I am a 76 out of 100 which isn't quite the true Mach-IV master dude. I was probably too reluctant on certain questions to give a full agree or full disagree.
>Is this like how psycho you are? No, it is a test which shows whether you agree or disagree with the principles laid out by Machiavelli in his book The Prince written 500 years ago.
Some people call Machiavelli "evil" or a "psycho" as you, others call him a genius and a person who saw the world how it really was (and still is). I am in the second camp, so for me a low score means "bluepilled" while a high score means "redpilled".
Scores 65 so I’m fairly run of the mill in my machiavellianess
Being this edgy
Landon Reed
57. Am I Normie?
William Stewart
no, that means that you have to trust me.
John Johnson
The questions are fucking retarded, you're going to score high if you're not naive about things. Just a terrible test through and through. Might as well be are you a realist test.
Jason Murphy
>He doesnt know Machiavelli was satire. Sad user, just sad.
I answered the questions the first timein a way which was the more logical and a true way of how I view my self and the way I view people and I scored a 62. I then retook it and answered in the most cynical ways possiable and scored a 100. Trump knows how to play ball that is why he scored a 100.
Nathan Jenkins
97
Everyone I know tries to put me down I learned the hard way not to say anything negative about yourself to ANYONE Opening up to people is a meme
Jaxson Roberts
>philosophy I disagree with is edgy Don’t you realise that by using Machiavellian ideas you can better persuade people to follow moral convictions? Take a pragmatic approach to it.
It’s psychological profiling, and even if this thread isn’t data mining I’m sure there are government of media anons ITT and are trying to determine if your average Jow Forums user is more or less Machiavellian than your average person. This thread has appeared several times but I don’t mind contributing because I’m curious as to the profile of your average user here.
it's useless, because what will this knowledge give them? what will be the actual gain? like >okay boys, let's launch the shill machine 2k onto these suckers or >hmmm, Jow Forums is machiavelian, we have to shut it down, I repeat, shut it down with extreme prejudice
we are much worse than machiavellic, we are the ocean of human waste (a.k.a. piss)
Jace Diaz
>This thread has appeared several times but I don’t mind contributing because I’m curious as to the profile of your average user here. >it hasn't appeared ever >plus you haven't even stated your score despite posting 5 replies
Jesus Christ, my Mach-IV score got 2 points lower because I told you the truth in your posting face
I have a very low estimation of other people and I acknowledge that I lie and obfuscate my intentions for why I do things because of this. I don't really think this chart proves much other than being a benchmark for people who are truthful about how they approach situations. The more idealistic you view yourself and others the less your score will be. If you accept humans as flawed and selfish desperately trying to trying to scratch out a slight hovel to exist using any means possible you score higher.
>Machiavellian It's pretty fucking obvious we all are. I don't know what they will gain from the data mine though. Unless it's a correlation of intelligence, and from a lot of Jow Forums users, I know a large percentage of us here are high tier scientists and coders. If not the above, then well read historians. It's most likely sizing up our capabilities.
Jason Rivera
I'm well aware this is probably all being recorded but I'm proud of my score; 88.
Elijah Wood
>high tier scientists and coders. shhh.... ((((we are not)))) we are just posting satire
David Young
>Wanted to do this as honest as possible without giving meme answers
100/100
David Anderson
Straight razors are nice. I have 4, need to get a 7 day set though. Steel needs to rest after stropping. Expensive though...
Tyler Johnson
Agreed, if asked how I would like things to be I would answer far more idealistically, as they are phrased even as I believe how you should act would be to act in a way that is best for you in the world we live now, thus I answer cynically. Rather instead I would love if we didn't have to manipulate others to get what we want, but that is the world we have created.
Aaron Morgan
Of course this is a satirical website, otherwise I wouldn't have lied...just then. Cough.
Jeremiah Brown
I probably would have gotten 100 if i didn't put neutral on 2 of them.
70. The parts where I lost 30 points are obviously where Machiavelli was wrong.
Eli Peterson
What? Not trying to be rude, I understand that English is your first language, but unless I’m schizophrenic a thread very similar to this one (with a German OP) has appeared before. Also the second post I made contained my results, see >Jesus Christ, my Mach-IV score got 2 points lower because I told you the truth in your posting face I don’t know what you mean by this. The reason why I don’t mind contributing is because data mined ITT won’t be very useful, as other anons have pointed out.
Ian Brown
If you answer this test honestly you aren’t Machiavellian at all.
>Unless it's a correlation of intelligence, and from a lot of Jow Forums users, I know a large percentage of us here are high tier scientists and coders. >If not the above, then well read historians. >It's most likely sizing up our capabilities. I’d say more genuinely intelligent people representatively than most of the population, but there’s also a lot of anons on this board that are borderline retarded.
That is true also. It's kind of like the inverse of the real world.
Jose Reyes
Good goyim. Don't be too surprised if this exact thread appears on a future (((study))) regarding psychological profiling of Jow Forums users, it's just "for scientific purposes", heh heh.
>a low score means "bluepilled" while a high score means "redpilled" Not necessarily. I know some people who think they're good negotiators/manipulators, but in reality they're fucking retards whom the rest just tolerate and do things for them out of pity and/or to be left alone rather than being "persuaded" in any means by the former.
81 out of 100. It might have been higher if I decided to be an edgy faggot and answer the questions based on what would get the highest results like some of the faggots here do on these tests.
Noah Harris
I scored sage/100
Justin Wright
>"It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there." >"It is wise to flatter important people." >"Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble." >"Most people are brave." >"P.T. Barnum was wrong when he said that there's a sucker born every minute."
It's not like any of the statements provide a some sort of moral dilemma, where you have to overtly choose personal gain over morality. They're just common sense statements, that are hard to answer not in the Machiavellian direction.
Cameron Mitchell
So that means they are being Machiavellian to score higher on the tests?