The Prince and The Discourses on Livy as test items, naming the construct "Machiavellianism" after him. They wanted to assess whether or not those who were in agreement with the statements would behave differently than others who disagreed, specifically in regards to manipulative actions. Christie and his research partner Florence L. Geis published their results in their book, titled "Studies in Machiavellianism".

Christie made light of the difficulty in adapting Machiavelli's writings into a non political test, joking that his advice was "better suited for Renaissance princes" than for college undergraduates. Christie used more colloquial, everyday wording when creating the scale items, as most taking the test would have difficulties understanding the questions in their original prose. Thus Christie used test items that were "theoretically congruent with" or loosely based on Machiavelli's tone, instead of literal, direct statements from his works.

While the construct is named "Machiavellianism", it does not refer to the political theory espoused in Machiavelli's books. Because the two concepts share the same name, they can be confused for one another, even though his actual political ideas are not relevant to psychology. In fact, some questions on the MACH-IV are not from Machiavelli at all. For example, two of them reference P.T. Barnum (born 1810) and voluntary euthanasia, both of which are unrelated to Machiavelli's ideas. One researcher commented that despite the name, Machiavellianism has nothing to do with Machiavelli's politics. Christie himself makes clear that he used sentences inspired by Machiavelli's works only as a sort of litmus test to study deceptive and manipulative behavior, and that his concern was not with Machiavelli's historical or political influence, stating specifically that:

"Historians disagree as to whether Machiavelli was a cynic who wrote political satire, a patriot, or the first modern political scientist. The present concern is not with Machiavelli as an historic figure, but as the source of ideas about those who manipulate others."

Researcher and Psychology Today author Dale Hartley made this point more clear in his book, Machiavellians: Gulling The Rubes: "When psychologists refer to the terms, Machiavellian or Machiavellianism, they do not mean Machiavelli's political advice. They refer instead to the underlying personality traits of cynicism, duplicity and scheming by which master manipulators conceive and execute their agendas."

Mach IV
Christie and Geis's Mach IV test, a 20-question, Likert-scale personality survey, became the standard self-report tool to measure one's level of Machiavellianism. Those who score highly on the scale are classified as high Machs, while those who score low are classified as low Machs. Using their scale, Christie and Geis conducted multiple experimental tests that showed that the interpersonal strategies and behavior of "high Machs" and "low Machs" differ. People scoring high on the scale tend to endorse manipulative statements, and behave accordingly, contrary to those who score lowly. People scoring high on the scale tend to endorse statements such as, "Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so," (No. 1) but not ones like, "Most people are basically good and kind" (No. 4), "There is no excuse for lying to someone else" (No. 7) or "Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives" (No. 11) Their basic results have been widely replicated. Measured on the Mach IV scale, males score, on average, slightly higher on Machiavellianism than females.

The Mach IV test influenced the creation of an assessment called the Dirty Dozen, which contains 12 items, and the Short Dark Triad, composed of 27 items.

High vs Low Machiavellianism

Like all personality traits, Machiavellianism is a characteristic that exists on a spectrum or continuum. Christie and others noted that High Machs were more likely to cheat in experimental games, manipulate others around them, and were generally detached in their interactions. This was opposed to the behavior of Low Machs, who found such behaviors immoral, and refrained from them.

The higher one is on the Machiavellianism scale, the more likely they are to deceive and exploit at the expense of someone else, engage in unprincipled behavior, and have a lack of empathetic feelings.

Core features
In developing the construct studying manipulators, Christie theorized that they would possess the following characteristics:

1. A relative lack of affect in interpersonal relationships: Manipulators do not empathize with their victims. The more empathy one has, Christie says, the less likely one will manipulate a person to do their bidding.

2. A lack of concern for conventional morality: Christie asserts that the manipulator is not concerned with the morality of behaviors such as lying and cheating.

3. A lack of gross psychopathology: Christie states that manipulators usually have an instrumentalist view of the world, which shows a lack of psychosis or other mental impairments.

4. Low ideological commitment: Manipulators prefer to focus on getting things done pragmatically rather than focus on ideological allegiances. Christie states that while manipulators are to be found in organizations of differing ideals, they are more likely to be interested in tactics that achieve individual ends than inflexible idealistic ones.

Five-Factor Model
Under the recently devised Five-Factor Model of Machiavellianism, three characteristics underlie the construct:
 * Antagonism: manipulativeness, cynicism, selfishness, callousness, and arrogance.
 * Planfulness: deliberation and orderliness.
 * Agency: achievement-striving, assertiveness, self-confidence, emotional invulnerability, activity and competence.

Genetic and environmental
Several behavioral genetics studies on the dark triad have shown that Machiavellianism has both significantly genetic and environmental influences. Researchers have noted that while Machiavellianism is heritable to a substantial degree, it can also be influenced by the shared-environment (i.e. sibling groups) slightly more than narcissism and psychopathy. Other traits associated with machiavellianism are influenced by genetics as well, as one study notes that "The co-occurrence of alexithymia and Machiavellianism was most heavily influenced by genetic factors, and to a lesser but significant extent by non-shared environmental factors." Machiavellianism is also heavily correlated with primary psychopathy which is itself strongly heritable. A study on the "core" of dark triad traits also emphasized that the residual traits of Machiavellianism had "significant genetic components". One particular study found a gene responsible for dopamine reception was positively associated with individuals who scored high on the MACH IV, but it is unclear what specific mechanisms cause this effect. A study noted that the emotionality of Machiavellianism may also be genetically determined, with the authors stating that "it can be expected that in the case of Machiavellianism, the genetic influence may manifest itself by affecting the emotional sphere. That affective insensitivity – as McIlwain (2003) designates it--makes Machiavellians similar to psychopaths. In the study by Vernon et al (2008), genetic factors for Machiavellianism and psychopathy were correlated, which suggests that the variability of both qualities is greatly affected by the same genes. The genetically determined “cool syndrome” makes it easier for the child to use effective manipulation, leading to the development of a permanent behaviour strategy, at the same time protecting the child from internal punishments such as shame or guilt."

