Machiavellian Intelligence

[Diva]

Interesting!

Machiavellian intelligence test

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I guess most NTs are high matches? :cool:

What's your result?

[Paul V]

89. I'm very cynical and distrustful.

[Tarrick]

87. I too am cynical and distrustful.

[stasis]

86. My life is a dark pit of darkness.

[Lucid]

55.
I think that most people are stupid and dishonest and cowardly, but find that to be no reason to be dishonest or immoral myself. If I were these things, how could I possibly look down on everyone else? ;)

Actually, I'm a bit of an optimist.

[Diva]

55.
I think that most people are stupid and dishonest and cowardly, but find that to be no reason to be dishonest or immoral myself. If I were these things, how could I possibly look down on everyone else? ;)

Actually, I'm a bit of an optimist.

Thank you all guys. I am always pondering on the nature of human beings, good or evil? Seems being Machiavellian means to believe in the dark side of the human nature.....

[RoqueBear]

I scored a 96... But, I just got done reading "The Prince and I".

[LSB]

85. Always assume the worst, always act in rational self-interest provided you don't directly harm people who haven't wronged you by doing so.

[MetalWounds]

87, Aren't most of those answers just common sense?

[xanodel]

79-cynical optimist. Some of Machiavelli's other writings actually refute what he states in "The Prince."

[danalaina]

49. kinda low.

people are often lazy and more ignorant than i'd like. i'd say that's the source of most of humanity's evil...not the will to do evil, but the will to do nothing.

[ushop]

68

[Drayakir]

93. Well, what can I say. It is better to be feared than loved, since you can't have either one or another.

Speaking of him, his letters are a fascinating read.

[mielikki]

61

[banzai]

81

[TruorTupnm]

Eighty-seven. I would agree that most answers seemed to me to be common sense. It is best to assume the worst. That way, you'll either be correct and prepared for it or pleasantly surprised (but sensibly still suspicious). :rolleyes:

[chocky]

78.

I had the general impression that the aim of Machiavelli was not to promote 'bad' behaviour for it's own sake, but to advise the 'good' on the machinations of power, and so educate them in playing a game on which their life depended, wisely.

Why is being aware of political realities considered being 'cynical'? What 'better' part of human character are we supposed to have faith in? I suspect some machiavellian ploy to discredit machiavellian intelligence.

[rwyatt365]

80 - and I agree with chocky, I do't think of being realistic as being cynical. People, for the most part, are self-centered and out to promote their own well-being...and that's just the truth of the matter.

Nice guys DO finish last. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[deicruxified]

67 - high mach. i've read the prince and i do agree it's pretty common sense for intj's (for intj's because not all common sense are common). and somehow, i get ideas from him when i'm handling people.

[ScottH]

51. I'm right there with ya, Lucid.

[Max T]

44. I'm sometimes considered naive and can still be surprised by other's behaviour.

Applying the hi mach questions to life appears too short-term in thinking. Opportunistic. Guess that's why I fail with office politics and why politicians are so untrustworthy.
... Surely a reputation worth having is built on long-term trust.


people are often lazy and more ignorant than i'd like. i'd say that's the source of most of humanity's evil...not the will to do evil, but the will to do nothing.
Totally agree.

[PortInStorm]

73

[athenian200]

Yikes. I've never even read Machivelli, and I somehow got 100... Geez, I guess I'm really not in a trusting mood, am I?

Then again, I was recently embroiled in a conflict where I felt betrayed, so...

[Ice Wolf]

75

[PortInStorm]

Re: men lazy but not evil.

Yet I would say that that is a form of evil (laziness)- not bothering to do the right thing because it's inconvenient etc. And that speaks to our nature. If it takes effort to do the right thing, than what's natural is evil, right? Hobbes, anyone :-)?

[ShaiGar]

93

Machiavelli did not believe most of what he wrote in The Prince, it was a pamphlet written to flatter the Medici family. It did not. Still it is commonsense. Too bad most leaders do not read it.

[Roses]

64

[The Many]

89.

I really wonder if the greatest gift you can give someone else isn't your trust.

