Machiavellian Strategy and Psychological Influence in Dating

Miles: Hey Eli, I was just looking at some research on dating, and it’s honestly a bit of a wake up call. We always hear that everyone is looking for that kind, trustworthy, "warm and fuzzy" soulmate, but the data tells a much colder story. Did you know that individuals who score high in Machiavellianism—those characterized by a cynical, manipulative, and utilitarian view of others—are more likely to engage in deceptive behaviors in the short term dating world

Eli: It’s wild, right? It totally flips the script on conventional romance. We’re taught that sincerity is the ultimate currency in love, but for a Machiavellian, love is more of a strategic exchange. They aren't looking for a "soulmate" in the traditional sense; they’re looking for a partner who serves a specific goal, whether that’s social status, resources, or just a quick ego boost.

Miles: And that’s exactly why this matters for everyone listening. Whether you've ever felt like you were being played or you're just curious about why some people seem to treat dating like a high stakes game of chess, understanding these Machiavellian maneuvers is essential. It’s not just about "bad boys" or "femme fatales"—it’s a distinct personality trait that fundamentally changes how someone approaches attraction.

Eli: Exactly. One of the biggest insights from the research is that high Machs—as they're often called—are actually perceived as quite socially attractive and charismatic at first. They have to be smooth operators to disguise their true intentions. If they walked around with a "villain" sign on their forehead, their strategies wouldn't work. They use a specific "veneer" of attractiveness to reel people in.

Miles: So, we’re looking at a world where the most charming person in the room might be the one with the most calculated agenda. It’s a fascinating, if slightly cynical, look at human nature. We’re going to dive deep into how these people choose their targets, the deceptive tactics they use to get a foot in the door, and why they seem to thrive in the chaotic world of modern dating apps.

Eli: I’m ready for it. It's time to peel back the layers of the "Dark Triad" in dating—Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy—and see how these traits manifest in the quest for connection. Let's get into the foundation of what makes a Machiavellian tick when it comes to the heart.

Miles: So Eli, to really understand this, we have to look at what a Machiavellian actually is. We aren't just talking about someone who’s a bit of a jerk. This is a stable personality trait, right?

Eli: Right, it’s a deep seated pattern. In psychology, Machiavellianism is defined by a lack of empathy, a cynical view of human nature, and a very utilitarian approach to morals. Think of it this way: most people see others as ends in themselves—people to connect with. A high Mach sees others as means to an end. They prioritize "agency" and progress over "communion" or connectedness.

Miles: That’s a heavy distinction. So, while I’m thinking about how much I like someone’s laugh, they’re thinking about how that person’s social circle might help their career or how much effort it’ll take to get what they want?

Eli: Precisely. It’s a cognitive exchange rather than an emotional encounter. Research shows that Machiavellians are "encounter blind." They struggle to spontaneously disclose their feelings or become emotionally attuned to a partner. Instead, every interaction is planned. They tell people what they want to hear because it’s the "best way to handle" them.

Miles: It sounds exhausting to live like that, but I guess if you don't value intimacy, it doesn't feel like a loss. What’s interesting is how this affects who they actually want to date. You’d think they’d want someone warm to balance them out, but the "A Darker Shade of Love" study found the opposite.

Eli: That’s a huge point. They actually have a negative preference for warmth-trustworthiness, agreeableness, and openness in their ideal partners. They don't value those "nice" traits because they don't possess them themselves. Instead, they’re looking for someone with "status and resources." It’s a very pragmatic, almost business like approach to choosing a mate.

Miles: It’s like they’re hiring for a position rather than looking for a lover. And because they’re so cynical, they assume everyone else is also lying and looking out for themselves. This leads to what researchers call "bounded rationality." They can't ever truly know if a partner is reliable, so they focus on the things they can see—like money, status, and physical attractiveness—as cues for utility.

Eli: And that sets the stage for a very specific kind of relationship—one that’s built on a foundation of mutual manipulation or, at the very least, a shared focus on external rewards rather than internal connection. It’s a "Top Dog" mentality. Now, when you take that strategic mindset and put it into the actual dating "hunt," things get even more deceptive. Let’s talk about how they actually reel people in.