Studies have found a link between Machiavellianism and a blunted cortisol awaking response (CAR). A person's cortisol awaking response has been associated with a lack of affective empathy, and is highly heritable.

Environmental causes

The environmental causes (such as shared, and non-shared environment) that contribute to the development of machiavellianism were childhood maltreatment and neglect, social reinforcement of manipulative behaviors from an early age, and poor family functioning. One study even stated that "the etiology of Machiavellianism, similarly to the development of a dismissing-avoidant pattern, partly originates from childhood experiences obtained in relationships with unexpressive, less understanding, highly punitive or restrictive caregivers". In many studies, Machiavellianism has been heavily correlated with negative home atmospheres, loneliness, and adverse parental experiences. One study noted that punishment specifically led to the "emergence of deceitful and exploitative interpersonal tactics." The authors of the study concluded that these results "might give further support for the idea that Machiavellian personality traits are possible strategic responses to childhood adversities". Another study found the traits of Machiavellianism to be a response to early maladaptive schemas (EMS), essentially coping mechanisms for emotional deprivation, mistrust, abuse, and caregiver rejection. Irregular parent care, such as a mother being neglectful and a father being overprotective, has also been correlated with Machiavellianism. The hereditary influence on Machiavellianism may make it challenging to disentangle the genetic underpinnings from the effects of parental upbringing and environmental factors.

In general, Jones (2020) asserts that "there may be a myriad of reasons, including some environmental reasons, as to why someone would become cynical, habitually ignore morality, or use manipulative persuasion. There may be others who are born cynical, manipulative, and amoral. Thus, there may be differences in etiology that lead to differences in how fixed the trait is, and how it is expressed".

Machiavellianism in children
Ever since the creation of the construct in the 1960s, there has been extensive research on Machiavellianism in young children and adolescents, via a measure dubbed the "Kiddie Mach" test. The first study was done in 1966 as a part of Dorothea Braginsky's doctoral dissertation, with the subjects being as young as 10 years old. Studies have shown that traits of Machiavellianism and other dark triad traits were already present in preschool children, and more pronounced in adolescents aged 11–17. There have been studies to measure Machiavellianism in 6 year olds using adult informants to analyze the child's behavior. Deceptive behaviors by children even as young as 3 were also investigated heavily. Peer reports suggest that children higher in Machiavellianism exhibit behaviors such as using both prosocial and coercive strategies based on how much is to be gained in a situation, and they tend to manipulate indirectly. Children who score highly on the Machiavellianism scale tend to be more successful in manipulation, do it more frequently, and are judged as better at manipulation than those who score lower. Parental levels of Machiavellianism seem to have a slight effect on the child's own level. Machiavellianism levels in fathers was positively correlated with the Machiavellianism levels of their children, but the mother's level had no significant effect. One study concluded that "parental Machiavellianism is a predictor and perhaps a cause of children's Machiavellian beliefs and their manipulative success". Machiavellianism is also correlated with childhood aggression, especially concerning the control of social hierarchies. One study found a trend upwards with respect to Machiavellianism from late childhood to adolescence, when levels of Machiavellianism are thought to peak. From adolescence throughout adulthood there is a significant and steady downward trend with regard to levels of Machiavellianism, until the age of 65 where an overall lifetime minimum is reached.

Peer ratings of children high on Machiavellianism are inconsistent, with some researchers reporting that juvenile High Machs are rated as popular, and some reporting that they are less well liked by peers. A study involving Greek children ages 8–12 noted that the children highest in Machiavellianism showed aggressive tendencies and were more likely to bully others, though the tactics varied by gender.

Dark triad
In 1998, John McHoskey, William Worzel, and Christopher Szyarto proposed that narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy are more or less interchangeable in normal samples. Delroy L. Paulhus and McHoskey debated these perspectives at an American Psychological Association conference, inspiring a body of research that continues to grow in the published literature. Delroy Paulhus and Kevin Williams found enough differences between the traits to suggest that they were distinct despite their similarities, thus the concept of a "triad" of offensive personality traits was conceptualized. There has been research on Machiavellianism using various dark triad measures, including the Short Dark Triad (SD3), and the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen test.