[Diva]

Before reading the Prince, have done the test and got 94. After I read the book, got 100. It seems it is in NT's nature to understand the evil deep inside all human beings, and to take it as a common sense into practice. It is a bit sad, since I'd rather believe in the good/honest/kind-hearted side of human.

[Nomad]

77 High mach. His work is useful, but then again, I lived and worked in a world where folks would kill without compunction for their goals and ideologies. Such work alters your thinking to compensate a bit, I think.

-Nomad

[Hdier]

77-I'd say that I'm nice, but ruthless if the situation calls for it. Also, a lot of cynicism combined with optimism.

[Lethe]

57.

Never scored high on those Machiavellian quizzes.

I guess I'm a pussycat then for abiding to my morals. :) ;)

[Bossy Mom]

59. Low Mach. I reject Machiavelli's ideas. Sure do.

[robin.]

55.
I think that most people are stupid and dishonest and cowardly, but find that to be no reason to be dishonest or immoral myself. If I were these things, how could I possibly look down on everyone else? ;)

Actually, I'm a bit of an optimist.
yepyep. Just because the rest of the world sucks doesn't mean you have to as well, although some self-preservation is important. You have to find the right balance.

57.

[radioactivez0r]

70. The Prince is one of the few books from college I kept because I actually enjoyed it.

[Paul V]

yepyep. Just because the rest of the world sucks doesn't mean you have to as well, although some self-preservation is important. You have to find the right balance.

57.

I agree. The reason why I scored this high is because the test asked me what I thought about people in general, not about me. I consider myself (and a few others) and exception to the rule. Most people are selfish and nasty, and I'm really glad I'm not like them at all.

I would've gotten <10 if the questions had been worded differently.

[amei]

My score was 70. Although I understand a lot of Machiavelli's reasoning, I don't feel like I practice it that much in my own life because I try to view the world in a slightly more optimistic light than he did. I do some of the behaviors the questions on the quiz asked, but not consistently and not always to the extreme.
By the way, I had to read The Prince in college and loved it. I think my paper on it for a Political Theory class was the best one I ever wrote. I later read a biography of Machiavelli which made me like him even more.

[Hdier]

I agree with Paul V and the others in that we are exceptions to the rule. By rule, humanity is vile and selfish which is part of the reason why I talk about it in third person, rather than first, most of the time.

[abski83]

Machiavelli score: 67

"high Mach"... hmm.....

[Hypomanic]

56...

I reject his opinions and therefore am dependent? No.

More like I deject his bias.
I don't think this test is reliable or competent.

[Duncan Cade]

65

I expected higher...much higher!

[Lucid]

65

I expected higher...much higher!

Totally off topic, but I greatly approve of your Av.

[DeepPurple]

I scored 84.

[Danisty]

84

[Decano]

Wow, I scored an 85... not too high, but not too low either... I especially liked that last question, lol. Nothing could ring more true than that.

[Epicurus]

63

[thecraig]

80... Wow. It disturbs me slightly that i scored so high, and yet makes me proud that I am not so naive as to have scored lower.

[niffer]

47

"low match"- you reject his opinions

I would rather live a life of trusting and comfort towards other people while being betrayed/conned a few times, than live a life full of mistrust and paranoia.

So far in my life, I have not met anybody that I have decided is different than I am, deep down. This is why I am able to assess other people so accurately. I assume a positive standard/default, and work from there. I keep my opinions of others fluid. People are fluid.

[Kfbr]

71

[BadMojo]

60

[Maverick]

72.

I am distrustful of people and cynical about their motives, yet believe that I should still be as honest, direct and fair as possible. I prefer being bold than cunning.

[yam]

63

[xhaan]

67

Probably because I tend to not deal in such absolutes.

"Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so." Um, no. I can't say never to that.

"The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear." Some times, other times not. I do not know enough people.

"Honesty is the best policy in all cases." ALL cases? I think not.

I'm sure you get the idea.

[Antares]

71 - I'm distrustful and critical. People around me say that I often see the worst in everyone... I disagree :D

[BadMojo]

I scored 49

[slut poacher]

69 everybody gets one chance.

