NationStates Jolt Archive

Someone mentioned in the 'how you relate' thread my approach to people is Machiavellian. I took the test to see if just how Machiavellian I really was and I am an 84. Apparently anything over 60 is a high Mach. So, how Machiavellian are you?

http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/09/13/machtest/

65

Someone mentioned in the 'how you relate' thread my approach to people is Machiavellian. I took the test to see if just how Machiavellian I really was and I am an 84. Apparently anything over 60 is a high Mach. So, how Machiavellian are you?

http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/09/13/machtest/
I got 63, which I kind of disagree with. For most of the questions I agreed that it was important to be Machiavellian to get ahead in the world, but that doesn't mean I am.

I take issue with 17:

17) P.T. Barnum was wrong when he said that there's a sucker born every minute.

He was wrong, they're born way more often than that.


I rate 82. That's without trying for a high score.

76-damn my innate Catholic morality

Someone mentioned in the 'how you relate' thread my approach to people is Machiavellian. I took the test to see if just how Machiavellian I really was and I am an 84. Apparently anything over 60 is a high Mach. So, how Machiavellian are you?

http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/09/13/machtest/

I was a 57. "Low Mach," apparently. And I'm the one who said you were Machiavellian, so



BAM. I TOTALLY CALLED IT.

I got 56. I guess that's quite good.

92

I win do I get a reward for being the biggest Jerk?

I got 63, which I kind of disagree with. For most of the questions I agreed that it was important to be Machiavellian to get ahead in the world, but that doesn't mean I am.

Don't have to do it yourself, to believe that's true is enough:p

58

What's the borderline limit?

Don't have to do it yourself, to believe that's true is enough:p

58

What's the borderline limit?
60

48. btw, what's a macchiavellian personality?

70. Machiavellian tactics come in handy for finding jobs, especially in business.

BAM. I TOTALLY CALLED IT.

good call.

68

52...

48. btw, what's a macchiavellian personality?

It means you tend to see people with someone distrust and distance. More calculating rather than pure emotion. It can also mean you do what is necessary to get ahead and so on.

edit: wiki answers better than I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism

48. btw, what's a macchiavellian personality?

Wow, you either didn't answer the questions honestly or you are as benevolent as this (http://www.littlefolkspuzzle.com/catalog/1350-30PCFLOORPUZZLE-KITTEN.JPG).:rolleyes:

78, though I'm actually quite a nice person, I swear.

Bah, didn't like that test. Probably because I thought for most of the questions the answer depends entirely on the situation.

Anyway, I got 63. Not sure how accurate that is.

Wow, you either didn't answer the questions honestly or you are as benevolent as this (http://www.littlefolkspuzzle.com/catalog/1350-30PCFLOORPUZZLE-KITTEN.JPG).:rolleyes:
Meow.

It means you tend to see people with someone distrust and distance. More calculating rather than pure emotion. It can also mean you do what is necessary to get ahead and so on.

edit: wiki answers better than I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism
Low Machs tend to take a more personal, empathic approach in their interaction with other people. They tend to be more trusting of others and more honest. They believe humans are essentially good natured. At the extreme, low Machs tend to be passive, submissive, highly agreeable, dependent and socially inept; in contrast with those who are more Machiavellian, they also tend to believe that everyone has a good and bad side.
Yep. That's me.

78, although most people consider me to be decent, and the test totally relies on context tbqh. Not to say that I'm not quite Machiavellian.

Yep. That's me.No it isn't.

No it isn't.
*shrugs*

*shrugs*Damn, I hoped you were going to disagree and then I could say "but you just said you were highly agreeable". Foiled again!

72. So technically High Mach, but I suspect within normal range (I do have the norms hanging around somewhere for that test, so I can give people Standard Deviation ranges if they want).

Machiavellian traits are generally seen to be highly adaptive traits under certain circumstances, particularly in business world, but at the same time tend to make high Machs quite interpersonally unpleasant. It has been considered to be one point of the "Dark Triad" of human personality, along with Psychopathy and Narcissim, and is found to overlap with those (whilst still being distinct). For a start Machiavellians tend to be less self-enhancing and more accurate in their assessments of self-abilities. I also believe it's less associated with overt criminal behaviour and higher levels of social skills. But I'd have to dig out the papers on those ones

93 but I'm in a rather sour mood today.

