How Machiavellian are you?

[cloakable]

Looking around the site PsiKik posted here (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=917), I noticed a test there, and decided to take it, and share it here. The test is here (http://www.totemchallenge.org/2beINTP/machans.php).

My results:

You are extremely Machiavellian. Practical to the point of being a hard-headed cynic, not very trusting about human nature, and ready to deal with what is, rather than what ought to be.

EDIT: Added a poll.

[libertarianjim]

My results: Type B -- You are more cautious about trusting human nature and less idealistic than those above. You know that selfishness can sometimes get in the way of lofty ideals.

Although I was pretty close to the B/C borderline.

[INTrPosr]

Your Machiavellian Score Is: 30

24-36Type B You are more cautious about trusting human nature and less idealistic than those above. You know that selfishness can sometimes get in the way of lofty ideals.

[file cabinet]

Your Machiavellian Score Is: 40
37-50
Type C
You are extremely Machiavellian. Practical tothe point of being a hard-headed cynic, not very trusting about human nature, and ready to deal with what is, rather than what ought to be.

[Hypnos]

I'm a Type B wussy.

I'd like to think that I am ruthless in executing the edicts from my conscience.

[Avengardh]

Score: 26

You are more cautious about trusting human nature and less idealistic than those above. You know that selfishness can sometimes get in the way of lofty ideals.

[Arioch]

Score: 28

You are more cautious about trusting human nature and less idealistic than those above. You know that selfishness can sometimes get in the way of lofty ideals.

I wonder if this makes me a INTP version of a idealist?

[Boozer]

Type B, 24

[Arcael]

no type a's yet, thats predictable :P

[jittus rye]

I am type A. Although I am very cold, I am also a realist. So maybe that makes me luke-wam.

I disagreed on all of the questions.

For example, most people think pocket books then right and wrong. I think most people conciously disregard right and wrong for money, but hell, they know what they are doing.

I just answered the questions applying natural laws.

Bring on the hate of the different.

score-22

According to my theories on do people deserve help, and my opinions of human nature, I would have to say I disagree with myself.


Do People Deserve Help?

I think everyone should help themselves. The only time people need help is when they are psychologically ill, but do not realize it, and have the means to pay for their treatment. There have been times when I have turned down, and when I haven't turned down, poor kids in my neighborhood selling candy for a dollar. There is mutual respect between most people. Respect is more important than compassion. If the kid plays his or her little cards right, and doesn't act like a jackass, and I want that chocolate being the piggish American that I am, then I will gladly hand over my 10 minutes worth of manual labor form of currency for a chocolate bar. I will not however hand money over to a beggar or someone that doesn't treat the person they are begging from with respect. I am sure some of you are familiar with the "Lion's Club." They stand outside of stores every Christmas or fund raising season or so collecting loose change for maybe a tootsie roll or just a godbless. I've given to these people on several occasions. Be it for veterans of war or for homeless children. It comes down to mutual respect.
I've had people not of my family live in my household before. One a little black girl who was of a crack whore white mother. I liked the girl the same as I might like apple pie, as much as my sisters, and she stayed in my household on and off for over a years time total.
I have lived alone with my father when we were at the very bottom of the lower class, not homeless though, my father isn't ignorant. He worked everyday and paid the rent, fed myself, and then fed himself. I've been in many locations and I think it is safe to say people can move around if something isn't working for them. My opinions on compassion, starting as follows are this:

1. All people who need some type of help don't deserve the help. But it doesn't mean they can't get it if they try hard enough. People in the civilized world just don't randomly starve to death, there is a process that takes place before this happens, and they can fail to go on living if they're ignorant enough.

-No one deserves anything, the only thing that is deserved are punishments, not justice, but punishments, the term justice implies something good, and people don't deserve good or bad. They only deserve cause and effect. And that my friend, is punishment.