Psychopathy
Many psychologists consider Machiavellianism to be essentially indistinguishable from psychopathy, as they both share manipulative tendencies, disregard for morality, and cold callousness as their primary attributes. As this is a recurring theme in the Machiavellianism literature, this list is by no means exhaustive:
 * Kowalski, C. M., Rogoza, R., Saklofske, D. H., & Schermer, J. A. (2021). Dark triads, tetrads, tents, and cores: Why navigate (research) the jungle of dark personality models without a compass (criterion)?. Acta Psychologica, 221, 103455.
 * There is an immense and ongoing debate amongst researchers as to whether or not Machiavellianism and psychopathy should be treated as the same construct, or at least view Machiavellianism as a trait of psychopathy. When tested, High Machs scored consistently high on measures of psychopathy, more than Low Machs. Primary psychopaths also scored higher on the Machiavellianism scale than secondary psychopaths. According to John McHoskey, the MACH-IV test is merely "a global measure of psychopathy in noninstitutionalized populations", and that this is a result of the disconnect between clinical and personality psychology. Many have stated that the Machiavellianism scale measures nothing more than "successful" psychopathy, or psychopathy without the extreme clinical characteristics. Even compared to other "dark" traits, research has shown that Psychopathy correlates with Machiavellianism far more than it correlates with narcissism.  Some authors have stated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy represent the issue of a jangle fallacy, as both constructs are named differently yet describe the same concept. A recent paper published in 2022 stated that Machiavellianism "is theoretically distinct from psychopathy, but empirically they are nearly indistinguishable". Beverly Fehr even suggested that psychopaths may be simply "High Machs who have had run up against the law". Robert Hare, author of the Psychopathy Checklist, stated that Machiavellianism is more closely related to PCL Factor 1, affective detachment, than to Factor 2, an antisocial lifestyle. According to Christopher Patrick, high Psychopathy Checklist scores correlated with much higher Machiavellianism scores, as well as higher scores on boldness and aggressiveness.
 * Kowalski, C. M., Rogoza, R., Saklofske, D. H., & Schermer, J. A. (2021). Dark triads, tetrads, tents, and cores: Why navigate (research) the jungle of dark personality models without a compass (criterion)?. Acta Psychologica, 221, 103455.
 * There is an immense and ongoing debate amongst researchers as to whether or not Machiavellianism and psychopathy should be treated as the same construct, or at least view Machiavellianism as a trait of psychopathy. When tested, High Machs scored consistently high on measures of psychopathy, more than Low Machs. Primary psychopaths also scored higher on the Machiavellianism scale than secondary psychopaths. According to John McHoskey, the MACH-IV test is merely "a global measure of psychopathy in noninstitutionalized populations", and that this is a result of the disconnect between clinical and personality psychology. Many have stated that the Machiavellianism scale measures nothing more than "successful" psychopathy, or psychopathy without the extreme clinical characteristics. Even compared to other "dark" traits, research has shown that Psychopathy correlates with Machiavellianism far more than it correlates with narcissism.  Some authors have stated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy represent the issue of a jangle fallacy, as both constructs are named differently yet describe the same concept. A recent paper published in 2022 stated that Machiavellianism "is theoretically distinct from psychopathy, but empirically they are nearly indistinguishable". Beverly Fehr even suggested that psychopaths may be simply "High Machs who have had run up against the law". Robert Hare, author of the Psychopathy Checklist, stated that Machiavellianism is more closely related to PCL Factor 1, affective detachment, than to Factor 2, an antisocial lifestyle. According to Christopher Patrick, high Psychopathy Checklist scores correlated with much higher Machiavellianism scores, as well as higher scores on boldness and aggressiveness.
 * There is an immense and ongoing debate amongst researchers as to whether or not Machiavellianism and psychopathy should be treated as the same construct, or at least view Machiavellianism as a trait of psychopathy. When tested, High Machs scored consistently high on measures of psychopathy, more than Low Machs. Primary psychopaths also scored higher on the Machiavellianism scale than secondary psychopaths. According to John McHoskey, the MACH-IV test is merely "a global measure of psychopathy in noninstitutionalized populations", and that this is a result of the disconnect between clinical and personality psychology. Many have stated that the Machiavellianism scale measures nothing more than "successful" psychopathy, or psychopathy without the extreme clinical characteristics. Even compared to other "dark" traits, research has shown that Psychopathy correlates with Machiavellianism far more than it correlates with narcissism.  Some authors have stated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy represent the issue of a jangle fallacy, as both constructs are named differently yet describe the same concept. A recent paper published in 2022 stated that Machiavellianism "is theoretically distinct from psychopathy, but empirically they are nearly indistinguishable". Beverly Fehr even suggested that psychopaths may be simply "High Machs who have had run up against the law". Robert Hare, author of the Psychopathy Checklist, stated that Machiavellianism is more closely related to PCL Factor 1, affective detachment, than to Factor 2, an antisocial lifestyle. According to Christopher Patrick, high Psychopathy Checklist scores correlated with much higher Machiavellianism scores, as well as higher scores on boldness and aggressiveness.
 * There is an immense and ongoing debate amongst researchers as to whether or not Machiavellianism and psychopathy should be treated as the same construct, or at least view Machiavellianism as a trait of psychopathy. When tested, High Machs scored consistently high on measures of psychopathy, more than Low Machs. Primary psychopaths also scored higher on the Machiavellianism scale than secondary psychopaths. According to John McHoskey, the MACH-IV test is merely "a global measure of psychopathy in noninstitutionalized populations", and that this is a result of the disconnect between clinical and personality psychology. Many have stated that the Machiavellianism scale measures nothing more than "successful" psychopathy, or psychopathy without the extreme clinical characteristics. Even compared to other "dark" traits, research has shown that Psychopathy correlates with Machiavellianism far more than it correlates with narcissism.  Some authors have stated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy represent the issue of a jangle fallacy, as both constructs are named differently yet describe the same concept. A recent paper published in 2022 stated that Machiavellianism "is theoretically distinct from psychopathy, but empirically they are nearly indistinguishable". Beverly Fehr even suggested that psychopaths may be simply "High Machs who have had run up against the law". Robert Hare, author of the Psychopathy Checklist, stated that Machiavellianism is more closely related to PCL Factor 1, affective detachment, than to Factor 2, an antisocial lifestyle. According to Christopher Patrick, high Psychopathy Checklist scores correlated with much higher Machiavellianism scores, as well as higher scores on boldness and aggressiveness.
 * There is an immense and ongoing debate amongst researchers as to whether or not Machiavellianism and psychopathy should be treated as the same construct, or at least view Machiavellianism as a trait of psychopathy. When tested, High Machs scored consistently high on measures of psychopathy, more than Low Machs. Primary psychopaths also scored higher on the Machiavellianism scale than secondary psychopaths. According to John McHoskey, the MACH-IV test is merely "a global measure of psychopathy in noninstitutionalized populations", and that this is a result of the disconnect between clinical and personality psychology. Many have stated that the Machiavellianism scale measures nothing more than "successful" psychopathy, or psychopathy without the extreme clinical characteristics. Even compared to other "dark" traits, research has shown that Psychopathy correlates with Machiavellianism far more than it correlates with narcissism.  Some authors have stated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy represent the issue of a jangle fallacy, as both constructs are named differently yet describe the same concept. A recent paper published in 2022 stated that Machiavellianism "is theoretically distinct from psychopathy, but empirically they are nearly indistinguishable". Beverly Fehr even suggested that psychopaths may be simply "High Machs who have had run up against the law". Robert Hare, author of the Psychopathy Checklist, stated that Machiavellianism is more closely related to PCL Factor 1, affective detachment, than to Factor 2, an antisocial lifestyle. According to Christopher Patrick, high Psychopathy Checklist scores correlated with much higher Machiavellianism scores, as well as higher scores on boldness and aggressiveness.
 * There is an immense and ongoing debate amongst researchers as to whether or not Machiavellianism and psychopathy should be treated as the same construct, or at least view Machiavellianism as a trait of psychopathy. When tested, High Machs scored consistently high on measures of psychopathy, more than Low Machs. Primary psychopaths also scored higher on the Machiavellianism scale than secondary psychopaths. According to John McHoskey, the MACH-IV test is merely "a global measure of psychopathy in noninstitutionalized populations", and that this is a result of the disconnect between clinical and personality psychology. Many have stated that the Machiavellianism scale measures nothing more than "successful" psychopathy, or psychopathy without the extreme clinical characteristics. Even compared to other "dark" traits, research has shown that Psychopathy correlates with Machiavellianism far more than it correlates with narcissism.  Some authors have stated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy represent the issue of a jangle fallacy, as both constructs are named differently yet describe the same concept. A recent paper published in 2022 stated that Machiavellianism "is theoretically distinct from psychopathy, but empirically they are nearly indistinguishable". Beverly Fehr even suggested that psychopaths may be simply "High Machs who have had run up against the law". Robert Hare, author of the Psychopathy Checklist, stated that Machiavellianism is more closely related to PCL Factor 1, affective detachment, than to Factor 2, an antisocial lifestyle. According to Christopher Patrick, high Psychopathy Checklist scores correlated with much higher Machiavellianism scores, as well as higher scores on boldness and aggressiveness.
 * There is an immense and ongoing debate amongst researchers as to whether or not Machiavellianism and psychopathy should be treated as the same construct, or at least view Machiavellianism as a trait of psychopathy. When tested, High Machs scored consistently high on measures of psychopathy, more than Low Machs. Primary psychopaths also scored higher on the Machiavellianism scale than secondary psychopaths. According to John McHoskey, the MACH-IV test is merely "a global measure of psychopathy in noninstitutionalized populations", and that this is a result of the disconnect between clinical and personality psychology. Many have stated that the Machiavellianism scale measures nothing more than "successful" psychopathy, or psychopathy without the extreme clinical characteristics. Even compared to other "dark" traits, research has shown that Psychopathy correlates with Machiavellianism far more than it correlates with narcissism.  Some authors have stated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy represent the issue of a jangle fallacy, as both constructs are named differently yet describe the same concept. A recent paper published in 2022 stated that Machiavellianism "is theoretically distinct from psychopathy, but empirically they are nearly indistinguishable". Beverly Fehr even suggested that psychopaths may be simply "High Machs who have had run up against the law". Robert Hare, author of the Psychopathy Checklist, stated that Machiavellianism is more closely related to PCL Factor 1, affective detachment, than to Factor 2, an antisocial lifestyle. According to Christopher Patrick, high Psychopathy Checklist scores correlated with much higher Machiavellianism scores, as well as higher scores on boldness and aggressiveness.
 * There is an immense and ongoing debate amongst researchers as to whether or not Machiavellianism and psychopathy should be treated as the same construct, or at least view Machiavellianism as a trait of psychopathy. When tested, High Machs scored consistently high on measures of psychopathy, more than Low Machs. Primary psychopaths also scored higher on the Machiavellianism scale than secondary psychopaths. According to John McHoskey, the MACH-IV test is merely "a global measure of psychopathy in noninstitutionalized populations", and that this is a result of the disconnect between clinical and personality psychology. Many have stated that the Machiavellianism scale measures nothing more than "successful" psychopathy, or psychopathy without the extreme clinical characteristics. Even compared to other "dark" traits, research has shown that Psychopathy correlates with Machiavellianism far more than it correlates with narcissism.  Some authors have stated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy represent the issue of a jangle fallacy, as both constructs are named differently yet describe the same concept. A recent paper published in 2022 stated that Machiavellianism "is theoretically distinct from psychopathy, but empirically they are nearly indistinguishable". Beverly Fehr even suggested that psychopaths may be simply "High Machs who have had run up against the law". Robert Hare, author of the Psychopathy Checklist, stated that Machiavellianism is more closely related to PCL Factor 1, affective detachment, than to Factor 2, an antisocial lifestyle. According to Christopher Patrick, high Psychopathy Checklist scores correlated with much higher Machiavellianism scores, as well as higher scores on boldness and aggressiveness.

