How evil/cunning are you?

I'm cunninger than a fox who has a degree in Cunning from the University of Oxford, and who now lectures in cunning.
 
The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100
Your Machiavelli score is: 45
You are a low Mach, you reject Machiavelli's opinions.

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

not sure what im going for really...
 
The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100
Your Machiavelli score is: 82
You are a high Mach, you endorse Machiavelli's opinions.
Most people fall somewhere in the middle, but there's a significant minority at either extreme.
 
nonconformist said:
I'm cunninger than a fox who has a degree in Cunning from the University of Oxford, and who now lectures in cunning.

do you specialise in stunts?
 
52- I'm not very evil or cunning. Oh well...
 
The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100
Your Machiavelli score is: 74
You are a high Mach, you endorse Machiavelli's opinions.
Most people fall somewhere in the middle, but there's a significant minority at either extreme.
 
I'm a 77.

Watch out!
 
The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100
Your Machiavelli score is: 88
You are a high Mach, you endorse Machiavelli's opinions.
Most people fall somewhere in the middle, but there's a significant minority at either extreme.
 
69, which is high - but the problem is, I feel that some of the questions measure whether you are Machiavellian, while some others measure whether you are pessimistic. Being Machiavellian usually refers to manipulating people - one can believe that many people are stupid, cowardly, and dishonest without being strictly machiavellian.

The point where I disagree most is with telling people the real reason for something, but maybe that's a wraparound. Telling people the real reason for something builds trust, so that it's easier to have them do what you ask because they know that your reasons are generally good. ;)

Comments?
 
I scored a 45, but, like most of these tests, it's pretty flawed. take question 3 for example;

dumb test said:
One should take action only when sure it is morally right.

Many people would recognise this as a recipe for paralysis and vote against it. Others might feel that morals are for wimps, and vote against it. These two groups of people could be at opposite ends of the "evil & cunning" spectrum, but would gain the same marks for this question.

I can't see how you can score much below about 35 without being willfully naive.

(PS The test claims to have a range of 0-100 - it doesn't. It has a range of 20-100.)
 
Erik Mesoy said:
69, which is high - but the problem is, I feel that some of the questions measure whether you are Machiavellian, while some others measure whether you are pessimistic. Being Machiavellian usually refers to manipulating people - one can believe that many people are stupid, cowardly, and dishonest without being strictly machiavellian.

Yup. XCL
 
74. Not the best test I've ever seen, what do people think is the best spectrum answer (neither naive nor manipulative)?
 
The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100
Your Machiavelli score is: 55
You are a low Mach, you reject Machiavelli's opinions.
Most people fall somewhere in the middle, but there's a significant minority at either extreme.
 
Here is mine:
The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100
Your Machiavelli score is: 79
You are a high Mach, you endorse Machiavelli's opinions.
Most people fall somewhere in the middle, but there's a significant minority at either extreme.
 
Back
Top Bottom