[thephoenix1414]

85, interesting theory hmm...

[desg90]

75: High Mach

Does that mean I'm evil...?
*Big bunny eyes*

I'm reading "The prince and I" as soon as I finish all the books I got for Christmas.
I've always wanted to read it. But a new book kept butting in.

[thod]

47 but then I am INTP.

I used to admire machivelli when younger.

Then I learned something. If i provide information people provide it back.
If I am honest people are honest back.

Someone that doesnt do this gets cut off and ends up isolated without data feeds.

[INTJoe]

73. I don't know what this means. I don't know much about Machiavelli.

[errrzarrr]

My Machiavelli Score: 60
I am a Average Mach

Most people fall somewhere in the middle, but there's a significant minority at either extreme.

[Volition]

I am a High Mach, scoring 63.

High Machs constitute a distinct type: charming, confident and glib, but also arrogant, calculating and cynical, prone to manipulate and exploit. (Think Rupert Murdoch, or if your politics permit it, President Clinton.)

Hmm. Anyway, need to keep reading The Prince. It got interrupted by all the work.

[ssfanatic]

OMG, im really embarrassed. I scored a 91. Holy crap, whats wrong with me???
Im not so sure i took the same test, how many questions was it?

[Ace1337]

68

[pavman]

56.

I never really did like Machiavelli's take in The Prince. I actually got a B on a paper in college because I talked about how being loved by the people could get you further than being hated by the people, which was a bit contrary to Machiavelli's take on it (although his book gave a lot of food for thought). I still think that... whoever heard of de-throning a beloved king? :o)

When I'm done reading these 8 other books, perhaps I'll go back and re-read it...

[Cookabara]

68. wonder what other types would score

[BlueTopaz]

75 High mach. And to think I've been living in denial. I've always thought I was such a nice person.

[Lout]

70

You are a "High Mach"; you endorse Machiavelli's opinions.

Very interesting. I shall have to read The Prince once I get the time.

[AliciaS2R]

80 High Mach

Seeing other's scores, looks like I'm in good company ;)

[ssfanatic]

56.

I never really did like Machiavelli's take in The Prince. I actually got a B on a paper in college because I talked about how being loved by the people could get you further than being hated by the people, which was a bit contrary to Machiavelli's take on it (although his book gave a lot of food for thought). I still think that... whoever heard of de-throning a beloved king? :o)

When I'm done reading these 8 other books, perhaps I'll go back and re-read it...
My thoughts about it is that love is ephemeral and fear is just a radical form of respect. People are, essentially, selfish and will do what benefits them the greatest. To deceive them is for the greater good. Its socialism in a sense, though that wasnt even introduced in mach's time.

[MixISTJandINTJ]

I scored 49

Same here. I just like finding the right healthy balance.

[oppugno1215]

Eighty-Two. At least that isn't too low.

[szaxazs]

84

[Zilal]

44... lawdy. I am in the company of misanthropes. (The scariest thing was how some of you gave responses along the lines of, "Aren't these things just common sense?") I expected everyone to fall somewhere in the middle... very interesting to see how different I am from other INTJs.

[Richard0612]

66 - I am surprised it isn't higher, I've always been fairly cynical!

[Stealth]

I score at 84. Some things really seem like common sense to me though.
Like strongly disagreeing with "Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives.", yea I am sure they do LOL.

[sonofone]

88.

[tearsbymidnyt]

73. What does it all mean?

[Anon722]

81... But I lied a bit.

Wohohoho (not)

Yes, I agree with opinions favourable to "Machy". But we have a horrible tendency to admit our machiavellical behaviour, that habit is not really machiavellical, since it only could cause us trouble when said in the wrong environment.

Then, Is it our uncontainable intellectual self flattering what push us to admit it?

I admit it publicly because I think it is honest. I can say, for example, that I am only machiavellical when confronted with machavellical environments. ( No need to say that it means most of the time ) :P

But I don't do it ALL the time. I believe in true friendship, ( for the time it lasts )

Oh... I am a mean bastard! But I could help more people being one, than being a saint. Morality and machiavellism have no relation from my point of view. It is my society ) at least mine ( what pushes me in this direction. I would be glad if people were not either so mean nor so stupid to make it almost unavoidable.