Researchers note that Machiavellianism is well represented in every measure of psychopathy, such as the Factor 1 characteristics on the Psychopathy Checklist, more specifically traits such as "conning/manipulative", "pathological lying,” "callous/lack of empathy", and “glibness/superficial charm”. Donald Lynam and others noted that Machiavellianism is also represented in the "Interpersonal Manipulation" factor in Hare’s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-III and in the "Manipulation" scale in the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment. The researchers state that "ultimately, measures of psychopathy and MACH appear to be measuring the same construct, and MACH assessments fail to capture the construct as articulated in theoretical descriptions". Michael Levenson, author of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale disagreed with the notion of distinguishing machiavellianism from psychopathy, stating that it "does not accord" with empirical research which shows Machiavellianism being heavily related to primary psychopathy. Machiavellianism has a strong relationship with both primary and secondary psychopathy on Levenson's self report test. In experiments High Machs also scored highly on the Psychopathic Deviate subscale on the MMPI. On the Psychopathic Personality Inventory, created by Scott Lilienfeld and Brian Andrews, there is even a subscale similarly named "Machiavellian Egocentricity". The subscale is said to assess a "ruthless and self centered willingness to exploit others". Machiavellianism and psychopathy have both been negatively correlated with the recognition of facial emotions, with one study stating that "if the ability to recognise facial expressions is exclusively an affective empathy task, it indeed accounts for the facial recognition deficits found in primary psychopathy and Machiavellianism." High scores on the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure questionnaire strongly correlated with Machiavellianism.

Machiavellianism and psychopathy overlap so heavily that researchers have proposed merging the two traits into each other, preferably Machiavellianism as a facet of psychopathy. There have been attempts to combine Machiavellianism and psychopathy into one construct, such as the creation of a "Dark Dyad" as opposed to a "Dark Triad", with the exclusion of narcissism.

