Forums » Off-Topic
http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/09/13/machtest/
What's your score?
What's your score?
64. That's a "high Mach"???
higher than a 50, so I guess it is.
51, on the other hand, is a low mach.
93, but I find many of these questions too shallow to be Machiavellian.
For example: "It is wise to flatter important people." Well, that depends. If it serves your ends, then yes; however, few important people like a sycophant, and thus it may be unwise to flatter them. I imagine the lack of nuance here indicates that the author of the test has a low "Mach."
For example: "It is wise to flatter important people." Well, that depends. If it serves your ends, then yes; however, few important people like a sycophant, and thus it may be unwise to flatter them. I imagine the lack of nuance here indicates that the author of the test has a low "Mach."
70
I scored a 77. I think this quiz judges more how cynical you are. Machiavelli was indeed a cynic, but what he was defined by was his belief that all men in power should use trickery and other immoral acts to retain their positions.
Using trickery, etc., to retain your position--and thus prevent a less able man from gaining power--is not immoral. Your failure to do so, allowing power to exercised less ably, would be immoral.
41
68, but I agree with Lecter, the test is quite simple and does not allow for differenciation. Besides, the questions are so obvious you can cheat your way easily into either crowd, which could be the objective of a person with a machiavellian mindset.
In reply to your latter statement, Lecter, quite a few people who use machiavellian methods to get to where they want to be are not better than other aspirants in regard to ability.
In reply to your latter statement, Lecter, quite a few people who use machiavellian methods to get to where they want to be are not better than other aspirants in regard to ability.
Your opinion, Tosh; likely not theirs. Since it's all relative, for them to behave morally, they have to seize power. For you to do so, doubting their ability, you have to prevent their doing so. Isn't a highly subjective existence with little to no point fun?!
I had an 88, and I just knew that Lecter would score higher than me.
I'm also inclined to believe the test more a judge of cynicism than Machiavellianism, or, in the case of Lecter, just cannibalistic inclination.
I'm also inclined to believe the test more a judge of cynicism than Machiavellianism, or, in the case of Lecter, just cannibalistic inclination.
*chomp chomp chomp*
Using trickery, etc., to retain your position--and thus prevent a less able man from gaining power--is not immoral.
Ah, but the thing is, a true Machiavellian mind would not retain power to keep less able men from taking it, he would keep it for its personal perks. I can't really imagine someone like that recognizing a more able individual and readily giving up their position to them.
Ah, but the thing is, a true Machiavellian mind would not retain power to keep less able men from taking it, he would keep it for its personal perks. I can't really imagine someone like that recognizing a more able individual and readily giving up their position to them.
Means and ends, Jubby, means and ends.
WEE I'm 71 and I'm only 14 years old, I must be evil.
73. Not too bad. How did our esteemed Doctor NOT score a 100? I am, admittedly, mystified.
I'm betting he went in the middle on "It is wise to flatter important people."
And I doubt he would agree to "The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear."
And I doubt he would agree to "The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear."
Well that would explain why he's always so nice to me. ;)
rofl. Ironic that the Machiavelli test is particularly susceptible to Machiavellian manipulation.