Damn, I hoped you were going to disagree and then I could say "but you just said you were highly agreeable". Foiled again!
:) As consolation, you get a cheese cupcake. *presents the cupcake*

93 but I'm in a rather sour mood today.

Damn. That must be a hell of a mood.

I'm always vaguely amused by annonymous internet tests that allow people to post results about how bad-ass they pretend they are.

87, that puts me in........*checks*

third place. Dammit. I'm retaking the test, and come back when I've got a perfect score.

Fifty-five.

I score 58. Not very Mach.

41. :)

I gots a fifty-five cause I don't like sucking up!:p (post intentionally faulty)

53, "Low Mach". I'm not too surprised.

If I was really Machiavellian, would I fill in that test honestly?
Let's say I've got 19, you can, like, totally trust me ;)

54

If I was really Machiavellian, would I fill in that test honestly?
Let's say I've got 19, you can, like, totally trust me ;)

a good point this. Nobody truly ruthless would ever inform someone how ruthless he is.

63.

96.


though they could have focused on how appearances are.
A true follower of Machiavellianism wants to appear fair even if he is foul.

73

hurrah...I guess *murders family for the inheritance*

96.


though they could have focused on how appearances are.
A true follower of Machiavellianism wants to appear fair even if he is foul.

Very true. If you don't at least appear fair how are you supposed to manipulate other people into doing things for you? Nobody does anything for the known asshole.

77

53

84

63.

Yay. Another Semi Machiavellian 63

75

Holy shit I got 98! (I answered truthfuly to!)

80.

70. Machiavellian tactics come in handy for finding jobs, especially in business.

Bingo!


I got a 68

45, most of those questions are pretty poor. Bad quiz.
I had no idea Machiavelli was such a bastard. :eep:

76

http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/flattery.jpg

29. I am as pure and innocent as new-blown snow. You can trust me. Completely. Especially with valuable things and your dearest secrets. I simply wouldn't know *what* do to with them. ;)

88.
Mwuahahaha!

88. Nice.

Nobody does anything for the known asshole.

Not in the business world are you?

Not in the business world are you?

not in the working world are you? :p

I'm always vaguely amused by annonymous internet tests that allow people to post results about how bad-ass they pretend they are.

I am always amused at people who boast of being above such tests in order to pretend to be even more badass.

I've got a 59...

But I guess you could tell at least 'that' much from how I run my nation, the Most Serene Repluplic of Shimokorihi.

88. Not a surprise.

100, a perfect score.

I believe that is quite good, don't you?

80, but I do not regard myself as Machiavellian. I agree with many of his views, but I would not use them myself. Honest people do not become out on top in power politics, but I would rather be honest than be on top of that paticular pile.

The only true Machiavellians are the one's getting absurdly low scores; Machiavelli was famous for his advice that one should appear honest at times and be dishonest when it was necessary or convenient.

I got a 56, but that's a bit misleading. The test seems to assume that if you agree with Machiavelli's worldview, you'll automatically respond with Machiavellian action. I don't think it anticipated the responses of a Kantian who simply thinks everyone else is Machiavellian.

91.

I take issue with 17:

17) P.T. Barnum was wrong when he said that there's a sucker born every minute.

He was wrong, they're born way more often than that.


I rate 82. That's without trying for a high score.
I also scored 82. But P.T. Barnum didn't say there was exactly one sucker born per minute. He said there is a sucker born every minute. If you think they're born more frequently than that, then you still agree with Barnum, because he didn't place a ceiling on his statement - just a floor.

The only true Machiavellians are the one's getting absurdly low scores; Machiavelli was famous for his advice that one should appear honest at times and be dishonest when it was necessary or convenient.

I got a 56, but that's a bit misleading. The test seems to assume that if you agree with Machiavelli's worldview, you'll automatically respond with Machiavellian action. I don't think it anticipated the responses of a Kantian who simply thinks everyone else is Machiavellian.
But you people don't know who I am, so I don't need to care what you think of me.