A recent study done on criminal psychopaths noted that Machiavellianism showed the strongest association with the affective aspect of psychopathy.

Difference between constructs:Impulse control
Many other psychologists state that while Machiavellianism and psychopathy overlap heavily, there is much evidence to suggest that they are distinct personality constructs. Psychologists who stress the differences between Machiavellianism and psychopathy state that, in total contrast to high Machs, psychopaths are impulsive, tend to be reckless, and lack long term planning skills. Delroy Paulhus and others have stated that this difference between the two traits is often underappreciated. Scholars also note that those high on Machiavellianism can delay gratification, and have more sensitivity to punishment and awareness of consequences than psychopaths. Though both traits have a heritable basis, Machiavellianism is more influenced by the environment than psychopathy. High Machs have been described as "master manipulators" and far better at manipulation than psychopaths and narcissists.

Daniel Jones notes that even though both psychopaths and High Machs share a manipulative and callous nature, the difference between Machiavellianism and psychopathy lies in the type of manipulation employed by the two constructs. Machiavellianism is marked by calculated planning, and manipulating only when something is to be gained, while psychopathy is marked by rashness, and manipulating regardless of situation. O'Boyle and others found however that the notion that Machiavellianism is marked by cautiousness does not match empirical research which shows that it can be correlated with reckless behavior in certain situations.

Narcissism
Individuals high in Machiavellianism and narcissism both manipulate to improve their reputations, and how they appear to others. Individuals high in the two traits do this as a form of self aggrandizement to help their chances of success in a given situation. Machiavellianism scores were positively associated with aspects of narcissism such as entitlement and exploitativeness, and inversely associated with adaptive narcissistic tendencies, like self-sufficiency. Studies have also shown that those higher on Machiavellianism are more realistic about their character, while narcissists are less realistic about theirs. Compared to High Machs, narcissists are less malevolent and show a more socially positive personality. They also have higher levels of self-rated happiness.

Machiavellianism and narcissism both share a lack of empathy and a focus on self-interest, though the two traits differ in how they manifest in people, and what their motivations are. High Machs have tendencies to be driven by personal gain, whereas narcissists are driven by a need for validation and admiration. Opposed to those high on narcissism, High Machs tend to be more strategic and calculating in their interpersonal interactions, while narcissists may be more impulsive and attention-seeking.

In terms of social relationships, High Machs are more likely to be more exploitative towards others, while narcissists may be more likely to seek out relationships that serve to bolster their self-esteem and provide them with the admiration they desire.

Compared to narcissists, High Machs exhibit a greater lack of empathy, because of the emotional deficiencies inherent within Machiavellianism.

White collar crime
Research has shown that individuals high in Machiavellianism may be more willing to engage in white collar crimes. Psychologist Daniel Jones has stated that "individuals higher on Machiavellianism are well suited for crimes in the financial world, especially crimes that skirt the legal system". Delroy Paulhus has stated that Machiavellianism is the main trait for white collar criminals and con artists, and not psychopathy, stating that:

"Although direct research on this topic is difficult, it seems clear that malevolent stockbrokers such as Bernie Madoff do not qualify as psychopaths: They are corporate Machiavellians who use deliberate, strategic procedures for exploiting others. A genuine psychopath, even at the subclinical level, lacks the self-control to orchestrate the schemes of a shrewd stockbroker."

In a research paper, Daniel Jones and others stated that a person high on Machiavellianism would also be possibly drawn to cybercrime, noting that "although we did not directly assess crimes, we did find patterns of system infiltration that were different among the three traits, with Machiavellianism being associated with the stealthiest approach among the three traits." They also stated that Machiavellianism would only be associated with crime if the "benefits outweighed the risks". They went on to clarify that this is opposed to individuals high in psychopathy, whom are prone to crime regardless of the situation.

DSM: Trait, not disorder
Machiavellianism has never been considered a disorder, nor has it been referenced in any version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It has been treated as strictly a personality construct. It is primarily studied by personality psychologists, as it is a non-clinical personality style.

Relations with other personality traits
There is immense literature concerning the relationships between Machiavellianism and other personality dimensions, such as the traits in the Big Five trait model. Machiavellianism has also been related to interpersonal aggression and hostile behavior.

Big Five
Mach-IV scores are negatively correlated with agreeableness (r = −0.47) and conscientiousness (r = −0.34), two dimensions of the Big Five personality model (NEO-PI-R). The FFMI corrects for this by including aspects of high conscientiousness in the scale (e.g. order, deliberation). Additionally, Machiavellianism correlates more highly with the honesty-humility dimension of the six-factor HEXACO model than with any of the big five dimensions. Machiavellianism has also been located within the interpersonal circumplex, which consists of the two independent dimensions of agency and communion. Agency refers to the motivation to succeed and to individuate the self, whereas communion refers to the motivation to merge with others and to support group interests. Machiavellianism lies in the quadrant of the circumplex defined by high agency and low communion. Machiavellianism has been found to lie diagonally opposite from a circumplex construct called self-construal, a tendency to prefer communion over agency. This suggests that people high in Machiavellianism do not simply wish to achieve, they wish to do so at the expense of (or at least without regard to) others.

Hot and cold empathy
There are two distinct types of empathy which people use to relate to each other which are referred to as hot and cold empathy. Cold empathy (or cognitive empathy) refers to the understanding of how others might react to one's actions or a certain event. Hot empathy (or emotional/affective empathy) refers to the emotional reaction others might have to the emotions of another person. Machiavellianism was consistently negatively correlated with affective empathy in nearly every study. Machiavellianism was also negatively correlated with affective resonance (feeling good when others feel good) and positively associated with affective dissonance (e.g. feeling happy when others are sad). People high in Machiavellianism tend to have a better understanding of cold empathy and do not feel hot empathy which explains why they seem cold and uncaring. Research results have also suggested that High Machs are deficient only at the level of affective empathy (sharing of emotions), whereas their cognitive empathy is intact, even high. Another study suggested that high Machs are deficient at both kinds of empathy. Studies also assert that high Machs do not feel guilt or remorse over the consequences of their manipulations. High Machs are less likely to be altruistic, and they are less likely to be concerned with the problems of others. One study proposed that High Machs have more automatic (that is, un-conscious) recognition of other's negative emotions more than low Machs, and that this understanding of emotions may in fact aid in the manipulation of others. Children who scored higher on Machiavellianism showed a lack of empathy and more delinquent behaviors compared to those who scored lower, such as a lack of guilt, lying, cheating, and truancy.