2. If people are helped instead of made to suffer, they will not become useful to society. Sometimes the suffering may lead to people trying to stop the suffering, getting a job, trying harder in life, establishing plans, making goals, or committing suicide. Either way people are made to do what is natural to them. Try to survive, to better themselves, and become more advanced. The will to survive is greater than the gift of compassion.

3. This brings us to the useless and helpless. These are the people which I haft not any compassion whatsoever for. Darwinian theory at its best. Ahh, human nature, I love it.

Here we have learned that people, humans do not need the idea of compassion. The only ones that need survive and prosper are those with good minds, and good genes. This unfortunately isn't the case, and the shit of society lives on, forever infesting the gene pool of humanity. Thanks to all the bleeding hearts and welfare programs.
There is nothing that a person cannot do themselves. The only time this is a factor is when they are born poor, lived in an area where there has been education taught poorly, and were only able to get a poor job. This for example wouldn't let a father pay for a million dollar operation on his child for instance. Here is where someone has to make up their mind. It is in no way possible for this man to accomplish the task of paying for such a thing, but it was someone in his family's fault for bringing him into such a situation in the first place. If something like this were to happen to myself, I would surely die. My father would in no way be able to pay for such a thing. Rather than people giving money away for something like this, why not get something in return? Lifetime slavery maybe, who knows? Would I be someone's slave for the rest of my life earning them as much money as possible under poor living conditions with no livelihood whatsoever in order to just survive? Certainly. But then again my life may never end up being worth the million dollars someone forked over for the operation, seeing as that money may be more successfully invested than what I could earn over a period of time. If that is the case, then my life is worthless.
It is hard to draw the line between a little and a lot of compassion. Is a little compassion 10 dollars? 100 dollars? 1000 dollars? Or more?
An honest workingman is laid off one day. Being a person of reason, he has always believed that love equates happiness so he had a humdrum job that let him see his wife all the time, for he wanted to be happier. He was a rather intelligent man, so he realized that he was in some real trouble when he found out the nation's job market was already completely saturated and his job no longer existed. The man tries looking for work for several months. His wife and himself having cut back a lot on their expenses. He had the reasonable sum of three thousand dollars saved in his bank account, but with rent costs of 500 dollars a month, let alone the cost of electricity, car payments, and food, the money would surely be gone in no time. Four months go by and it has become apparent that the man nearly has no money left to his name. He dodges the rent for a month and him and his wife really cut down on their food and electricity spending, canceling the cable, but keeping the phone. Eventually he is evicted and he now has nothing left but his car. It still hasn't been paid off, but luckily he wasn't too greedy and got a rather old model that had cheap insurance attached to it.
Here we have a perfectly good American soul living without unemployment so far, let's read on to find out what happens next. They park their car in a nearby recreational park. His wife now on the verge of an emotional breakdown, and feeling love is not enough stares coldly into the concrete landscape. It is found that they can both keep from starving by eating less than five dollars of food a day, or less than $2.50 each per day. That along with free water fountains help them physically survive. The man sets off, walking through the streets looking for any type of work he can find. Eventually he comes upon a place where he can work below minimum wage in order to make 50 dollars per day. The work is harsh, and physically testing, not to mention against certainly some labor laws. Having to work from 9 to 9 disheartens him as well. By working in such a fashion for such a generous employer he manages to bring home what is needed. His wife and him start eating better as the money for car payments, some money for gas, and money for food is rolling in. Eventually he builds his bank account to an acceptable level, and the car finally gets paid off. It is high times in the concrete recreational park. They will not have to live like this forever. Was the man lucky? I don't think so. Was this story pretty honest? I think so. Are this man's bad traits self-defeating to me? No. Are other's bad traits that are actually something bad, self-defeating to me? No. These things must be said because some believe that to have such an attitude is hurtful to humanity as a whole, and would eat away at a person.
Life isn't meant to be enjoyed until someone has worked through its struggle, or was born already through it. If people cannot sacrifice fun and games for having money, so be it. After discussion with my peers they wanted to muddy things up a bit with some imaginary scenarios:

“1. A baby is lying in a dumpster, alone and asleep. This baby is not crying or suggesting the need for immediate help.