Miles: Okay, so they’ve identified their target—someone with the right status or someone who fulfills a short term need. How do they actually get that person’s attention? I’m assuming it’s not by being their authentic, cynical selves.

Eli: Not at all. High Machs are experts in what researchers call "deceptive mating strategies." A study by Dussault and colleagues found a very strong link between Machiavellianism and the frequency of using these tactics. This isn't just a little white lie about liking a certain band; it’s a systematic effort to portray themselves as more successful, more trustworthy, or more emotionally invested than they actually are.

Miles: So they’re basically "catfishing" in real life?

Eli: In a way, yeah! They might feign involvement or sincerity just to get what they want—usually sex or status. For men especially, Machiavellianism is a huge predictor of using deception to secure sex. They’ll portray themselves as accomplished and trustworthy because they know that’s what’s valued in the mating market, even if it’s a total lie.

Miles: That makes me think of the "Shogun Method" or some of those more aggressive influence strategies we’ve seen. It’s about creating an illusion. But what’s interesting is that it’s not just the men. Women with Machiavellian traits use these tactics too, though sometimes their focus is different—often emphasizing physical attributes to get what they want.

Eli: That’s true, but there’s a fascinating gender twist in the data. For men, the more relationships they’ve had, the more they use these deceptive strategies. It’s like they’re honing their craft. But for high Mach women, those with more relationship experience actually use fewer deceptive tactics.

Miles: Wait, really? Why would experience make women less deceptive but men more so?

Eli: The researchers suggest that women might realize that deception has a short shelf life. If a woman is looking for something more long term—or even just more stable—she might learn that the "costs" of getting caught in a lie outweigh the initial "benefit" of the deception. Men, on the other hand, might just see it as a numbers game where the goal is the "win," and once they’ve got it, they move on.

Miles: It really paints a picture of dating as a battlefield. And the weapons are things like "feigned involvement" and "positive self presentation." It’s about managing the other person’s perception of you at all costs. But if everything is a lie, how do they handle it when things actually start getting "real"? When the "intimacy" word starts being thrown around?

Eli: That is the million dollar question. Because as we’ve seen, high Machs have a very complicated—and mostly negative—relationship with intimacy. They’re essentially trying to win a game where the prize is something they don't even really value.

Miles: So, Eli, let’s talk about that moment where the "game" turns into an actual relationship. If you’ve successfully deceived someone into thinking you’re this amazing, warm, trustworthy person, eventually they’re going to want actual intimacy, right?

Eli: And that’s exactly where the Machiavellian hits a wall. The research consistently shows that Machiavellianism is negatively related to intimacy and commitment in relationships. In fact, they report lower levels of perceived intimacy in their past relationships across the board. They don't just "act" cold; they genuinely don't feel that sense of "mutual trust and connectedness" that defines a healthy bond.

Miles: It’s almost like they’re allergic to it. I saw one study that said they have "dismissive and fearful" attachment styles. They view intimacy as a high risk venture that they just don't have the "capacity" to handle. It’s too much personal risk for too little perceived reward.

Eli: Exactly. For them, a relationship is a "cognitive exchange" of views rather than an emotional "encounter." They use interaction partners as a means to reach a goal, and once that goal is met—or if the emotional demands become too high—they start to pull away. The study did not find that their relationships were more frequent or of shorter duration. They're built for the sprint, not the marathon.

Miles: And yet, some of them do stay in long term relationships. How does that even work if they hate intimacy?

Eli: Well, they might stay to "adhere to social norms" or because the partner provides a steady stream of resources or status. It’s not about love; it’s about the "Top Dog" status we talked about earlier. They might even find a partner who is also a high Mach, creating a kind of "collusion" where they both agree on a low intimacy, high utility life.

Miles: That sounds... incredibly lonely. But I guess if you’re "alexithymic"—meaning you’re unconnected to your own emotions—you don't really feel the loneliness the same way. You just see a partner as an object to be controlled. It’s a very "cold" way to live.

