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.

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

The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100

Your Machiavelli score is: 74

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

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

The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100

Your Machiavelli score is: 59

"low Mach", you reject Machiavelli's opinions.

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

The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100

Your Machiavelli score is: 63

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

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

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.

Mine was 63.

This is probably because I view most people as good although living an ethical life too is challenging for some people, hence the need to be pragmatic.

The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100

Your Machiavelli score is: 60

You are a "average Mach."

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

45.

hhhhmmmm....

I scored a total of 77. Not sure if thats a good or bad thing. it said i had a high index on the chart.

This is a bit of a bitter-sweet test because it's view of the world is so cynical. Machiavelli, after all, is the author of the book on how to survive by manipulating vain ineffective princes, and their subjects, in a chaotic, mediaeval world.

By these standards a high score could mean that you're cynical, manipulative or pragmatic. Likewise a low score could mean that you are gullible, naive or simply think very kindly of others.

Assuming the test was well-designed and carefully tested, which I doubt, a score towards the middle is probably the best result.

For it's a only cynic that divides the world in such a way - into the the cynical and the vulnerable.

Mine was 76.

Mine was 61

I got 50, a low match. You're right PG, it did seem very cynical.
_________________
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?success=1&id=774379290 Add me as a friend if you would like too!

61

apparantly I endorse Machiavelli's opinions.

That bloke (or should I say historical Italian gentleman) wrote the book on cynical, literally.

It is one of the great book on it's type and well worth reading, if only because you often see references to it and to counter cynics who might be trying to use those treacherous ideas against you.

It is called Machiavelli's "The Prince" if anyone wants to get a copy or read it on-line.

Actually I find Sun Tzu's "Art of War" to be more useful and interesting myself. A far more wholesome application of human cunning.