Of course, the buzz around Machiavelli has never really died down. His polarizing presence isn't limited to light reading, either. In other words, it made us human. Almost 50 years ago, a Stanford psychologist named Richard Christie set out to ascertain just how many modern-day adherents Machiavelli had, and how they differed from those who disavow his ideas. Test-takers were asked to rate how strongly they agreed with Machiavelli's acid observations.
Most people fall somewhere in the middle, but there's a significant minority at either extreme.
The unusual origins of Christie's test set it apart from the carefully constructed instruments psychologists ordinarily use. In subsequent experiments in his lab, Christie found that our reactions to Machiavelli act as a kind of litmus test, delineating differences in temperament that he confirmed with more traditional personality inventories. Christie and his collaborator, Florence Geis, had deeply mixed feelings about high Machs, especially after watching them trounce other players in games the psychologists set up and observed in their lab. However, after watching subjects in laboratory experiments, we found ourselves having a perverse admiration for the high Mach's ability to outdo others in experimental situations. One of the many psychologists who have contributed to the now-substantial literature on Machiavellianism is John McHoskey, of Eastern Michigan University.