2. A man is bleeding and lying on the street. He is screaming for help and waving a gun in one hand.

3. A woman is crying and confiding to me that her marriage is in a shambles. Her face is bruised and she is afraid to go back home. She says she doesn't know what to do or where to go, but asks for nothing.

Do any of these scenarios allow motivation to go beyond my understanding of universal suffering and take some action to help them? Why? If I take no action to help them, does this constitute the earning of resources that would otherwise be diverted to these 3 individuals?”

1. The baby isn't able to understand what situation it is in, and hasn't developed enough to save itself, so it is in general, important to pull the child out of the garbage or tell someone there is a kid in the trash, even if no more can be done. The baby isn't suffering, but it would most likely die if compacted by a garbage truck. I always believed such a thing was like murder.

2. One should probably call the police or tell someone to call the police, obviously some bad shit just went down. It is against the law to give the man physical assistance.

3. Offer her advice if you have any, and tell her to go to the police. Assault is a crime.

Other than a few moments of your time, you didn't lose many resources. I enjoy wasting my time to see out of the ordinary things take place or have out of the ordinary experiences. Adventures. The government deals with situations like this, that is why they tax you.

"What about having enough social welfare, that you don't need to worry about getting shot by angry poor people. No matter how smart and together you are, the side effects of other people's problems can affect you negatively. Are you so principled, that you want to put your life at risk by cultivating a large population of angry poor people (even if their poverty is their fault)?"
That is a very real problem that has been mentioned. The only option is forced labor camps I'd say. People could perhaps go on parole for good behavior if they promised to try outside of the camps. Talk about sewing the seeds of an evil empire, others might think. But isn’t this divine justice? Isn’t this supreme order? Everyone in their place, the poor and ignorant using such a system would stay poor and ignorant, but perhaps now feel spite. Out of spite they might rise through the ranks of society. It is up to you to decide if such a thing yields perfection. I have made my decision. And I’ve decided no.

Let me add to this by saying, I have a ruthless spirit :) .

[jimkopelli]

Yet another B. There seems to be a pattern here...

[cloakable]

Yet another B. There seems to be a pattern here...

You mean, besides the crude pattern the graph makes?
:D

[jimkopelli]

Just like the one in the penis size poll... only longer... What does that say about Machiavelli?

[nobarcode]

lol


anyway, type B here

[ohnoaninfp]

Your Machiavellian Score Is: 18
10-23 Type A You are not at all Machiavellian. Some would say you are an idealist and an optimist about human nature. You have strong ideas about right and wrong.

I am not optomistic aboput human nature. I don't trust people. I would have to get to know them very well before I can trust them.

[MacGuffin]

I am beginning to think that test is stupid.

For example: A good president reads the polls to find out what people want and makes those things his policies.

The test wants you to to agree with that to get a higher Machiavellian score.

Presidents often do set policies to agree with polls. But does that make them "good", or even effective? I don't think so. Leaders lead. They could be Machiavellian and trick the people into a course of action, but choosing the course of action according to the polls can be pretty stupid.

[jimkopelli]

And yet another Pratchett plug...
Pratchett has a character called Vetinari who is pretty cool. He keeps a system of One Man, One Vote... he's the man, so he gets the vote.

[s]

Type: B, but by only one.

Score: 36

[Bluehaze]

Your Machiavellian Score Is: 22

Type A: You are not at all Machiavellian. Some would say you are an idealist and an optimist about human nature. You have strong ideas about right and wrong.

[Jezebel]

I got type A too

[coffeezombie]

I got B. I've seen cases where Machiavellianism applies and in others where "team working" is what gets you ahead. In any case, just being intelligent is not enough to really succeed anywhere in life. Academia might be the closest place one can do that, but even there, there is some crap politics going on among professors.

