The Narcissist vs. the Machiavellian: What's the Difference?
Narcissism and Machiavellianism make up two thirds of the “dark triad”, the final part being psychopathy.
The dark triad subclinical traits involve toxic behaviours which you may be familiar with: Using specific strategies to achieve selfish goals; dishonest social tactics and manipulation for personal gain.
But while discussions of narcissism are popular these days and the dark triad traits are often discussed together, in practice it can be tricky to discern between Machiavellianism and narcissism.
There is a significant amount of literature, especially with narcissism which involves several types of narcissists (a topic for another time), and I’m going to try and keep it simple here. What is a narcissist, what is a Machiavellian, and what’s the difference?
The origins of narcissism
Narcissism was named after the mythological Narcissus, a Greek son of a river god and nymph.
In the story, a nymph fell in love with Narcissus. When she realised her proclamations of love fell on deaf, unrequited ears, she was devastated. So, the Goddess of Revenge decided to do her thing and teach our mate Narcissus a lesson. She coaxed him over to a river, where he looked into the water and saw… the most beautiful face he’d ever seen.
It was his face.
He fell in love with his reflection, not realising it was his reflection. He doted upon the water, unable to leave. Eventually, in proper Greek mythological form, he realised that he could not receive love from this reflection. And, because no one could ever be as beautiful as himself, in one swift move of self-absorption he physically burned to into the ground and turned into a flower.
Presumably a flower of despair.
In another version, he dies by suicide. Regardless of which historical version you read, things do not end well for Narcissus.
Narcissism today
The modern narcissist does not spontaneously devolve into a flower, which makes them harder to identify.
They do, however, demonstrate the same self-obsession, egotism and inflated sense of self-importance we get from Narcissus. Narcissists are all about themselves, and they’ll do what they need to acquire and maintain the status, power, or other means of perceived superiority over others.
I think of this person as kind of like a giant bubble: They appear grandiose, powerful, and important, but their outer bubble is so fragile it could pop at any moment. When it does, it reveals the minuscule sense of self the narcissist has been desperately trying to shield from the world.
This may be connected to the famed narcissistic angry streak: responding to criticism with rage and blaming others. It’s common for this person to be quite impulsive and emotional when something hits a nerve.
Unafraid to lie and deceive, empathy is at the bottom of the priority list. So, being close to a narcissist could come with jealous accusations, confronting verbal attacks, exaggerated stories or lies, manipulation and even gaslighting. You might experience this person’s condescension a lot; where they will go to any length to demonstrate their superiority over you in morals, intellect, or other qualities. They may do this in a carefully curated way.
And, in a modern context, social media provides a wonderful means of perpetuating their carefully formulated character.
Narcissists want adoration and praise; they want the world to see them as smarter, better looking, more powerful, more strategic, more special than others. They often crave the limelight and will do what’s needed to achieve their personal goals: whether that means bullying, exploitation, intimidation, manipulation, stirring the social pot, or other deceptive social strategies. Remember, empathy is not a priority.
At the same time, a narcissist can be charming. They’re adept at using social strategies to get people onside. They’ll often do what they need to be the head of their social group, the influencer with the most followers, or the organisational leader.
It’s the paradoxical extreme presentation of confidence and superiority, next to the insecure, delicate inner self. Delusions of grandeur about their self-importance, specialness, and superiority are countered by an urgent need for external validation.
It’s a very egocentric, malevolent way of going about the world.
Origins of the Machiavellian
‘’From this arises the following question: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is that one would like to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.
One can make this generalisation about men: they are ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours. They would shed their blood for you, risk their property, their lives, their sons, so long, as I said above, as danger is remote; but when you are in danger they turn away. Any prince who has come to depend entirely on promises and has taken no other precautions ensures his own ruin; friendship which is bought with money and not with greatness and nobility of mind is paid for, but it does not last and it yields nothing. Men worry less about doing an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself feared. For love is secured by a bond of gratitude which men, wretched creatures that they are, break when it is to their advantage to do so; but fear is strengthened by a dread of punishment which is always effective.”
- Niccolo Machiavelli, ‘The Prince’, p54
The Machiavellian derives from the concepts of Renaissance writer Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli’s writings proposed, in some ways, that one should seek out power through any means necessary, and this has led to the personification of such a character: seeking wealth and status through manipulation and sneaky strategies.
One should point out here that Machiavelli’s writings do also speak of compassion and, even from the excerpt above, Machiavelli goes on to say that the prince should still seek not to be hated.
That said, Machiavelli proposes a bleak view of humans and society, insinuating that all people are, at their core, deceitful. A perspective like this is undoubtedly going to produce more questionable frameworks for morals, ethics, and acceptable behaviours.
The Machiavellian today
So, this person carries a cynical world view – that all people have a vicious streak – and consequently advocates for deceptive tactics, and the end justifying the means[i]. Lying and cheating to gain or maintain power, and using fear as a leadership strategy if necessary are also part of this very dark parcel.
This characterisation sounds much like the narcissist, no?
