truth makes you vulnerable honesty gets you exploited transparency gets you manipulated these are the uncomfortable realities that most self-help gurus are too afraid to admit but today we're diving into the ruthless wisdom of a man who understood power better than perhaps anyone in history nicolo Mchaveli didn't care about being liked he cared about winning and his most controversial insight sometimes winning requires deception take two politicians running for office alex is brutally honest he openly admits the challenges ahead refuses to make false promises and believes the truth will earn people's respect his opponent James understands the game differently he tells the public exactly what they want to hear bending the truth to craft a narrative of confidence and easy solutions on election day who do you think wins it's James not because he was the better leader but because he knew that people don't vote for the truth they vote for the story they want to believe i know what you're thinking isn't lying wrong isn't honesty a virtue but what if I told you that your moral absolutism might be the very thing holding you back from achieving greatness what if the most successful people throughout history the ones we admire and study have all understood something about deception that you don't today we're exploring Mchaveli's most brutal truths about power deception and why history's winners have rarely been the most honest players this isn't comfortable knowledge this isn't feel-good wisdom but it might be exactly what you need to hear let's start with perhaps Mchaveli's most famous and controversial assertion in his masterwork The Prince he noted "It is better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both." This simple statement cuts against everything modern leadership books tell you we're told leaders should inspire connect and empathize makaveli would call this dangerous novity men are by nature wretched creatures who will not keep their promises to you so you need not keep your promises to them this brutal assessment of human nature forms the foundation of Mchavelian thinking people he believed are fundamentally self-interested ungrateful and fickle when you understand this truth you realize that excessive honesty isn't virtuous it's foolish but why does this matter to you because whether you're running a business managing a team negotiating a salary or navigating social dynamics you're engaged in power relationships and in these relationships revealing all your cards isn't strategy it's surrender think about the last time you were completely honest in a negotiation how did that work out for you did the other party reciprocate with equal honesty or did they use your transparency against you if you're like most people you've learned this lesson the hard way but perhaps you're still uncomfortable with the idea of strategic deception let me ask you this have you ever told someone their haircut looked good when it didn't have you ever exaggerated your enthusiasm for a friend's creative project have you ever kept quiet about your true feelings to preserve a relationship congratulations you're already practicing Machavelian principles the difference is you're using deception defensively to avoid conflict what Mchaveli suggests is using it strategically to achieve your goals as we navigate the complex landscape of power dynamics Mchaveli offers us another critical insight through a powerful metaphor about two animals that represent different approaches to leadership one of Mchaveli's most powerful metaphors compares effective leaders to two animals the fox and the lion one must be a fox to recognize traps and a lion to frighten wolves he asserted the fox represents cunning and strategy the lion represents strength and intimidation the lion cannot protect himself from traps and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves one must therefore be a fox to recognize traps and a lion to frighten wolves napoleon Bonapart exemplifies this duality perfectly as a military strategist Napoleon was the quintessential fox deceiving enemies about his movements feigning weakness to draw opponents into traps and using psychological warfare to undermine enemy morale in the 18005 Olm campaign he convinced the Austrians he was weak and retreating only to rapidly encircle and defeat them but Napoleon could also be the lion projecting overwhelming force and intimidation when needed as he did when he returned from exile and retook France without firing a shot through sheer force of personality and reputation most people try to succeed using only one approach they're either completely transparent exclusively forceful the lion or exclusively manipulative the fox true Machavelian success comes from knowing when to deploy each strategy steve Jobs embodied both qualities his reality distortion field represented the fox's cunning convincing people that the impossible was possible was this dishonesty perhaps but it was also how he pushed teams to achieve breakthroughs they never thought possible simultaneously Jobs could be intimidating and forceful when necessary embodying both the fox's cunning and the lion's might the key is understanding context and stakes in high-stake situations where your vital interests are concerned honesty may be a luxury you cannot afford in lower stake situations or with your closest allies transparency builds the trust you'll need later perhaps Mchaveli's most controversial teaching involves the relationship between actual virtue and the appearance of virtue he boldly stated "Everyone sees what you appear to be few experience what you really are." A prince need not necessarily have all the good qualities I mentioned above but he should certainly appear to have them julius Caesar mastered this principle despite being dictator in all but name he maintained the facade of respecting republican traditions he refused the crown when it was publicly offered to him while privately consolidating power he appointed senators and maintained traditional offices while stripping them of actual authority caesar understood that Romans needed to believe the republic still existed even as he transformed it into what would become the empire the appearance of constitutional legitimacy was more important than its reality this insight runs counter to every inspirational Instagram post telling you to be authentic mchavelli would find such advice laughably naive the world he understood judges by appearances