Some authors have stated that since Machiavellianism is so diametrically opposed to empathy, it should be included in empathy scales as the polar opposite. Total scores on Machiavellianism and empathy were "significantly negatively correlated".

Unemotionality
One of the primary traits of machiavellianism is a detached, unemotional attitude and lack of affect in regards to others. Christie and Geis noted that the primary difference between high machs and low machs was the degree of emotion invested in interpersonal relations, with those scoring high having the lowest. Research has been done on the extent of the low emotionality of those who score high on the Machiavellianism scale. Doris Mcllwain noted that "Machiavellians do not inhabit the realm of emotion in the same way as others, yet they use it to manipulate others. They do not experience feelings, empathy, or morality in normative ways. yet they are consummate manipulators and deceivers precisely by playing upon these sentiments and convictions in others. Thus they induce in others the guilt they hardly feel themselves." A study done by Farah Ali and others noted that Machiavellianism seems to have emotional reactions to stimuli similar to primary psychopathy, differing only in higher levels of anxiety, which those who score highly on machiavellianism may be prone to. Machiavellianism has an unclear relation with anxiety levels, some researchers have found positive correlations, while some have found no relation at all. Researchers have noted that High Machs may experience intense worries when things do not go their way, but are unable to express it.

A recent analysis discovered that, in addition to acting for mostly self interest and profit, High Machs used significantly less words when referring to emotional involvement. They concluded that "this study confirmed previous findings that High Machs have a cool and rational character and a proself orientation and showed that their lack of group orientation may account for their low cooperation in social dilemmas."

Alexithymia is also considered a key trait that is correlated heavily with Machiavellianism. It is the lack of awareness of one's own emotions as well as the emotions of others. When tested, healthy alexithymic individuals have been found to obtain high Machiavellianism scores. This was not surprising to researchers, seeing as the unemotionality of Machiavellianism shows similarities to what alexithymics experience. One study examined the relationship between alexithymia and endorsement of beliefs associated with Machiavellianism amongst university students. Results showed a positive correlation between alexithymia and exploitative beliefs, suggesting those with higher levels of alexithymia were more likely to endorse the view that manipulating others is an effective strategy.

Neuroticism/Depression
Researchers have often debated the potential links between Machiavellianism and a neurotic, anxious disposition. In a study done by psychologists Hans Eysenck, his wife Sybil, and John Allsopp, they note that they found "virtually no relationship" between Machiavellianism and neuroticism, unlike the relationships they found with Machiavellianism and Extraversion-Psychoticism respectively. However John McHoskey found links between Machiavellianism and neuroticism, along with the other personality traits popularized by Eysenck. Studies using measures of the Big Five personality traits have variously found positive or no correlation between Machiavellianism and Neuroticism.

Machiavellianism has very scant correlations with depression, and the higher one's Machiavellianism score was, the lower their depression level was. One study even noted that depressed males "were significantly less Machiavellian than were nondepressed males". They then estimate that "depression in males, then, may be of a more self-aggressive, self-destructive nature". High Machs who have higher levels of emotional intelligence scores show less depressive symptoms.

Motivation
A 1992 review described the motivation of those high on the Machiavellianism scale as related to cold selfishness and pure instrumentality, and those high on the trait were assumed to pursue their motives (e.g. sex, achievement, sociality) in duplicitous ways. More recent research on the motivations of high Machs compared to low Machs found that they gave high priority to money, power, and competition and relatively low priority to community building, self-love, and family commitment. High Machs admitted to focusing on unmitigated achievement and winning at any cost.

The research on behaviors which high Machs engage in suggest that they are willing to achieve their goals by bending and breaking rules, cheating, and stealing. People high in Machiavellianism are able to easily switch between working with others to taking advantage of others to achieve their goals, and they are more willing to do things others see as terrible or immoral.

Intelligence and other cognitive skills
Due to their skill at interpersonal manipulation, there has often been an assumption that high Machs possess superior intelligence, or ability to understand other people in social situations. Recent research provides some support for this assumption. However, other research has established that Machiavellianism is unrelated to IQ. Paulhus and Williams found "significant associations of psychopathy and Machiavellianism with a relatively higher nonverbal to verbal IQ score".

Studies on emotional intelligence have usually found that high Machiavellianism is associated with low emotional intelligence as assessed by both performance and questionnaire measures.

Research has examined the relationship between trait emotional intelligence (EI), Machiavellianism, and the personality trait of agreeableness. The findings of one paper revealed that while trait EI and the ability to manage others' emotions were negatively correlated with Machiavellianism, this relationship was mediated by agreeableness. Specifically, those high in trait EI tended to be low in Machiavellianism primarily because they were high in agreeableness, reflecting a cooperative and prosocial nature. One study found that Machiavellianism was negatively associated with most facets of socio-emotional intelligence (SEI), including social expressivity, social sensitivity, emotional expressivity, and emotional sensitivity. However, Machiavellianism showed no significant relationship with emotional control, which involves regulating one's own emotional displays. Machiavellianism was positively associated with emotional manipulation, the tendency to strategically influence others' emotions. Despite this association, Machiavellianism did not moderate the relationship between any facet of SEI and emotional manipulation. This suggests that while High Machs have a propensity for emotionally manipulative behavior, they may not be utilizing socio-emotional skills towards that end. The authors propose this could be due to the High Mach's externally-oriented and unemotional perspective.