I got a 64. Bit of a borderline, fits me well.

85... its a start.

92

I win do I get a reward for being the biggest Jerk?

Damn you I only managed 89

96.


though they could have focused on how appearances are.
A true follower of Machiavellianism wants to appear fair even if he is foul.

You too.

But you people don't know who I am, so I don't need to care what you think of me.

A Machiavellian also knows to plan for eventual contingencies, and to keep his habits of action and strength of will sharp.

88..damn

63, expected.

65...meh

I shot Machiavelli.

I don't think it anticipated the responses of a Kantian who simply thinks everyone else is Machiavellian.

Yes, that annoyed me too. The quiz makes no distinction between ethics and worldview.

There's no question that dishonesty is fairly common in our society, and that it can be tremendously useful at times when it comes to succeeding and getting ahead... but our reaction to that can just be easily be "Be honest despite the consequences" as it can be "Succeed whatever the means required."

Indeed, that response--that whatever the moral failures of others and the practical necessities of the world, you still must do what is right--is supremely anti-Machiavellian.

45

There were at least a few questions where i chose number three, because as has already been pointed out, there were some questions where i thought the answer was totally dependent on the situation.

71

I didn't think I'd be so high.

I rated at 48, which is "low Mach."

I think that Machiavelli was a cynical crapsack. However, he did say a few things, which being cynical, are naturally true. The quote I liked best was something along these lines: "If an injury must be done to a man, it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared."

It pretty much accounts for why those in power torture and murder their political opponents whenever they can.

I am always amused at people who boast of being above such tests in order to pretend to be even more badass.

QFT

I don't get what Machiavellian means

40. Second-lowest score yet, I believe. It was the "I believe people are basically good" that did me in. And no, I did not lie and I'm not a saint, I'm just a humanist.

I have always taken Machiavellian to mean roughly "distrustful of human nature, radically cynical, of the belief that the ends justify the means, of the belief that power equate to legitimacy," and so on.

I scored 85.

Edit: I answered honestly, but I knew the answers that would have got me a higher (or lower) score, by the third question or so.:cool:

69. High Mach, and a good number, too.

69.

Oh baby

Oh baby

And yet, it being my Machiavellian rating, do you think it would be as good a number for you as it is for me? ;)

I have always taken Machiavellian to mean roughly "distrustful of human nature, radically cynical, of the belief that the ends justify the means, of the belief that power equate to legitimacy," and so on.

Well, I certainly don't think the ends justify the means. Evidently, it also means that one is manipulative, which I think is extremely wrong. I think that people are easy to manipulate, that perhaps the only way to get ahead in life is to take advantage of people, and I think it seems that only dicks manage to get ahead. But I guess I think it's wrong enough that I prefer to never get ahead as opposed to manipulating people.

First time, I got a 65. Next time, 57.

Well, I certainly don't think the ends justify the means. Evidently, it also means that one is manipulative, which I think is extremely wrong. I think that people are easy to manipulate, that perhaps the only way to get ahead in life is to take advantage of people, and I think it seems that only dicks manage to get ahead. But I guess I think it's wrong enough that I prefer to never get ahead as opposed to manipulating people.

First time, I got a 65. Next time, 57.
Heh. I believe that people are generally easy to manipulate also, and many are stupid/evil. However, I disagreed about how only dicks get ahead in the world.

What is needed is to change the system so that people who are dicks are prevented from getting ahead. I call this Utopia.

I got an 80... which I sorta expected.

Though I have some contest with the claim that being Machiavellian makes one innately pro-business. I'm "High Machiavellian" according to this exam, and about as far left as one can go economically in my beliefs. So, I dunno...

I am always amused at people who boast of being above such tests in order to pretend to be even more badass.

Yes, because basically repeating what someone said is a real good way to show you're clever :rolleyes:

Let's see, have you worked your way through "I know you are but what am I?" and "I am rubber you are glue ..." yet today?