rather than realities consider social media influencers who project perfect lives while struggling behind the scenes politicians who showcase family values while privately behaving differently corporations that promote environmental responsibility while quietly cutting corners are these deceptions yes are they effective also yes but wait am I suggesting you should be completely two-faced number what I'm suggesting what Mchaveli suggested is strategic inconsistency between your public presentation and your private actions when necessary to achieve your goals think about it this way when you're on a first date do you immediately reveal all your flaws and insecurities of course not you present the best version of yourself gradually as trust builds you reveal more of your authentic self this isn't dishonesty it's strategic self-presentation the same principle applies professionally when interviewing for a job you don't volunteer information about your weaknesses unless directly asked when pitching a business idea you emphasize strengths and downplay risks these aren't lies they're strategic highlighting of certain truths over others here's where Mchaveli truly separates himself from conventional wisdom he believed that sometimes what appears cruel in the short term is actually kinder in the long term and conversely what appears kind in the short term can lead to greater suffering over time it is much safer to be feared than loved because love is preserved by the link of obligation which owing to the baseness of men is broken at every opportunity for their advantage but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails napoleon understood this principle intimately after seizing power in France following the chaos and bloodshed of the revolution he instituted what might seem like harsh measures centralizing authority establishing an efficient bureaucracy and ruthlessly crushing opposition yet these apparently cruel actions created stability after years of upheaval by establishing clear authority quickly rather than attempting a more gradual kinder transition Napoleon prevented the larger cruelty of continued chaos and civil strife let me illustrate with a modern example imagine you're a manager who notices an employee consistently underperforming the kind approach might be to avoid difficult conversations give gentle feedback and hope for improvement the cruel approach would be direct confrontation clear consequences and potentially termination if improvement doesn't occur in the short term the kind approach seems better but what happens over time the underperformance continues affecting team morale other employees pick up the slack and grow resentful the business suffers eventually more dramatic action becomes necessary affecting more people more severely the temporarily cruel approach direct confrontation early actually prevents greater suffering later this is Mchavelian thinking at its most counterintuitive yet powerful consider Winston Churchill who took over as prime minister of Britain during World War II did he tell comforting lies about the situation being under control no he famously promised only blood toil tears and sweat a brutally honest assessment that prepared his nation for the sacrifice ahead rather than offering false comfort the Mchavelian answer is to focus relentlessly on outcomes rather than appearances or intentions the ends justify the means is perhaps the most misunderstood Mchavelian concept people use it to rationalize all manner of selfish behavior but that's not what Mchaveli meant what he actually wrote was in the actions of all men and especially of princes where there is no court to appeal to one looks to the end in other words when outcomes matter deeply and there's no higher authority to appeal to results matter more than methods men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand because it belongs to everybody to see you to few to come in touch with you everyone sees what you appear to be few really know what you are julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon technically an illegal act of war against Rome exemplifies this principle by bringing his army into Italy proper Caesar broke the law but he believed preventing Pompy and the Senate from dismantling his achievements and punishing him justified this transgression history largely vindicates him the republic was already failing and Caesar's actions while technically illegal laid the groundwork for the Pax Romana a period of unprecedented peace and prosperity that followed this principle doesn't justify any action for any goal it justifies necessary actions for crucial goals when no better alternative exists the distinction is important consider Abraham Lincoln suspending habius corpus during the Civil War a fundamental constitutional right was this deceptive was it technically an overreach of presidential power probably but did it help preserve the Union during its greatest existential threat also yes the Mchavelian question is not is this action virtuous in isolation but rather will this action lead to outcomes that serve the greater good your definition of the greater good determines which ends justify which means if your goal is purely selfish enrichment Mchavelian tactics make you a manipulator if your goal is creating value for others while also benefiting yourself those same tactics make you a [Music] strategist mchaveli understood something crucial about reputation it's your most valuable asset but it doesn't require complete transparency to maintain what it requires is consistency between your words and the outcomes you deliver not necessarily between your words and your methods the vulgar crowd always is impressed by appearances and by outcomes he noted this isn't a critique of the crowd but an observation about human nature people judge primarily based on results and superficial appearances not behind-the-scenes methods the promise given was a necessity of the past the word broken is a necessity of the present few figures in modern history mastered this better than Henry Kissinger he understood that in politics perception is reality and controlling the narrative is just as important as actual policy his back channel diplomacy with China in the 1970s conducted in secret before the world's new negotiations were happening fundamentally reshaped global power structures he publicly supported peace efforts in Vietnam while simultaneously prolonging conflict behind the scenes to