Anon722 added to this post, 4 minutes and 49 seconds later...

I score at 84. Some things really seem like common sense to me though.
Like strongly disagreeing with "Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives.", yea I am sure they do LOL.

lol Sure.

It IS common sense.

This test measures you agreement with machiavelli's opinions. A more interesting one would measure your capacity to apply it! That would be great, specialy for a management student. :cheesy:





Anon722 added to this post, 22 minutes and 52 seconds later...

44... lawdy. I am in the company of misanthropes. (The scariest thing was how some of you gave responses along the lines of, "Aren't these things just common sense?") I expected everyone to fall somewhere in the middle... very interesting to see how different I am from other INTJs.

I don't think that it means WE are that different. I think it depends a lot on the environment within wich you have grown up and lived.

For example, Uruguay, where I live, is a prety f·$%&ked up place. Lots of corruption, little value for ethics, so I adapted my behaviour and way of thinking to this environment, but as I have said in the upper post ( even though not literally ) I value ethics a lot, and think we could all be much better if we cooperate rather than putting obstacles in each other. This should be common sense too! But is not an opinion you will likely find ( at least between uruguayans ) Many people may say they think accordingly, but then act all the time without taking it into account.


That is why they all should be anihilated.

:cheesy:

[In Strict Confidence]

82 Kinda high mach. didnt think I would go so high, even though I am cynical and nihilistisc.. and distrustful. But hey, I am kinda honest and humble as well ^^

[spiritdetectivegirl]

71

[pavman]

My thoughts about it is that love is ephemeral and fear is just a radical form of respect. People are, essentially, selfish and will do what benefits them the greatest. To deceive them is for the greater good. Its socialism in a sense, though that wasnt even introduced in mach's time.

Well, his premise was that you need to pander to the people and the aristocracy. But if you are feared by the people... at least what I recall... then you have a higher probability of getting de-throned when the people revolt. But if you are not liked by the aristocracy, then you have a higher probability that they will isolate you from their circle and cause your demise that way.

From what I recall his premise was that the people are less important (and more fear-based) than the aristocracy. It was a fine line, but I thought he mentioned that fear gets you farther with the people. However, I disagree. Think of the "love" people have for Kennedy or, for that matter, Michael Jackson. I mean, if he isn't the epitome of loved by the people, I don't know who is!

[ssfanatic]

Well, his premise was that you need to pander to the people and the aristocracy. But if you are feared by the people... at least what I recall... then you have a higher probability of getting de-throned when the people revolt. But if you are not liked by the aristocracy, then you have a higher probability that they will isolate you from their circle and cause your demise that way.

From what I recall his premise was that the people are less important (and more fear-based) than the aristocracy. It was a fine line, but I thought he mentioned that fear gets you farther with the people. However, I disagree. Think of the "love" people have for Kennedy or, for that matter, Michael Jackson. I mean, if he isn't the epitome of loved by the people, I don't know who is!
I think its hard to compare with modern day models. Who can we compare that was a Mach ruler? The closest thing for me that comes to mind is the police. Would people abide by the law if they were afraid of the consequences? No, but there are so many loop holes in our law that criminals can get away with a vast percent of crimes. I like European laws much better. Someone get a president in office who gets rid of the Second Amendment, i mean we have people killed daily from handguns and such. But this is not political, im ranting sorry :)

I think what is boils down to, is given the speed of communication and new ideals, Mach principles will never work in a modern day leader. They have to be revised. I do believe in his core values such as Fox over Lion and Fear over Love, but they must be disguised such as our government has done with no military control and all these "loop holes" in the law. So how free are we really? :)

And i was simply adding my thoughts earlier, i wasnt comparing to The Prince.

[mrkaizoku]

I scored a 91.