And yet, it being my Machiavellian rating, do you think it would be as good a number for you as it is for me? ;)

depends who's on top.

74

Yes, because basically repeating what someone said is a real good way to show you're clever :rolleyes:

Let's see, have you worked your way through "I know you are but what am I?" and "I am rubber you are glue ..." yet today?
That's what she said.

88.

Dear God...

Yes, because basically repeating what someone said is a real good way to show you're clever :rolleyes:

Let's see, have you worked your way through "I know you are but what am I?" and "I am rubber you are glue ..." yet today?

It takes one to know one!

Dear God...

?

76

36

Ho ho, 81.

hmmm...

"I'm not very Machiavellian"
"That proves you really are Machiavellian!"
"You're just in denial"
No, I'm not!"
"See?"

*gets popcorn and Mountain Dew, sits back to watch*

70

I'm 58. I think I'm more "Machiavellian" than the score implies, that's why I don't support centralized power or even sanctioned authorities in most cases. ;)

As I recall Machiavelli was pro republic rather than pro prince (or whatever it is in English). The ideas proposed in The Prince (or whatever it is in English) were the one's he believed a prince would need to adopt to claim and stay in power in Italy at the time, not the ones he wanted to see in action. I remember he wrote the book because he had gotten on the wrong side of the Medicci's (a powerful family of the time, one of them was the Pope even) and wanted to fix that. Whether this in itself was a very "Machiavellian" move is depetable of course :) Perhaps he simply saw it as the lesser evil?

Well, anyway, that's the way I remember it, correct me if I'm wrong. Should read the book again someday and see for myself.

85

According to the survey, I'm a "strong Mach".:eek:

depends who's on top.
I suppose that's true. *note to self*

I'm 58. I think I'm more "Machiavellian" than the score implies, that's why I don't support centralized power or even sanctioned authorities in most cases. ;)

As I recall Machiavelli was pro republic rather than pro prince (or whatever it is in English). The ideas proposed in The Prince (or whatever it is in English) were the one's he believed a prince would need to adopt to claim and stay in power in Italy at the time, not the ones he wanted to see in action. I remember he wrote the book because he had gotten on the wrong side of the Medicci's (a powerful family of the time, one of them was the Pope even) and wanted to fix that. Whether this in itself was a very "Machiavellian" move is depetable of course :) Perhaps he simply saw it as the lesser evil?

Well, anyway, that's the way I remember it, correct me if I'm wrong. Should read the book again someday and see for myself.
Yes, Machiavelli was pro-republic and opposed the concentration of power into the hands of a ruling elite. On the other hand, he had no utopian illusions about people and was fully aware of the weaknesses of the kind of representative republics he favored.

Everyone reads The Prince because it's required in most schools, but it's only required because it's short. The real meat of Machiavelli is in The Discourses (the long book). Without it, The Prince has no context and is useless to understanding the author's actual ideas.

What is needed is to change the system so that people who are dicks are prevented from getting ahead. I call this Utopia.

I call that fantasy.


79 :p

I call that fantasy.


79 :p

I call it boring. :p What's life without a little conflict and competition once in a while, in moderation? The world needs pricks and dicks for the rest of us to oppose. Truly, I do love my enemies. I would be lost without them. :)

I call it boring. :p What's life without a little conflict and competition once in a while, in moderation? The world needs pricks and dicks for the rest of us to oppose. Truly, I do love my enemies. I would be lost without them. :)

heh, sounds like an old irish toast..."may you always have interesting enemies"

85

According to the survey, I'm a "strong Mach".:eek:
evil!
heh, sounds like an old irish toast..."may you always have interesting enemies"

It beats the run of the mill usual bad guy with his usual army of cronies and one sidekick that is into inventions with lots of dead embryos.
I think it's pretty hard to find interesting enemies, the ones you need to watch are your friends.

How Machiavellian are you?]

82

evil!

Thanks!

