Machiavellianism

[Itachi Uchiha]

Machiavellianism is summed up in, the word used to describes someones tendency to decieve and manipulate other used by some social and personality psychologists. However there is more to it. There is a test called the MACH IV test that can tell you your level of Machiavellianism. So for the enjoyment of TFFer's, here it is.

Feel free to try it.

The test itself gives you both a score and a group. The score it out of 100 and there are two groups. High Machs and Low Machs. If your score is over 60 then you are a High Mach; meaning you do decieve other to manipulate them to you own good a fairly large amount. Anything under is a low Mach usually showing that your quite the open, honest and truthful peron.

So post your scores and tell use do you think it is a reflection of who you are or not?

I scored at 81 on it when I tried it which I wasn't that shocked about. I will admit that whenever the moment arises, I can and will manipulate people to my will unless it is someone I have truely befriended. But thats my own slight comment on it (I'm decieving to most people, just those that I am just that slightly prejudice towards )

And yes, this is just something random I have stumbled across and wanted to share

[Victoria]

I just finished taking the test, and I'm surprised to say that I actually got 93. That is pretty freaking high up there. That's almost at full 100. Pretty interesting. *cough*

[winterborn86]

oooooh, im 70, its not sooo bad, is it??

[Refieth]

72?! I only expected to get around 20...

[Sinister]

My father taught me Machiavellianism from a young age. It was not an actual lecture course. I learned it vicariously from watching the way he behaved in front of others. I read "The Prince" when I was twelve. I admit that I am an asshole in this respect. All of that said, I have something that most Machiavellians can't grasp. That is loyalty. I am fiercely loyal to my friends. Always.

I scored a 91.

-Sin

[Mr Spike]

57.

Is that good? I have no idea. It said i don't agree with his ideas, so does that mean i'm good and deserve a halo?

That'd be the day.....

[Chez Daja]

48. Low mach.

I'm surprised, I thought I'd get lower than that. Oh well.

[Pete]

52. I'm quite pleased with that.

Machiavelli is pretty much the biggest cynic that ever existed, and I for one happen to disagree with a lot of what he says. Sure, I'm cautious about happenings and such, but I don't let it get to the point where I'm paranoid and mistrusting of others. However, if you give me a reason not to trust you, believe me, I won't.

Respect and loyalty are given when earned. I expect the same from others.

[Govinda]

80. A sucker is born every minute, well and truly.

[Sinister]

Spoken like a prodigy, Pablo. P.T. Barnum said a mouthful, in my humble opinion. Not to be too pessimistic about humanity, but humans aren't really that noble a creature by record.

[Martin]

I scored a 65. I sort of expected that. But it's just a test of opinion and selflessness, and whether or not I agree with that score is irrelevant. Good test though.

[Rocky]

teehee I got a 72, but I really only see myself as average, so I don't feel that the whole thing is too accurate. As for Toph and Sin hitting 90+, I think it's pretty accurate, but I really don't know.

[Walter Sobchak]

I got a 100.

The term "Machiavellianism" is sort of silly. Why can't it be a Machiavellism or Machiavellian? Two many suffixes.

[Jin]

I wonder how many people fudged their answers on this.

I scored a 92.

[Furore]

The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100
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.

I'm pretty sure I scored as I did as I tended to leave a fair few questions neutral. A lot of them in my mind would really depend on an individual situation. I'm not too surprised at my results though...

[Zardoch]

Huh, I scored 78. Can't say I'm all that surprised as I am pretty cynical and distrusting of somethings, but it does seem a little high. I'm usually more neutral on this or that, though I suppose I can be a bit manipulative here or there. I'd say more people who have a stronger will than others will probably have a high mach.

[Sinister]

[QUOTE=Rocky;1139183As for Toph and Sin hitting 90+, I think it's pretty accurate, but I really don't know.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean by that!? lol. j/k

-Sin

[Draken Benvolaid]

I took the test twice, once as I use to be, and once as I am now.

Old Self: 96
Current Self: 60

I truly was a hateful person a long time ago. lol
A Marionette Master at their fullest at a young age... heh...

Making people fight each other, only to stop them and take the glory as a hero...
I am a horrid person... One that should never be forgiven... because I wanted the world to do so... A long time ago..

"If one can not trust oneself, then who can one trust? Even one's eyes can lie..."

[Unknown Entity]

I got 54!

Erm... Is that good or bad? What does it say about me? That I'm honest, or sneaky?

[Yuki-onna]

85. High mach. Of course, I'm ever the pessimist....this is nothing new? I still have a little optimism though....it's okay....sssh.

[Inagi]

I got a 52. Low Mach.

Yay for being in the middle.

I find this a bit funny since my lucky number is 52, lol.