secure a better negotiating position for the US he spoke of stability while facilitating covert operations that overthrew governments the result despite these contradictions Kissinger remains one of the most respected and controversial diplomatic figures of the 20th century his reputation wasn't built on honesty but on results he brokered deals that reshaped world affairs and as Mchaveli would have predicted people judged him on the outcomes not the methods think about modern corporations or governments strategic secrecy controlled leaks and misinformation campaigns are all standard tools of power companies like Apple reveal only what they want the public to see shaping demand through anticipation and mystique governments spin narratives to maintain influence these tactics work not because they are honest but because they create desirable outcomes the Mchavelian insight is that your reputation depends not on perfect honesty about your methods but on consistent delivery of value to others if your strategic deceptions ultimately benefit those around you your reputation remains intact but there's an important caveat here reputation collapses when deception is perceived as purely self-erving rather than for a greater purpose this is why effective leaders frame their actions even manipulative ones as being in the interest of stability progress or collective good because at the end of the day history doesn't remember who played fair it remembers who won here's one of Mchaveli's most cynical but powerful observations the emphasis on virtues like complete honesty often comes from those who benefit from your compliance with those virtues men are so simple and so ready to obey present necessities that one who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived he observed in other words those who insist most strongly on your transparency are often those who stand to gain the most from it politics have no relation to morals think about salary negotiations who benefits when companies insist on salary transparency from candidates while keeping their own compensation ranges secret the company does who benefits when a negotiating counterpart demands to know your bottom line while keeping theirs hidden they do julius Caesar's enemies constantly invoked Republican virtues and traditions against him not primarily out of principle but because those traditions protected their power and privilege the same senators who cried about Caesar's tyranny had happily supported previous dictators like Sula when it served their interests their appeals to virtue were weapons designed to disarm a threat to their dominance the Mchavellian understands that calls for virtue are sometimes weapons designed to disarm you this doesn't mean all ethical principles are manipulations it means you should examine who benefits when you adhere to particular principles in particular situations this insight applies beyond business to personal relationships political engagement and social dynamics when someone demands your complete honesty ask yourself who benefits from this transparency despite his reputation for advocating deception Mchaveli actually placed enormous value on loyalty but strategic loyalty rather than blind loyalty the first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him he wrote "The wise prince surrounds himself with capable loyal advisers and treats them well not out of virtue but out of self-interest creating a circle of true allies is the ultimate Machavevelian move the wise man does at once what the fool does." Finally Napoleon's relationship with his marshals exemplifies this principle he promoted men of talent regardless of background created a meritocracy that inspired fierce loyalty and rewarded success generously with these trusted commanders Napoleon was far more honest about his plans and intentions than with the public or his enemies this inner circle multiplied his effectiveness and helped build his empire with your genuine inner circle your true allies and confidence Mchavelian principles suggest something surprising be honest why because trustworthy allies multiply your power they provide security when you're vulnerable they execute your vision when you're absent they warn you of dangers you don't see think about successful power couples in business or politics the partnership works because each party fully trusts the other while presenting a strategic face to the world or consider successful business partnerships like Warren Buffett and Charlie Mer who maintained unwavering loyalty to each other for decades while strategically managing their public personas the Mchavelian paradox is that strategic deception with the many enables genuine trust with the few and those trusted few become your greatest strength [Music] we've covered a lot of controversial grounds so let me be clear i'm not advocating dishonesty as a universal approach what I'm suggesting what Mchaveli suggested is strategic awareness of when complete transparency serves your goals and when it undermines them the ethical Machavelian uses deception not for selfish gain at others expense but for creating value that benefits both themselves and others they understand that leadership sometimes requires projecting certainty amid doubt that negotiation sometimes requires keeping cards close and that managing perception is as important as managing reality where the willingness is great the difficulties cannot be great in a world of perfect people complete honesty might be the optimal strategy but in our imperfect world with imperfect humans pursuing complex goals strategic opacity sometimes achieves more good than rigid transparency so ask yourself what goals matter most to you what methods will achieve those goals most effectively and when is strategic deception justified by the value it creates for yourself and others mchaveli's final lesson is perhaps his most important power is neither good nor evil intrinsically it's a tool that amplifies the intentions of its user if your intentions ultimately serve others while also serving yourself mchavelian strategies aren't immoral they're effective if this video challenged your thinking or gave you a new perspective on power and strategy make sure to hit that like button share it with someone who needs to hear these uncomfortable truths and remember in a world that often weaponizes virtue against the virtuous a little Mchavellian thinking might be exactly what you need to win without losing yourself