Both emotional empathy and emotion recognition have been shown to have negative correlations with Machiavellianism. Additionally, research has shown that Machiavellianism is unrelated to a more advanced theory of mind, that is, the ability to anticipate what others are thinking in social situations. However, research results have suggested the contrary viewpoint that high Machiavellianism is associated with excellent theory of mind skills.

When it comes to manipulation, individuals high in Machiavellianism may, according to Bereczkei, "have certain cognitive and social skills that enable them to properly adapt to the challenges of environmental circumstances". They also are incredibly perceptive to the presence of others, and are able to feign altruism to enhance their reputation. A recent study investigated whether Machiavellianism is associated with the production of "bullshit" - inaccurate or meaningless information intended to impress, persuade or mislead. The researchers found that the manipulative aspect of Machiavellianism (Machiavellian approach) was linked to "persuasive bullshitting", aimed at gaining desired resources. The distrustful aspect (Machiavellian avoidance) was associated with "evasive bullshitting", spreading vague information to prevent disadvantages. Those high in Machiavellian avoidance were even better at distinguishing misinformation from valuable information.

Neurological studies
There have been few studies on the neural correlates of Machiavellianism. Research has shown that Machiavellianism has been correlated with changes in gray matter in the areas of the basal ganglia, left prefrontal cortex, bilaterally in the insula, and in the right hippocampus and the left parahippocampal gyrus. Researcher Tamas Bereczkei stated that the manipulation skill in High Machs is associated with neural correlates that are responsible for decision making. He also noted that behaviors associated with Machiavellianism need to "recruit more neural resources than a honest behavior, especially when manipulators face a cooperative partner as a potential victim. Machiavellians have to inhibit the norm of reciprocity and, additionally, generate an opposite response." Machiavellianism has also been linked with lesions in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Frontal dysfunction was also linked with Machiavellianism. Daniel Jones also concluded that those who score high on Machiavellianism have the "neurological structure of a strategic manipulator". The activation of the task-positive network (TPN) and the default mode network (DMN) have also been associated with a lack of genuine empathy, and also have been observed in Machiavellianism. A recent study linked regional gray matter volume in the left superior frontal gyrus to both Machiavellianism and social aggression, which is "intentional antisocial behavior directed to damage others’ social reputations or interpersonal relationships through socially manipulative tactics".

Social relationships
The effects that one's level of Machiavellianism has on a person's socialization and interpersonal relationships, such as friendships and romantic relationships, has been studied extensively. High Machs are highly likely to ingratiate themselves within social groups via compliments and conforming their opinions to those around them. High Machs are more than likely to choose better quality friends, as they have a better time at guessing who is a good person and thus more pliable for manipulation. Machiavellianism was also correlated with withdrawal and avoidance in romantic relationships. Individuals high in all dark triad traits find it easy to end relationships, and tend to prefer short-term relationships over long term ones. Studies done on courtship showed that women higher on machiavellianism tend to go on dates not for sexual reasons but for free food, a phenomenon known as a "foodie call". Because a lack of empathy and affect with regards to others is one of the main features of Machiavellianism, individuals high on the trait tend to act in a utilitarian, self interested manner, prefer emotionally detached relationships, and are not concerned with the other person's needs. High machs report lower relationship satisfaction than those lower on the scale. Though there has been research on the potential "attractiveness" of the dark triad traits, out of all of the traits in the dark triad, Machiavellianism was the least attractive to the opposite sex. One of the studies concluded that "The third DT trait, Machiavellianism, was significantly negatively associated with being chosen and mate appeal for STR [short term relationships] in women." Another study claimed that this was because high Machs tend to be way less extroverted than narcissists and psychopaths, and that "it is possible that individuals do not like cynical, manipulative, aggressive, remorseless, and duplicitous people such as Machiavellians and psychopaths".

Like the other dark triad traits, those high on Machiavellianism have been reportedly more willing to troll or flame others on the internet, however a 2021 study found no particularly strong connection between trolling and dark personality traits. Machiavellianism has also been correlated with a higher than average belief in conspiracy theories. Because of their emphasis on hierarchy, high scorers in Machiavellianism were also found with higher levels of prejudice, and higher social dominance orientation scores.

Gender differences
Research has consistently shown that men score higher than women in Machiavellianism. There is evidence to suggest that Machiavellianism is represented differently in both sexes, with men being more opportunistic, self confident, and willing to take risks, while women higher in Machiavellianism are more likely to be avoidant and have anxious features. While psychopathy was an indicator of future infidelity amongst both men and women, Machiavellianism was a predictor amongst women. The findings of one research paper showed that men, but not women, high in Machiavellianism were non-impulsive and high in planning, which suggests that the apparent impulsivity of Machiavellianism may be a question of gender. Peter Jonason suggested that the reason why men score much higher than women in dark triad traits is because men require less emotional connection in order to get ahead in life.

Cross-cultural studies
There have been many studies on how Machiavellianism is presented in people from different countries and with different cultures. Multiple studies found that in nearly all countries, men scored higher than women in Machiavellianism, and that the gender differences were notable. The populations of many other countries varied from their western counterparts in their levels of dark triad traits overall, which the authors of one study attributed to sociopolitical factors and levels of economic engagement. In another cross cultural study, Machiavellianism also showed associations with limited interactive or normative values. A study investigated the relationship between emotion recognition and dark personality traits (including Machiavellianism) across cultures. The effects were gender and culture-dependent. Among both German males and females, Machiavellianism showed strong positive associations with emotionally manipulative tactics. Some scholars noted an issue with many cross cultural studies on machiavellianism, primarily that "researchers have used measures of Machiavellianism (Mach IV) which were derived from Western concepts and which may not have similar meanings when applied to non-Western groups."