[ginandsour]

89

[Scooby]

78

[Avenger]

75

How evil does that make me? ;)

[pavman]

75

How evil does that make me? ;)

Your avatar is hilarious! :thumbsup:

[gillyweet]

69 - inner beast is coming out after a night of arguing in a circle with an ENFP

[Mr Galt]

80.
Oddly, I think it should be higher.

[narusmummy]

57 - i would say thats about right

[denaria]

73.

[Vojnik]

85. You have to show restraint in some aspects of your life, or you would not be in the social norm.

[Zaclor]

87
When I get down I reread The Prince, it always makes me laugh.

[ssrprotege]

84. I am generally cynical. I became more sure of my position after reading Machiavelli's the Prince.

[Bluestocking]

75. High Machiavellian.

[Uberfuhrer]

93. High Mach.

Although the site from which that questionnaire was called Salon...and therefore, I find it very difficult to take it seriously.

[azelismia]

I have some problems with the wording in this test there are a lot of it's best to, and it's safest to. type questions which are quite right in their base line sentiment so I have to agree with them but that doesn't mean I'll do it just because it's safest or or best, because it might not agree with my inner code of standards, then again if the situation warrants it I might go with the safest or best, but it's not asking that. I disagree strongly with their wording through-out this quiz

I scored 67 which they say is high Machiavellian

[the human iPod]

I scored 64, which seems balanced to me though it said that I was high Machiavellian.

[malefide]

84.

I'm more "cynical" (i.e. cautious and realistic) than blatantly immoral.

[Mafiaangel180]

69 high mach.

I lean towards the evil end of the F scale.

[Rowan]

I scored 91; I remember reading The Prince awhile back – overrated but fun.

[pallasathena]

I scored 64. I'm a High Mach. I'm not surprised.

[MrEPenguin]

63 :thinking:

[JasonM]

For those who scored high, if you did so because you're cynical, then you probably aren't objective. If the Keirsey temperament sorter is any indicator, then 60-80% of the population are SJs or NFs - people who are cooperative in style, and act in such a way that they try to do the right thing. Of course there will be many utilitarians who are ethical, and cooperatives who are not ethical, but this should give a rough estimate - we know that at least 60-80% of the people out there act in such a way as to do the "right thing." The bottom line is that it probably isn't realistic to assume that the rest of the world is immoral.

As for those who scored high because they buy into Machiavelli's views on how you should treat others, it saddens me that there are people out there who are like that. In my opinion, personality type shouldn't be used as an excuse to justify a lack of integrity.

[Rowan]

For those who scored high, if you did so because you're cynical, then you probably aren't objective. If the Keirsey temperament sorter is any indicator, then 60-80% of the population are SJs or NFs - people who are cooperative in style, and act in such a way that they try to do the right thing. Of course there will be many utilitarians who are ethical, and cooperatives who are not ethical, but this should give a rough estimate - we know that at least 60-80% of the people out there act in such a way as to do the "right thing." The bottom line is that it probably isn't realistic to assume that the rest of the world is immoral.

As for those who scored high because they buy into Machiavelli's views on how you should treat others, it saddens me that there are people out there who are like that. In my opinion, personality type shouldn't be used as an excuse to justify a lack of integrity.

Jason

Machiavelli didn’t lack integrity; he simply understood how to govern most effectively within a particular political model. Furthermore, a lot of these questions adopt the false dichotomous position that the only meta-ethical option besides Machiavelli is moral realism and I reject moral realism for philosophical reasons (see David Hume’s is-ought argument). Finally, it means very little that the Keirsey temperament sorter indicates that 60-80% of the population (I presume you mean US population and not world population) are ‘people who are cooperative in style, and act in such a way that they try to do the right thing.’

There are three obvious reasons why this statistic cannot be taken seriously. Firstly, in order to accept that statistic you have to assume people have the integrity necessary to answer honestly to the Keirsey temperament sorter; so you effectively assume what you are attempting to prove. Secondly, it is entirely possible to be cooperative and simultaneously vile – mobs anyone? Thirdly, it is entirely possible to believe in the righteousness of your actions and be vile; do you dispute that many disgusting and uncompassionate acts are committed by people who are convinced of their moral integrity?