Eli: It is. And it’s why they’re so attracted to "external factors" like status and material assets. They don't gain "rewarding experience" from the internal factors of a relationship—the stuff we usually think makes life worth living. So they double down on the things they can measure. Which brings us to the perfect playground for this kind of behavior—dating apps.

Miles: If ever there was an environment tailor made for a Machiavellian, it’s gotta be Tinder, right? It’s low stakes, highly visual, and built for quick "utilitarian" exchanges.

Eli: It’s a match made in... well, not heaven, but certainly in a very efficient laboratory. A study titled "The Dark Tetrad in Tinder" looked at exactly this. They found that while psychopathy was the main driver for "hook ups" and casual sex, Machiavellianism was linked to a much more "diverse utilitarian" set of motives.

Miles: So they’re not just looking for sex; they’re using the app for everything but actual dating?

Eli: Pretty much! High Machs use Tinder for "social approval"—meaning they just want the ego boost of getting matches. They also use it to "pass the time" or just for "entertainment." But here’s the kicker: they also use it to "improve their flirting and social skills."

Miles: So they’re using other people as practice dummies for their manipulation tactics? That’s cold.

Eli: It’s very on brand for them. While a narcissist might use Tinder to feel superior, a Machiavellian uses it as a "diverse tool" to reach whatever long term goal they have in mind. They might even use it just because of "peer pressure"—to fit in with what they think a successful person should be doing.

Miles: And let’s not forget the "Travelling" motive. The research showed that Machiavellians are more likely to use Tinder to "meet locals" or "other travellers" when they’re in a foreign country. Again, it’s about the utility—getting the inside track on a new place through someone they’ve "reeled in" with their digital veneer.

Eli: It’s all part of the "strategic self promotion" we talked about. They’re managing their "physically attractive veneer" to get what they want from the app, whether that’s a free tour guide, a compliment, or a casual encounter. It’s the ultimate "cheater strategy"—maximizing gains while minimizing the emotional investment.

Miles: It’s a lot to process. But it also raises a question about the people they’re targeting. If Machiavellians are so good at this "game," who are they actually looking for? Do they want someone they can easily manipulate, or someone who can keep up with them?

Miles: Eli, we’ve talked about how Machiavellians avoid "nice" people, but who do they actually end up with? Is it just a never ending cycle of short term flings, or do they find a "match"?

Eli: Well, there are two competing theories here. One is "negative assortative mating"—the idea that a dominant high Mach might look for a submissive, low Mach partner who they can easily manipulate and exploit. It’s a dysfunctional, asymmetric power dynamic, but it’s stable in its own way.

Miles: That sounds like a nightmare for the low Mach partner.

Eli: Absolutely. But then there’s "positive assortative mating"—the "birds of a feather" idea. And the research actually leans more toward this. Machiavellians seem to prefer partners who are similar to them—people who are also emotionally reserved, distant, and focused on status. One study even found that high Mach women preferred men who scored even higher on Machiavellianism than they did!

Miles: So they’re looking for their "partner in crime"?

Eli: Exactly. They might find that a relationship with another "Top Dog" is the only thing that makes sense to them. They don't have to worry about all that "intimacy" and "warmth" stuff that they find so risky and confusing. They can just focus on building power and accumulating resources together.

Miles: It’s a very "House of Cards" vibe. But it’s not just about finding a match; it’s also about how they view their own value. I saw a study that linked Machiavellianism with "self rated mate value." Basically, self-rated mate value was measured separately, and Machiavellianism was slightly negatively correlated with it.

Eli: And that high self opinion leads to some of the more aggressive behaviors we see online—like sending unsolicited explicit images. The research found that trait Machiavellianism was a key predictor for this. It’s not necessarily a "deviant" thing in their eyes; it’s a "strategic" move. They might genuinely believe that because they’re high value, the other person wants to see it.

Miles: Or they’re just using it as an "aggressive mating strategy" to force a reaction or filter for people who are as "unrestricted" as they are. It’s a "nothing gained, nothing lost" mentality—if you get rejected, who cares? There are plenty of other targets.