Aggression and antisocial behavior
Machiavellianism has little association with the outright display of overt aggression. Those high in Machiavellianism tend to be more more aggressive to short term as opposed to long term partners. While Machiavellianism is associated with hostility, those high on the trait may mask it depending on the manipulation tactic used. Machiavellianism also is associated with the tuning of aggression to the benefit long term objectives, only engaging in antisocial behavior when the stakes are low and it proffers benefits, unlike psychopathy and narcissism. In a study by Delroy Paulhus and Daniel Jones, High Machs were found to refrain from cheating under risky situations, preferring to sustain their reputation for the long term than to engage in short term financial gain. The authors then state that High Machs may cheat under high risk scenarios, but only when "ego-depleted", which then makes their behavior appear similar to those of psychopaths. McHoskey found that MACH is associated with "cheating, divulging intimate sexual secrets to third parties, and both feigning love and inducing intoxication to secure sex". He also suggested that Machiavellianism is correlated with an extensive focus on financial gain, and is also correlated with antisocial behaviors such as stealing, vandalism, and cheating as opposed to prosocial actions like helping others.

In the workplace
Machiavellianism is also studied by organizational psychologists, especially those who study manipulative behaviors in workplace settings. Workplace behaviors associated with this concept include flattery, deceit, coercion, and the abuse of others through one's position of leadership. These behaviors in the workplace are ultimately done to advance personal interests. Research has shown that one's level of Machiavellianism can be a major factor in situations where workplace manipulation is involved because this trait can have an effect on the ability for an individual to "fit" into a highly political work environment. Research has found individuals with Dark Triad traits are drawn to entrepreneurship. Certain qualities found in the Dark Triad are similar to traits needed for effective entrepreneurship, such as confidence, charisma and risk taking.

Career choice and advancement
Individuals high in machiavellianism tend to gravitate towards particular careers, especially those that require a high degree of competitiveness needed to succeed. High Machs are ambitious enough to cut corners and use aggressive means if it is necessary to get ahead in their careers. One study found that "Machiavellianism was positively related to leadership position and career satisfaction". Individuals high in machiavellianism are especially drawn to leadership and management positions, which became an important subject in the primary literature. Sales careers also attract dark triad individuals, with one study stating that such individuals are "prevalent" in the industry. One study noted that those who possess high Machiavellianism levels "are more productive but received lower overall managerial ratings", and that "Machiavellianism may in certain circumstances, be somewhat advantageous for long-term sales performance." Machiavellianism was also associated with the use of "hard" (i.e. aggressive and hostile behavior) and "soft" (i.e. joking/kidding, offering compliments) tactics in the workforce. One's political skill in the workplace and elsewhere may even mask the behaviors and characteristics associated with machiavellianism.

It was shown that those high on Machiavellianism are more drawn to academic majors like economics, law, and politics, as opposed to the "person-oriented" majors like education, nursing, and social work that were associated with lower Machiavellianism scores.

Dimensions of the MACH scale
Although there have been a myriad of proposed factor structures, two dimensions emerge most consistently within factor-analytic research which separates the views from the behaviors in Machiavellianism. Although many posit that the Mach IV scale is unable to reliably capture the two dimensions, a 10-item subset of the scale known as the "two-dimensional Mach IV" (TDM-V), reproduces the views and tactics dimensions across countries, genders, sample types, and scale category length. The "Views" dimension appears to capture the neurotic, narcissistic, pessimistic, and distrustful aspects of Machiavellianism, while the "Tactics" component captures the more unconscientious, self-serving, and deceitful behavioral aspects. More recently, in response to criticisms of the Mach-IV, researchers developed the Five-Factor Machiavellianism Inventory (FFMI), which attempts to include concepts (like being calculated and planful) that are not adequately captured by the Mach-IV.

Construct validity and criticism
There has been debate on how valid scales of Machiavellianism are in tapping the construct. It is often stated by those critical of Machiavellianism scales that it does not actually measure the theoretical trait, but something nearly identical to psychopathy and narcissism. For example, it is often stated that Machiavellianism is marked by less impulsivity and better long term thinking as opposed to psychopathy, but some empirical research shows that even High Machs can act impulsive in certain scenarios. Lynam and others stated "we suggest that existing measures of Machiavellianism are functioning as proxy measures of psychopathy." Psychologist John Rauthmann viewed the MACH-IV as more of a measure of cynicism, and that it doesn't really capture other qualities of Machiavellianism.

Most of the research done on Machiavellianism has been done with either the Mach IV or Mach V, though the Mach V is no longer in use due to psychometric issues. Many have expressed concerns with the reliability of the Mach IV scale to capture all of the features of Machiavellianism, thus many proposals have been made in favor of other Machiavellianism scales.

John Rauthmann and others have stated that, while the MACH-IV is "a generally reliable and valid scale", it has its shortcomings. These include the response styles of the test takers, the varying factor structures, and "insufficient content and construct validity". The researchers developed their own scale instead to study Machiavellianism multidimensionally instead of unidimensionally to prevent the construct from becoming hard to study effectively. Psychologist Jason Dahling and others have created another measure of Machiavellianism, dubbed the Machiavellian Personality Scale (or MPS for short).

Application of the scale in other research
In 2002, the Machiavellianism scale of Christie and Geis was applied by behavioral game theorists Anna Gunnthorsdottir, Kevin McCabe and Vernon L. Smith in their search for explanations for the spread of observed behavior in experimental games, in particular individual choices which do not correspond to assumptions of material self-interest captured by the standard Nash equilibrium prediction. It was found that in a trust game, those with high Mach-IV scores tended to follow Homo economicus' equilibrium strategies while those with low Mach-IV scores tended to deviate from the equilibrium, and instead made choices that reflected widely accepted moral standards and social preferences.

A study done by David Wilson and other researchers noted that while High Machs tend to defect from their groups, they are also unlikely to succeed in the long term simply by manipulating others, and that some cooperation is necessary for further success and to avoid a situation in which they are retaliated against. Wilson also noted that since those who are high in Machiavellianism often come across as charming and attractive in brief social encounters, it is unclear whether they are being deceitful or just very skilled socially. The researchers had people who scored high and low on Machiavellianism write first-person stories. Other participants then evaluated these stories. The results showed that people with low Machiavellianism tended to be more cooperative, while those with high Machiavellianism were more exploitative. Based on these stories, high Machs were generally rejected as social partners, except when their manipulative skills could be used against members of other groups.

title: Machiavellianism (psychology)