The Machiavellian is, I believe, more calculated. Where the narcissist is looking for that external adoration and confirmation of their superiority, it seems a Machiavellian is far more content to fly under the radar if it helps them achieve their goals.
I picture them like an old school crime lord in a movie: sometimes quiet, always observing others, always scheming. More long term thinking about their strategy, and even though they can be cutthroat and brutal, they do so with more clarity than the impulsive narcissist.
Frank Underwood from House of Cards also comes to mind, from the very first scene of episode one when he stoically strangles a hurt dog on the side of the road. As he does, he tells the audience:
“There are two kinds of pain. The sort of pain that makes you strong, or useless pain, the sort of pain that’s only suffering. I have no patience for useless things. Moments like this require someone who will act, who will do the unpleasant thing, the necessary thing.”
Then, as we hear the dog’s neck break, “There, no more pain.”
Frank’s duplicitous character is, to my mind, a great example of the Machiavellian. He wants power. And he’s willing to acquire it through any means necessary. Some might argue that he’s a narcissist, too (he may well be, especially considering his propensity to anger), but to my mind, the way he works behind the scenes to manipulate others and benefit himself politically is true Machiavellian work.
Machiavellians use people like pawns, disregarding personal ties and emotions; doing whatever needs to be done to achieve their goal. When that goal is achieved, they may throw those pawns to the wayside if they won’t be helpful to their next.
They are probably much better at regulating their own emotions than the narcissist, which allows them to be more cool-headed, underhanded and strategic.
It almost aligns with the Shakespearian sentiment, ‘the world is but a play, and we are merely players.’
Everything is about making moves rather than connections. Even love and compassion are viewed through a strategic lens.
I’m not sure here, but it may be the case that a Machiavellian is more honest to themselves about their behaviour than the narcissist. The narcissist truly feels their sense of importance; they’re always trying to convince others they’re right, better, special, and seeking that feedback from others. But the Machiavellian may well be more transparent. After all, with a worldview that humans are inherently deceptive, you’d be more likely to see rules and laws as malleable, and breaking them as simply being aligned to human nature anyway.
The Machiavellian may be more open to seeing themselves as merely a great player at the game of human life. If that requires ruthlessness, exploitation, creating rifts between others, bribery, crime, lying or other devious acts, then so be it. Again, empathy is not on the board. Maybe this worldview would make them more dangerous in practice than the narcissist? I’m not sure. Certainly, their lessened need for attention would make the Machiavellian less conspicuous.
To explore the original Machiavellian bible, check out Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince.
Bringing it all together
After writing this, I’m inclined to think that the narcissist is often seeking a perception of power, fame, success or authority, primarily to feel a sense of superiority and status in the world. There’s more inclination towards behaviours that will prompt attention moment by moment. Lying about something to make someone feel sorry for them, or inspired by them, at that moment. Exaggerating something to feel important and smart, in the moment. And while there may also be long-term behavioural plays, after writing this, narcissistic tendencies – to me, at least – appear more emotionally driven and short term. Perhaps the narcissist is like the risky social landmine that could go off at any moment.
In contrast, I see the Machiavellian as seeking, rather than a perception of power, fame, success or authority, actual power and domination. The perceptions may not matter as much as the outcomes; remember, the ends justify the means.
I’m not sure which one is more devious. Perhaps they just represent different shades of darkness in society.
Society is fascinated with the traits of the Dark Triad, which prompts the presumption that narcissists and Machiavellians (and, for that matter, psychopaths) are common. And while you’ve probably met the occasional narcissist about, and you’ve almost certainly met people with narcissistic traits, those who would actually, clinically fall into the category of narcissism comprise a minute proportion of the population. I’m not sure about Machiavellians.
We all demonstrate narcissistic behaviours occasionally. When you break down the traits themselves, many are extreme versions of natural human tendencies; like self-interest, overconfidence, a desire for attention, and so on. And when it comes to Machiavellianism, many would probably engage in a strategic Machiavellian play from time to time in their work, too. It’s important to recognise that all humans have flawed traits, and the dark triad traits I’m discussing here are the most extreme negative versions of those traits.
So, these are my thoughts on distinguishing between the narcissist and the Machiavellian. Although I studied the dark triad in my Masters’, these are simply my thoughts, and I’d love to hear yours. While there is a lot to read on narcissism, there seems to be less on Machiavellianism, so I have done my best to give you my best perspective with the information I have. (Any dark triad experts can, of course, feel free to correct or counter me.)
As there are suggestions that narcissism, for example, is increasing and has been increasing quite steadily in recent years, I suspect there is a lot more for us to learn and understand about the dark triad enigma.
IF YOU ENJOY MY WRITING, SIGN UP TO MY NEWSLETTER FOR A WEEKLY DOSE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR AND PSYCHOLOGY, SPRINKLED WITH OCCASIONAL PHILOSOPHY BITS AND OTHER BLOBS.
[i] Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: a social exchange perspective. Journal of applied psychology, 97(3), 557.