Common Craft Blog
Are Spammers Machiavellian?
By leelefever on April 29, 2008 - 11:48am
It started with a tweet. Eddie Codel described Boston's streets as "Kafkaesque." I found it on Wikipedia (it means disorienting), along with a listing of other name-inspired words. One caught my eye: Machiavellianism. The first line of the Wikipedia entry:
Machiavellianism is the term that some social and personality psychologists use to describe a person's tendency to deceive and manipulate others for personal gain.
It comes from Nicollo Machiavelli, a Renaissance writer, diplomat, etc. known, in part, for principles of conduct that are marked by cunning, duplicity and bad faith. His most famous work is The Prince.
Upon a bit more investigation, I found that there is a personality test called a MACH-IV test that gauges a person's Machiavellianism. Apparently there are "high machs" (likely to agree with Machiavelli) and "low machs" (unlikely to agree). Most people are in the middle (I'm a low mach). Take the 20-question test here.
When I first read about all of this, I couldn't help but think about the spammers and blackhats of the web. Aside from the trash that they produce, I'm fascinated by the people behind the spam. Who are these people? How did they get this way? What motivates them outside of money? Do they know right from wrong? How can they justify their decisions?
Viewed with a Machiavellian lens, I see spammers a little differently. It makes me wonder if spammers are born vs. made. Perhaps this is the source of my fascination - that spammers aren't just unethical, but possibly a bit mental. An insightful article in Salon has this quote:
McHoskey's article argued that high Machs possess, to a greater or lesser degree, the qualities associated with classic psychopaths: a lack of remorse, pathological lying, glibness and superficial charm, a grandiose sense of self-worth.
Sound familiar? Here are a few interesting questions from the MACH IV test that is based on Machiavelli's "The Prince" (on an agree/disagree scale). How do you think a spammer responds compared to you?
5) It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance.
8) Generally speaking, people won't work hard unless they're forced to do so.
13) The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that the criminals are stupid enough to get caught.
16) It is possible to be good in all respects.
9) All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest.
If nothing else, I can now start to incorporate this word into my day-to-day life. Instead of obscenities, spam will now just make me say - oh how Machiavellian! Or, maybe it'll actually be - oh how $#@&ing Machiavellian!
Kafkaesque
Haha. I'm glad my experiences of getting lost in the streets of Boston opened up this rabbit hole. I think the urban planners of Boston must be a bit Machiavellian as well.
hi
in other word sick?
Spammers need a new hobby
Funny I came across this blog, I was just having this conversation with a friend yesterday. I was reverted back to my younger days (very younger days) when my response to any answer from my parents was "why?" We (my friend and I) were discussing hackers/spammers/internet-evil-doers and all I could think was "why?" Why do people spend time intentionally spreading viruses? Why do I have to change my email address once a year because I get so much junk mail with lovely subjects lines like "Do you want a bigger penis?" I don't even have a penis. It's unreal that people like this find joy in hurting/annoying others. What's even more unreal is that they're not even there to see the look on their victim's face when the evil is done. Machiavellian? Absolutely. Why? Maybe when they were the child who was asking daddy "why?", daddy replied "Because I &%!@% said so, that's why!"
Poor, Misunderstood Machiavelli
I read The Prince about 15 years ago. Nothing evil or malicious about it at all. Just the age old rules of the political game, explained to a young Italian prince, so that he can keep up with reality and maintain control of his state. If anything, Machiavellian should mean "helping people avoid falling prey to more experienced political players", but, alas, that's not going to happen soon. Just like Kafka was actually criticizing the overly complex bureaucracy and ended up posthumously lending his name to the adjective describing it...
Spammers are s**theads who are trying to make an easy buck, knowing that if one person in a billion answers a penis enlargement ad, you would just have to send out a billion emails to get it done (and emails are virtually free, so why not?). Spammers get your email by using viruses to steal address books or simply by harvesting them off of chain emails. That's crafty, but not Machiavellian in my book, even if you use the common sense of that term.
Anyway, if you care about your friends and hate spam, don't use illegal software and make sure your friends don't either, and be careful what emails you're forwarding (you can use snopes.com for help). That's my Machiavellian advice to everyone.
Spammers and Google
What I don't get, is that Google says spamming is against its Terms of Service and yet it lists their websites and runs their ads. Can someone explain that to me? For instance...have a look at http://www.trackbackspider.com . This guy is selling Trackback Pinging programs - a bot that leaves bogus trackbacks and comments on blogs to increase your PageRank - doesn't seem to have worked for him - he's still in the sandbox but he's listed at the top of Google for "trackbackspider" and #4 for "trackback pinger". And he advertises the program on Google Adsense.
People spam because it works
The reason people become spammers is because it works. If spam didn't deliver a return people wouldn't do it but unfortunately it does.
Personally I think hackers that steal peoples identities, credit card details etc are way more evil than than web and e-mail spammers.
The right name is
Just an information: Niccolò Machiavelli instead of Nicollo Machiavelli. Ciao!
You're right
Thanks for pointing that out bepi. Niccolò Machiavelli
Spamming has become the art
Spamming has become the art of deception for sure. The hard part to imagine at this point is what percentage of people actually fall for it?
BTW - Love the analogy of Boston Streets :)
Why can`t the ugly annoying spammers stop doing this &%!@% ?!
There are spammers because there is good and evil.
Simple as that. You could ask the same question as for instance: Why are there murders, rapers,thugs,corrupted bankers etc..
Instead of being bewildered, aknowledge it and understand that no one can erase evil acts or evil people because that is how the reality is. Both sides. Study the laws of the universe. Bye.