Mechiavelli Test

[rknapp]

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

 

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.

 

 

My score:

 

The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100

 

Your Machiavelli score is: 66

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Seems to me like low machs are those who believe in others while high machs don't, and the description of the test tells me that the whoever wrote it is a high mach since they said nothing good of low machs lol.

[Kurt]

My score:

 

The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100

 

Your Machiavelli score is: 61

 

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

 

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

[Tiger]

I got you both beat at 79. I guess I'm up there. I'm not ashamed either. I'd rather be cold and calculating at times than to be naive.

[MikeL]

63...I'm almost normal.

 

[JamesSavik]

The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100

 

Your Machiavelli score is: 92

 

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

 

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

[Tiger]

My record has totally been shattered. Hail King James.

Edited October 25, 2008 by Tiger

[Julian Alexander]

Hmmm...

 

The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100

 

Your Machiavelli score is: 73

 

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

 

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

[rknapp]

James, why am I not surprised? lol

[NaperVic]

I got you both beat at 79. I guess I'm up there. I'm not ashamed either. I'd rather be cold and calculating at times than to be naive.

I got a 79 too

[Tiger]

I got a 79 too

Vic, it just means that you're not naive and that you're smart enough to take advantage of certain situations for personal game. The strong survive.

[Krista]

Not that I read up on this... but I got a '60.'

 

 

Lowest yet...

[Kanaye]

43, Im a low Mach,

 

Wait... does that me I AM naive?

Edited October 25, 2008 by Kanaye

[Dolores Esteban]

The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100

 

Your Machiavelli score is: 82

 

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

 

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

 

 

I think that's okay.

 

[hh5]

I got a 65.

 

No idea the significance. I was not expecting this kind of score.

[DavyReader]

I only got a 73. Maybe I wasn't always honest. The tendency of the questions was quite obvious.

[KJames]

I got a 65.

 

No idea the significance. I was not expecting this kind of score.

 

I was also 65.

[Masked Monkey]

I was also 65.

 

I am not even going to post my score . There are only a few questions about personal behavior, mostly about what you attribute to the motives of others.

[C James]

Hrmmm...

 

Hypothetically speaking, what about a score of 95?

[rknapp]

Hrmmm...

 

Hypothetically speaking, what about a score of 95?

It means you take GAs threats of spit-roasting you seriously.

[Bondwriter]

Hrmmm...

 

Hypothetically speaking, what about a score of 95?

Only a very unsensitive person, one able to inflict very evil cliffhangers upon his poor readers could reach such a high score.

 

76 here. I guess a number of 3s, due to the ubiquous phrasing of the questions, prevented me from getting a goat-like score.

[C James]

It means you take GAs threats of spit-roasting you seriously.

 

That I do...

Only a very unsensitive person, one able to inflict very evil cliffhangers upon his poor readers could reach such a high score.

 

76 here. I guess a number of 3s, due to the ubiquous phrasing of the questions, prevented me from getting a goat-like score.

 

Hey now, I said "Hypothetically", I never actually admitted that I got a 95.

[Bondwriter]

Hey now, I said "Hypothetically", I never actually admitted that I got a 95.

I was sure you'd reply this. Is it Machiavellian to set traps for a poor, delusional goat (who could, of course, hypothetically indeed, be CJ or yet another goat...)

[Masked Monkey]

Hey now, I said "Hypothetically", I never actually admitted that I got a 95.

 

I can't imagine anyone admitting to getting a 95. That would be enough to make any Machiavellian decide not to actually say their number

[JamesSavik]

Hrmmm...

 

Hypothetically speaking, what about a score of 95?

 

 

You mean there's someone who is more amoral, self-absorbed and sociopathic tha me!? I demand a recount.

[PlugInMatty]

I scored a 92.

 

Dunno how much I'd buy into the 'litmus test' theory, though. The survey seems to be inspired by The Prince, so we're effectively comparing ourselves to (what I interpreted to be) a fictional character.

 

Not too dissimilar to a 'Which Harry Potter character are you?' test, really.