What's new
By:

What's your Mach-IV Machiavellianism score?

63. Didn't care for how the question were worded. Is it better to be humble and honest or important and dishonest? Hmmmm. Can we at least talk about it first?
 
Siro said:
63. Didn't care for how the question were worded. Is it better to be humble and honest or important and dishonest? Hmmmm. Can we at least talk about it first?
Click to expand...

watch him as he disseminates...
 
I tend to seldom choose the "strongly" answer in these tests. I also seldom give 5 or 1 star reviews for things. So I was never going to get a 100.

I scored an 80.

I'm a fan of Machiavelli. First read "The Prince" when my family was driving from SLC to Kanab for a family reunion when I was 13. I've read it probably 5-6 times. I feel strongly that it is misunderstood and that it is not cruel. I haven't read it in more than 10 years so maybe I'd feel different reading it today.

One thing I will say, it is my strongest foundation for my rejection of conspiracy theories. I bet for some that will seem to be contradictory.

In the end, "The Prince" talks a lot about why it is a bad idea to rely on mercenaries and auxiliary forces to win battles and why "a Prince" should reside in a newly conquered territory. There are a few paragraphs regarding the killing of an entire family of someone you have removed from power. And to me, the most impressive is the line "Men should be treated well or killed." Which I've always taken to mean that men should be treated well by default, because if you've read "The Prince" you'd understand that killing one man often means you need to kill a few dozen, and that doing so is never simple and has many known as well as unknown risks. Machiavelli cautions against cruelty very strongly.
 
Last edited:
Bulletproof said:
I tend to seldom choose the "strongly" answer in these tests. I also seldom give 5 or 1 star reviews for things. So I was never going to get a 100.

I scored an 80.

I'm a fan of Machiavelli. First read "The Prince" when my family was driving from SLC to Kanab for a family reunion when I was 13. I've read it probably 5-6 times. I feel strongly that it is misunderstood and that it is not cruel. I haven't read it in more than 10 years so maybe I'd feel different reading it today.

One thing I will say, it is my strongest foundation for my rejection of conspiracy theories. I bet for some that will seem to be contradictory.

In the end, "The Prince" talks a lot about why it is a bad idea to rely on mercenaries and auxiliary forces to win battles and why "a Prince" should reside in a newly conquered territory. There are a few paragraphs regarding the killing of an entire family of someone you have removed from power. And to me, the most impressive is the line "Men should be treated well or killed." Which I've always taken to mean that men should be treated well by default, because if you've read "The Prince" you'd understand that killing one man often means you need to kill a few dozen, and that doing so is never simple and has many known as well as unknown risks. Machiavelli cautions against cruelty very strongly.
Click to expand...

I tend to think those of us with higher scores would inherently be more honest. The prince was a text for a class i did on the history of political thought, wasn't a bad read but dated.
 
I'd find it fun to discuss each question here. Maybe someone could start a thread for question 1 today. A new thread for question 2 tomorrow. Like that.
 
Wes Mantooth said:
I'd find it fun to discuss each question here. Maybe someone could start a thread for question 1 today. A new thread for question 2 tomorrow. Like that.
Click to expand...
[MENTION=3213]Wes Mantooth[/MENTION] i would do it, but probably not the right person as i am the most ignored poster on this board
 
59. I think there were probably a few where "neutral" might have fit me better, but I guess I didn't want to be wishy-washy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top