[JasonM]

Machiavelli didn’t lack integrity; he simply understood how to govern most effectively within a particular political model. Furthermore, a lot of these questions adopt the false dichotomous position that the only meta-ethical option besides Machiavelli is moral realism and I reject moral realism for philosophical reasons (see David Hume’s is-ought argument). Finally, it means very little that the Keirsey temperament sorter indicates that 60-80% of the population (I presume you mean US population and not world population) are ‘people who are cooperative in style, and act in such a way that they try to do the right thing.’

Regardless of Machiavelli's integrity (or lack thereof), this test clearly shows that people who score high because they support Machiavellianism are lacking integrity - "One should take action only when sure it is morally right." You're telling me that people who don't act on morals aren't lacking integrity? Come on.

There are three obvious reasons why this statistic cannot be taken seriously. Firstly, in order to accept that statistic you have to assume people have the integrity necessary to answer honestly to the Keirsey temperament sorter; so you effectively assume what you are attempting to prove. Secondly, it is entirely possible to be cooperative and simultaneously vile – mobs anyone? Thirdly, it is entirely possible to believe in the righteousness of your actions and be vile; do you dispute that many disgusting and uncompassionate acts are committed by people who are convinced of their moral integrity?

The fact is, by being cynical, you're taking an extreme view. In taking an extreme view, you should be saddled with the burden of proof to support your position. So what is your proof? Even if it turns out that most people in the world are corrupt, how can one hold such a position rationally without looking at vital evidence (i.e., statistics)? And if you don't have evidence of the whole picture, how can you draw any conclusions about the way people are in general? You're basically limited to the people around you and what you see in the media, and that doesn't count, because the people around you form only a limited sample, and the media is biased, as it only shows negative stories, because those are the stories that grab people's attention. The truth is that you cannot rationally claim that the world is corrupt without having good statistics about how people are.

[Rowan]

Regardless of Machiavelli's integrity (or lack thereof), this test clearly shows that people who score high because they support Machiavellianism are lacking integrity - "One should take action only when sure it is morally right." You're telling me that people who don't act on morals aren't lacking integrity? Come on.

That entirely depends on what you mean by ‘morals’. Also, another factor in that question is certainty, which opens up a lot of ambiguity.

The fact is, by being cynical, you're taking an extreme view. In taking an extreme view, you should be saddled with the burden of proof to support your position. So what is your proof? Even if it turns out that most people in the world are corrupt, how can one hold such a position rationally without looking at vital evidence (i.e., statistics)? And if you don't have evidence of the whole picture, how can you draw any conclusions about the way people are in general? You're basically limited to the people around you and what you see in the media, and that doesn't count, because the people around you form only a limited sample, and the media is biased, as it only shows negative stories, because those are the stories that grab people's attention. The truth is that you cannot rationally claim that the world is corrupt without having good statistics about how people are.

I have never really adopted this label ‘cynical’ – it is you who claimed that anyone that scores highly is a cynic; I consider myself moderately distrustful, which is not an extreme position. Subjective evidence is indeed weak and relying on it too heavily invariably leads to bigotry and other ignorance. However, we must rely on it to a certain extent. Clearly humanity is capable of great compassion as well as great cruelty and there is no reason to believe that our crueller impulses will ultimately prevail over our compassionate ones, but the existence of this cruelty is sufficient for me to be distrustful to the extent that I am and to answer the way that I did on that test.

[Freak]

77

[Cuivienen]

71-high Mach

[Metafire]

67

[Reanne]

65- hi mach.
i did enjoy "The Prince". But i only apply cynism when absolutely necessary.

[Mozzes]

"57- low Mach - You reject Machiavelli's opinions."

Sounds about right.

[Genuine]

...76

[capricornintj]

78 high Mach

[Beery Swine]

81

While my score was high, its important to understand how I interpreted the questions. I didn't put what I do, because it didn't ask me. I put what I thought was the best or preferred way of doing things when it asked, like "The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear" I put 5 because I think that is the best way to "handle" people, but that's not what I actually do, because I really don't care to "handle" people in the first place..