:eek:
That's not a compliment, rar. 85, i thought you were better than that Nanatsu. (better is not equated with getting a higher score)
for shame.
:D

*blows MHiJ a kiss*

It is a compliment to be compared to Machiavello.;)

Thanks!
:eek:
That's not a compliment, rar. 85, i thought you were better than that Nanatsu. (better is not equated with getting a higher score)
for shame.
:D

*blows MHiJ a kiss*

It is a compliment to be compared to Machiavello.;)

*timewarped! i'm pretty sure it happens more when the time on the top right hand side is different to the supposed 'GMT'*

oh my, thanks.
I thought it was an insult to be compared with Machiavelli (Machiavello?)
Considering Mussolini took some of his teachings to create his private land of paranoia, and managed to screw over the whole idea of what corporations were supposed to be, (among many other flaws in a very long tale) he was also a monster.
hence comparing you to Machiavelli is an insult to most folks.

*timewarped! i'm pretty sure it happens more when the time on the top right hand side is different to the supposed 'GMT'*

oh my, thanks.
I thought it was an insult to be compared with Machiavelli (Machiavello?)
Considering Mussolini took some of his teachings to create his private land of paranoia, and managed to screw over the whole idea of what corporations were supposed to be, (among many other flaws in a very long tale) he was also a monster.
hence comparing you to Machiavelli is an insult to most folks.

Niccolo Machiavello himself was not a monster. He just wrote literature that created monsters after they read his work. Hence, the Mussolini reference. But Machiavello wasn't a monster, he was a damn good writer.;)

Someone mentioned in the 'how you relate' thread my approach to people is Machiavellian. I took the test to see if just how Machiavellian I really was and I am an 84. Apparently anything over 60 is a high Mach. So, how Machiavellian are you?

http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/09/13/machtest/

97

Niccolo MachiavelloSince it seems structural, rather than incidental; why do you write Machiavello rather than Machiavelli?

Since it seems structural, rather than incidental; why do you write Machiavello rather than Machiavelli?

Because that's the correct way of spelling it in Spanish, but with the Italian grammar to it. In Spanish, it's Nicolás Maquivelo.

Alternate history:
Because that's the correct way of spelling it in Italian.Really? Even the Italian wiki doesn't write it with an O. It's not even mentioned.

New version of history:
Because that's the correct way of spelling it in Spanish, but with the Italian grammar to it. In Spanish, it's Nicolás Maquivelo.Ah, that makes sense then.. :p

Really? Even the Italian wiki doesn't write it with an O. It's not even mentioned.

I stand corrected.

Yet, it's one of the spellings used for his name.

100, perfect score.

Granted, I did take that test right after watching the compilation of the new season of my favorite show, and when you're exposed to that level of Gregory House, you tend to become a little too Machiavellian for your own good.

Seriously, for all intents and purposes, Dr. Gregory House is Niccolo Machiavelli transplanted to 21st century TV, given an M.D, walking cane, and Vicodin addiction.

Any fellow fans of "House" that find our pill-popping idol more than just a bit Machiavellian?

Seriously, for all intents and purposes, Dr. Gregory House is Niccolo Machiavelli transplanted to 21st century TV, given an M.D, walking cane, and Vicodin addiction.

Any fellow fans of "House" that find our pill-popping idol more than just a bit Machiavellian?
I want to see what happens when Gregory House meets the other famous incarnation of Hugh Laurie: Bertie Wooster.

I suppose that's true. *note to self*


Yes, Machiavelli was pro-republic and opposed the concentration of power into the hands of a ruling elite. On the other hand, he had no utopian illusions about people and was fully aware of the weaknesses of the kind of representative republics he favored.

Everyone reads The Prince because it's required in most schools, but it's only required because it's short. The real meat of Machiavelli is in The Discourses (the long book). Without it, The Prince has no context and is useless to understanding the author's actual ideas.

I myself read him as more or less indifferent to the type of government, but republics did promote virtue in a way that principalities or theocracies did not that allowed maximum consolidation of power in the body politic. That I thought was the real core of his critique of theocracy: not that theocracy in itself was bad, just that it was too weak to consolidate control of Italy against the principalities, but too strong to allow a principality to dominate or a republic to form.

Not sure; it's been a while since I read Discourses on Livy.