[OceanEyes28]

I've been placed at 55, which seems reasonable enough to me. I do have a few trust and vulnerability issues, and I can work my way around a social situation rather well; but all in all, I am optimistic about the human race and the people I encounter within it. I'm a little romantic and am very open about my opinions. And when put in extreme situations, I believe in most people to summon up some kind of valour. Oh me, I've spelled it like a Brit. Ah well, I'll keep it. Anyway, yes, there are those I distrust, and I won't usually put myself in a situation that might compromise my physical safety. But all the same, I suppose I fall in with the suckers. Fair enough, I still have a lot of love left in me.

I did enjoy The Prince, though. I found it interesting. Perhaps there is a part of me that wishes I could be more cynical than I am. Who knows?

[LocoColt04]

I... actually expected the test to be longer.

And there were a couple of questions that I had to spend some time thinking about, just to be sure, but I went with my gut instinct on the questions. If any question contained an absolute (as in "all" rather than "most of the time"), it was an easy answer for me.

In that regard, I scored an 86 on the test. I don't want to say that I'm a pessimist so much as I am a realist. If the questions had contained fewer absolutes, that score would likely be much lower, probably around the 50-60 range. I'm sure that's how a lot of you chose to answer anyhow, right?

[Sinister]

I should think that a more accurate test would have more questions, as well, Loco. It seems to me the test is rather short to put up a Machiavellian summation of any real person. But I suppose it's still close, or at least in the general direction, at any rate.

[Neo Necron]

I scored 48. Sounds about right, though I think if I ever needed to take a Machiavellianist approach to a problem, which I would do under EXTREME circumstances, or in a harmless situation such as a game, I could pull it off. However, I prefer honesty when it is available.

[Furore]

I scored 48. Sounds about right, though I think if I ever needed to take a Machiavellianist approach to a problem, which I would do under EXTREME circumstances, or in a harmless situation such as a game, I could pull it off. However, I prefer honesty when it is available.

Same as me and Chez.
I think it's come up the most for some reason...

I'd say more people who have a stronger will than others will probably have a high mach.

Maybe in general, but look at me. I tend to be more often honest then not, but I'm an asshole half the time in the way that I stick to what I believe.
It takes a strong will not to resort to manipulating people just as much as it takes a strong will to remember how you manipulated them and how to keep the ship afloat.

[Pete]

I agree with Joe and Nathan. I think us low-Mach's could be cutthroat assholes if we really wanted to, but we just prefer to sit back, relax and watch the show. However, when I'm behind the wheel of a car, I become an ultra-Mach, but that's just how you have to be when you drive. Most of the time, I can tell you what stupid thing people are going to do before they do it.

Most of the time, I'm just mingling with people and having a good time, not so much thinking of how I can get ahead or be seen as superior to everyone else, because nine times out of ten, in the crowds I hang out with, it would lead to some sort of drama. All in all, yes, the world does need some cutthroat people, but in moderation. There's a time and a place for all of those shenanigans, and unless it's in the office and you're vying for some sort of insane promotion or project, it's unnecessary. Though it's pretty hilarious how you can spot the high Machs and low Machs based on speech/ writing patterns alone, at least on this site.

Though, I think there's a difference in preparing for the worst and expecting the best, and simply assuming that everything will go to shit because other people are stupid. One implies preparation while the other seems something like an excuse. "Well, if x didn't screw up y, then we wouldn't be in this mess," and so on.

[Jin]

Uhhh...this isn't about being a jerk or a pessimist. It's about placing practicality above morality and facing the realities of what one has to do to gain power and/or influence.

Your cause can be as noble as you want.

[Pete]

What I mean by that is along the lines of expecting others to be inferior and capitalizing on that. To me, it's purely self-serving in more than just trying to get ahead, but it's almost like justifying treachery and being an asshole as a means to getting ahead.

I also feel that ethics and nobility should go hand in hand. I don't believe in underhandedness as a means of getting ahead, but yes I know that it works. However, I would rather get ahead through hard work and determination, rather than cutting corners and essentially throwing people under the bus if it serves my own purpose.

And it does have to do with being a jerk or a pessimist. In realizing what has to be done to attain ones goals. In the business world, there are tons of successful people who would do whatever it takes to get that promotion, or make partner or whatever their goal is. I'm not saying it's everyone, but look at the Enron or Tyco executives. They wanted their huge paydays, essentially at the expense of all of their employees retirement funds. Now that's being a jerk.

Being a pessimist, or expecting the worst and hoping for the best, is much more of a low-Mach trait, as it's how your average worker would look at things. It could be summed up by working hard and just going into work everyday, expecting something to go wrong, but showing up anyway because you hope your hard work leads to a promotion.

Now, I'm not saying that everyone is 100% one way or the other all of the time, nor am I saying that people with one trait or the other are assholes or pussies, or even bad people. I'm just saying that when the shit hits the fan, you can bet that more often than not, a high-Mach is planning on how to hide behind someone else and capitalize.

[Bleachfangirl]

I scored 44 on the test, and I've no idea what that means. It said I was a low mach, so I think I didn't agree with half the answers. The little window said most people were somewhere in the middle, but here, the numbers seem to be fluctuating a lot up there. I'm still trying to figure out what that means. *sigh*