[Seppuku Savant]

98 - High Mach

[Erika Redmark]

62: "high".

[Vastfnup]

72

[eastman]

71

Never heard of him, but I generally agree with the score.

[Rocky]

I got an 89. A lot of that sounds like common sense but I guess relative to this test I'm a cynic.

[pensivemuse7]

75 - high mach

[iMiki]

64. "High Mach"

[Antisocialite]

Interesting!

Machiavellian intelligence test

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I guess most NTs are high matches? :cool:

What's your result?


Yeah. I scored 85.





Antisocialite added to this post, 2 minutes and 43 seconds later...

I got an 89. A lot of that sounds like common sense but I guess relative to this test I'm a cynic.

I also thought alot of it was common sense so I guess that makes me a cynic, too. Never thought so, though.....

[SmartOne]

84, need to put some more work into it!

[pinkroger]

87, although Machiavelli is terribly obvious. Nothing I have read from him has taught me anything I didn't already know.

[Linwenilid]

57 and proud. I might plot a lot of things in my head, but I'm happy I don't actually carry them on using people as pawns.

[MFG]

67 :suspicious:

[kag]

83 :undecided:

[Fineline]

95 :sneaky:

[Metanoia]

Ninety-two at first and I took it again after sometime, and I scored 88.

[hum]

67

[The Real Eagle]

Seventy Three.

[Eric86]

I got 23...the lowest score so far.

[Antares]

OMG, im really embarrassed. I scored a 91. Holy crap, whats wrong with me???
Im not so sure i took the same test, how many questions was it?

The underlying assumption is that being like Machiavelli is bad. Taking the test again, I got 92. Wow. I mean wow. Like Machiavelli's Prince, I'm not that big on restricting my success with my morals.

87, although Machiavelli is terribly obvious. Nothing I have read from him has taught me anything I didn't already know.

Well, maybe that's you. You'd be surprised at how many simple truths the masses don't already know.

[Synamon]

62.... not as cynical as I thought

[Nuzke]

Wow, most are high aye. . . I got The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100

Your Machiavelli score is: 60

You are a "average Mach."

Most people fall somewhere in the middle, but there's a significant minority at either extreme.

[Kisai]

86.

[Tocsin]

First off, the test result reporting is skewed to present all respondents as either advocates of Machiavellian power trips or their witless and trusting dupes.

People here have reported that their scores of 62 qualified them as "high mach." I scored 59 and was told I was "low mach." Which leaves a "middle ground" range of either 2 points or less? Bullshit.

As soon as you rely on a test scoring system that is suspect, then the purpose and objectivity of the test is suspect as well.

That being said, anyone who is enamored of Machiavelli's methods or motives are ultimately fools; "the Prince" is nothing more than an illustration of "The Clown Prince."

Look at the conduct of all powerful leaders who have convinced themselves that power is an ultimate end in itself, and that their own ambitions are paramount once they think they have reached a position of unassailable dominance.

Whether it's Napoleon, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or Dick Cheney, what you end up with is not people whose lust for power made them great, but fools whose egos lead them to overestimate their own importance, and overreach their own abilities.

Even those leaders who do successfully manipulate others and maintain a position of power to the end of their days, such as Stalin, wind up reviled when, after their deaths, the presence of their ghost is not a sufficient deterrent for the survivors of their regimes to begin to honestly say what they thought of them.

When people of power fade, when they no longer have any power, then you will get to the truth about what kind of people they were and how they will be regarded.

As Lord Acton once said "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." For those of you who think that "the ends justify the means" and "Winning isn't the main thing, it is the only thing," and hold other such ideals of personal ambition uber alles, remember that there is nothing so impermanent as supremacy, and nothing people like to kick with as much relish as a fallen prince.

If you look at many of the pejoratives that we associate with evil: devious, deceptive, manipulative, dishonest, abusive, greedy, arrogant, and so on, what you will find is the list of qualities and tactics idealized by people driven by notions of personal power and ambition. What people often define as evil, (willing and conscious evil, at least) often comes down to the abuse and manipulation of one person to fulfill the purposes and desires of another.