Eli: It’s a very "protean" approach to social influence—they change their tactics to fit the situation, but the goal is always the same: control and gain. So, knowing all this, how does the average person—the one who does want warmth and trust—protect themselves?

Miles: Okay Eli, we’ve explored the dark side of dating. Now, for everyone listening who’s feeling a bit spooked, how do we actually use this knowledge? How do you spot a Machiavellian strategist before you’re already too deep?

Eli: The first thing is to look for that "Top Dog" focus. If someone seems overly preoccupied with your status, your resources, or how you "look" to their social circle, that’s a red flag. Machiavellians value external factors over internal character. They won't ask about your childhood dreams, but they’ll definitely know what kind of car you drive.

Miles: And watch out for the "veneer." Remember, they’re often very charismatic and socially attractive at first. If someone seems too perfect—like they’re reading from a script and telling you exactly what you want to hear—they probably are. Ask yourself: are they showing genuine vulnerability, or are they just "feigning involvement"?

Eli: Another big one is their "unrestricted sociosexuality." If they seem to treat sex as a numbers game or are very open about having had a huge number of short term partners without any emotional depth, take note. High Machs are often seeking to follow a short-term mating strategy and are inclined to promiscuity.

Miles: And don't be afraid to test the "intimacy" waters. Machiavellians struggle with actual connectedness. If you try to move the relationship toward something deeper—more disclosure, more trust, more emotional support—and they consistently pull back or become "emotionally unstable and anxious," that’s a sign. They don't have the capacity for that deep end.

Eli: Finally, trust your gut on the "cynicism." Do they have a "cynical view of human nature"? Do they assume everyone is out to get them or that "most people are trustworthy and unselfish"? That lack of faith in humanity is the core of the Machiavellian personality. If they don't trust anyone, they can't truly love anyone.

Miles: It’s about looking past the "smooth social operator" and seeing the "utilitarian" engine underneath. It doesn't mean you have to be paranoid, but it does mean being aware that not everyone is playing by the same romantic rules.

Eli: Exactly. Dating is a high stakes game, and some people are playing it with a much more calculated strategy than others. Understanding that strategy is the first step to making sure you're not just a pawn in someone else’s game.

Miles: So, Eli, as we bring this to a close, what’s the biggest takeaway here? Is it just that we should all be more cynical?

Eli: I don't think so. If anything, it makes me value genuine warmth and trust even more. Seeing how much effort a Machiavellian has to put into faking these things just to get what they want... it’s kind of a testament to how powerful true connection really is. They wouldn't bother with the "veneer" if the "real thing" wasn't so highly valued by everyone else.

Miles: That’s a great point. They’re basically trying to counterfeit something that they can't actually produce themselves. It reminds me that while "strategic love" might get you some short term wins—the status, the resources, the ego boosts—it can't get you the actual "happiness and satisfaction" that comes from a balanced level of affiliation.

Eli: Exactly. A Machiavellian might be the "Top Dog" in their own mind, but they’re missing out on the "intrinsic relationship goals"—community, family, and romantic love—that actually sustain us in the long run. They’re playing a game where the more they "win," the more they actually lose out on the human experience.

Miles: So for everyone listening, maybe the move is to stay aware, but also stay open. Don't let the existence of Machiavellian maneuvers turn you into a strategist yourself—unless that’s truly what you want. But know that if you’re looking for a "Miss or Mr. Right" who is "warm-hearted, committed, and trustworthy," you’re looking for something a Machiavellian simply cannot be.

Eli: And that’s a powerful filter to have. We’ve covered a lot of ground today—from the blueprints of a dark personality to the deceptive tactics on Tinder and the mirror of assortative mating. It’s a lot to reflect on.

Miles: It really is. Thank you so much for joining us for this deep dive into the darker side of attraction. We hope it gave you some valuable insights and maybe even a few "Aha!" moments for your own dating life.

Eli: Absolutely. Take a moment to think about the people you’ve encountered—or even your own tendencies. Where do you see these patterns? It's a fascinating lens to view the world through. Thanks for listening, and we'll catch you next time.