I want to see what happens when Gregory House meets the other famous incarnation of Hugh Laurie: Bertie Wooster.

Some kind of explosion, I would imagine.

I myself read him as more or less indifferent to the type of government, but republics did promote virtue in a way that principalities or theocracies did not that allowed maximum consolidation of power in the body politic. That I thought was the real core of his critique of theocracy: not that theocracy in itself was bad, just that it was too weak to consolidate control of Italy against the principalities, but too strong to allow a principality to dominate or a republic to form.

Not sure; it's been a while since I read Discourses on Livy.
In his actual life, he was pro-republic. He completed his books while in prison for having supported a republican plot to overthrow the Duke of (my memory is saying) Florence (?), who was a puppet dictator put in place by the Vatican.

The Discourses does not talk about that. It is a more dispassionate comparative study of many different kinds of governments and how they function in different circumstances. It examines both their strengths and weaknesses and gives advisory comment on how to compensate for the weaknesses. The primary weakness of republics that Machiavelli noted was their susceptibility to political corruption due to public complacency. The book goes into analysis of various political, governmental and military philosophies as well, by the way. I've read it several times.

Machiavelli's comparative analyses are what tell us what his real philosophy was, and it is what puts The Prince into context. His biography is what tells us why he held that philosophy.

I scored 90 (high Mach). I think it is mostly due to my bad opinion on human nature than on the moral standards I try to follow, though.

also, I didn't understand why there was this one:
19) People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death.

Meh.

I answered very honestly and got a 45.

Hmmm... I thought I was more cynical than that!

I got a 76!

100.

Comments, anyone?

100.

Comments, anyone?

You must change your name to Neo-Machiavelli or something along those lines.

83

87
In my opinion, however, the test is one of cynicism rather than morality. Or perhaps that's just what i want people to think...

87
In my opinion, however, the test is one of cynicism rather than morality. Or perhaps that's just what i want people to think...

Machiavelli was cynical. He said that "men are bad" (though in his Discourses he expressed the belief that no man is completely bad). He advises you consider all other rulers evil for the most part, and ruin them however you wish, so long as it benefits your state.

"...because [men] are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them."

-Machiavelli.

66. It would probably be lower if I were in a better mood.

100, perfect score.

Granted, I did take that test right after watching the compilation of the new season of my favorite show, and when you're exposed to that level of Gregory House, you tend to become a little too Machiavellian for your own good.

Seriously, for all intents and purposes, Dr. Gregory House is Niccolo Machiavelli transplanted to 21st century TV, given an M.D, walking cane, and Vicodin addiction.

Any fellow fans of "House" that find our pill-popping idol more than just a bit Machiavellian?

House rulz!:gundge:

But I think he's more of a cynical than machiavellian. He wouldn't do anything to get power, simply for the reason that he doesn't want it:p

Can't wait for the next episode to come out!:cool:

I got a 72...

I shot Machiavelli.

But I did not shoot Cesare...

Ive never understood how anyone can claim not to be Machiavellian. I've never met anyone who wasn't in the buissiness of self-promotion, including the necessity of appearing 'good', as jaded, pessimistic or whatever that may sound

Ive never understood how anyone can claim not to be Machiavellian. I've never met anyone who wasn't in the buissiness of self-promotion, including the necessity of appearing 'good', as jaded, pessimistic or whatever that may sound

According to Machiavelli, everyone is Machiavellian. He just writes about how to outdo others.

98

I don't know whether I should be proud or worried.

I try to be as much like him as I can be. He was a bamf and a patriot.

EDIT: 86, a very simplistic test

70 :D Might've been higher if I chose strongly more often.

I don't think Dr. House wants power either, i think he wants to do as little work as possible. I think he is cynical, ascerbic and can come across as a jerk, and he does know how to manipulate people to get what he wants. I think you could call him Machiavellian in the sense that he believes everyone is dishonest and selfish, he probably believes that everyone is Machiavellian.

It's one of my favorite shows by the way.

68

61.:)

36 ^_^

63. Smack Bang in the middle. I don't want to be Machiavellian. I want to be free!