[QrioCT]

i got 36, right on the border to be a B. there's feelers in this world, so i gues there's values based on that too. but what works is what works.

[Shai Gar]

i read the prince a few years ago and i have got to say that if i was the leader of a nation or was planning on becoming one i would not rule with fear like he does. but i would lower taxes and the rest.

[Claverhouse]

i read the prince a few years ago and i have got to say that if i was the leader of a nation or was planning on becoming one i would not rule with fear like he does.

In which case you'd be dead within a year.




but i would lower taxes and the rest.

The idea that low tax is the key to success is purely a form of superstitious magic. The rich will support you, but not be satisfied, because they can't be satisfied until all the money in the world is in their own pocket ( See Conrad Black ); the middle-class will support you, but complain about the lack of services; the poor will realise they're getting screwed and turn to socialistic messiahs ( Marx, Hitler, Trotsky etc. ) or religious nut messiahs ( Savaronola, David Koresh, Rev. Dr. Jim Jones --- you may consider with those like the last that if they suicide the poor at least the poor can't rise up against you, but if that happens too often who's going to do the hard work ? ).

In practice, low tax rates applied to the higher incomes mean that the money has to be made up by higher 'stealth' indirect taxes on the greater mass of the poor. Suppose you don't, and you now have minimal income from taxes then you can't afford to pay your armed forces and police and maintain a usable infrastructure. Therefore you have to declare war upon some other country to take their assets.

Then the money runs out from that, and you have to invade and imperialise another country.

Besides which, after a while you will be in thrall to the bankers and private enterprise scammers, who will urge you to divert money their way to maintain the different parts of the infrastructure, roads, schools, army whatever. Which they will do very badly, whilst still taking money from the government to sustain their own income and profit. Which will mean to have to raise taxes to pay the private firms...




Claverhouse :ph34r:

[ Almost in the Third Position :shock:]

[Shai Gar]

someone seems quite scared of a low tax society. just because i wouldnt be robbing people blind does not mean i would not be getting quite a bit of money from other places

[jimkopelli]

An honest politician stays bought?

[Mr. Beef]

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



Are you a sociopath, or a "nice guy"?

[Hustler]

I think this test kind of sucks.

[Mr. Beef]

I think this test kind of sucks.

It's 1/5 the original length, so it's kind of brief, but it's designed to measure whether you view humans pessimistically or optimistically.

[Hustler]

It's 1/5 the original length, so it's kind of brief, but it's designed to measure whether you view humans pessimistically or optimistically.

I fail to see what optimism and pessimism have to do with the answers to that test.

[panda]

I fail to see what optimism and pessimism have to do with the answers to that test.
Agreed. I'm a high Mach, but I'm also optimistic and happy.

[panda]

Merged Mr. Beef's thread with the original Machiavellian thread.

[Mr. Beef]

I fail to see what optimism and pessimism have to do with the answers to that test.

Oh, i don't know....i guess being asked to determine something as open-ended as "are humans good or bad?" is more dependent on how you view the world than actual logic.



Agreed. I'm a high Mach, but I'm also optimistic and happu

YOU are optimistic, yet you don't view humans optimistically if you're indeed a high Mach.

[kuranes]

You know that selfishness can sometimes get in the way of lofty ideals.

The ultimate comeback on THIS side of things . . . .

[Hustler]

Merged Mr. Beef's thread with the original Machiavellian thread.

Thread merging is so J.

[C.J.Woolf]

YOU are optimistic, yet you don't view humans optimistically if you're indeed a high Mach.
That describes me. I scored 61, which was high Mach. (Does that make me supersonic?) I'm not predisposed to write off people before I see good reason to, but I tend to classify people: dependable and good (rare), lovable but flaky, well-meaning but weak, somewhat useful, total pain in the ass waste of time, vicious and best avoided, etc.

I'm always on the lookout for exceptions to the rule. I guess that's where optimism comes into it.

[sunako]

Type B, though I was one or two scores away from being extremely Machiavellian.