If such is the basis of your own ideals, if you are the center of your own world and the rest of us are merely objects to be used in the pursuits of your own ambitions, then we have no common cause, and I will have no remorse or pity for you when your pride does eventually lead you to your fall.

"The ends cannot justify the means for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced."
--Aldous Huxley

[IFearAManOf1Book]

84. And I always thought I had nothing in common with a 16th century period of complex political strain and mayhem. Apparently not!

[NephilimAzrael]

80 on the button. Muha muha muahahahahahahaha

[enWTFp]

88.

Misanthropic mood today, eh? But I just fought with 30 evil kids in the other test, makes sense.

[reb]

81....i woulda scored higher, i think, but i dint want anyone to know how manipulative i really am...

no remorse, no pity, no funeral service, no headstone, no flowers (even plastic wal mart ones)
r

[6dbl5321]

85

ez game

yes these are pretty much common sense imo

from what i've read, wouldn't ESTJs always score well over 90?

[Micropsia]

71

[Canegrande]

84, 86, 84 respectively.

[Autoptic]

76 'in for a penny in for a pound. 'usually too cheap and too expensive.

[nat]

60. Nice.

[meowijan]

49. kinda low.

people are often lazy and more ignorant than i'd like. i'd say that's the source of most of humanity's evil...not the will to do evil, but the will to do nothing.


I couldn't agree more

As for everyone saying the answers are common sense, I don't know what kind of sense you must have!

[EdmontonAspie]

57

relatively low Machiavellian traits

[Aldanga]

This test is BS. There aren't enough questions to warrant a solid score.


I scored 40. You don't always have to be lying or evil to get what you want, but it doesn't always hurt either.

[Nikita]

82

[abudevauhnne]

Your Machiavelli score is: 80

"High Mach"

... Yay?

[meatfist]

73 high mach

[Reganon]

70

[AliTree]

62 "high match". i endorse Machiavelli's ideas.

[thealchemist]

Your Machiavelli score is: 48

"low Mach", you reject Machiavelli's opinions.

Most people fall somewhere in the middle, but there's a significant minority at either extreme.

[Tablelamp]

75, I hope for the best, and expect the worst!

[totallyconfused]

63
TC

[LaoTzu]

I cant drive 55 ...

[Tsumaranai]

As it states on the page that I'm about to link:

This survey itself measures only one thing -- whether you subscribe to the ideas of a 16th century Italian political philosopher. But experiments have shown that reactions to Machiavelli act as a kind of litmus test, delineating differences in temperament that can be confirmed with more traditional personality inventories. High Machs constitute a distinct type: charming, confident and glib, but also arrogant, calculating and cynical, prone to manipulate and exploit. (Think Rupert Murdoch, or if your politics permit it, President Clinton.)

True low Machs, however, can be kind of dependent, submissive and socially inept. So be sure to invite a high Mach or two to your next dinner party.


I found it pretty interesting, and personally scored a 97 on it.

Mach IV Test (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Nikita]

67...this test has been posted before somewhere on here

[Tsumaranai]

I checked the first couple of pages and didn't see it, so I decided to make the thread. I apologize for the redundancy.

[Nightelf]

83.

[memorysnap]

55

[eastman]

70

[dalidaisy]

67

[Webbster]

76

[Gamgee]

52. Despite the rather low score it is almost impossible to fool me. I have been described as having a sixth sense about people. However, I believe in freewill and despite what I know happens I always give them the benefit of the doubt. You can meet a lot of interesting people this way.

P.S
Just because I am not a cynic and mistrustful doesn't mean I am an idiot. There are contingency plans for anyway a situation can play out. I feel if someoen goes to either extreme they simply limit their belief system. I mean how can you really say you have an open mind when your at either end. Balance is they key to everything.

[Zombicide]

A high Mach it says

[DailyFiction]

71

[thatfox]

Your Machiavelli score is: 71

"high Mach", you endorse Machiavelli's opinions.

Yay?

[altoid]

82.

I'm spending far too much time on these quizzes today...

[LouMeland]

62.... Either extreme is evil.