# The Machiavellian Test



## asewland

This is a test that measures the amount of Machiavellian traits you have in you. I want to see how your MBTI type relates to your score: 
Machiavellianism Test (MACH-IV)



> My results:
> Your score was 74 of 100.
> 
> This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.
> 
> A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative.


----------



## Zombie Devil Duckie

Your score was 64 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## Knight_In_Rags

Your score was 56 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative. 










INFPs are idealists so obviously Machiavelli wouldn't approve of us.


----------



## StraightCrushin

Your score was 57 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.

ENTP.

But anyway, I would like to say my seeing goodness in people is becoming very strained. I am starting to withdraw and take a more self-sufficient approach to life as opposed to collaborating and relying on others just out of self-preservation. The earth seems to be running low on altruistic people. Or maybe it's just where I live :crazy:


----------



## nádej

ENFP.

Your score was *53 of 100.*

This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## Jojo354

ENTP

Your score was 53 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli

I wonder how I would do on this test? :crazy::laughing:




Actually I've seen this test several times. Surprise, surprise, I always score REALLY high. However I don't think that means anything, because I know what the questions are asking and therefore I can dictate how I'll score. With that said though, I do believe the high score is accurate.


----------



## StraightCrushin

Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> I wonder how I would do on this test? :crazy::laughing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I've seen this test several times. Surprise, surprise, I always score REALLY high. However I don't think that means anything, because I know what the questions are asking and therefore I can dictate how I'll score. With that said though, I do believe the high score is accurate.


HAHA. These are the moments I live for. Thank you for making my day!


----------



## killerB

Your score was 58 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _low Machs_, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative. 











Probably some silly NF thing. I actually don''t have much faith in the world or people any more.


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli

I'll go over the questions though... 





> Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so.


I couldn't agree more. My one buddy said to me once, "You know, whenever you say you are going to do something, you always say the socially acceptable reason for doing it, and then you follow it up by saying the _real _reason for doing it. Like 'I'm going to help with this charity because I really support what they are trying to do, and there are probably hot naive girls there." Thanks to his observation though, now I make sure I only give the socially acceptable reason and never the real reason, unless it is strategically beneficial. 



> The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear.


Usually, but not always. There are exceptions where telling them the truth is more useful.



> One should take action only when sure it is morally right.


:laughing:



> Most people are basically good and kind.


I would strongly agree with this one, if we added the following, "Most people *wish to appear as though they* are basically good and kind."




> It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance.


Safest indeed.



> Honesty is the best policy in all cases.


:laughing:



> There is no excuse for lying to someone else.


Sure there are. Lot's of them actually. To get what you want, to help you achieve a goal, because you felt like it, etc. 




> Generally speaking, people won't work hard unless they're forced to do so.


A good general rule, indeed.



> All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest.


Disagree completely.



> When you ask someone to do something for you, it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which carry more weight.


No, no, no, no, no. :laughing: This is why people have a hard time influencing others, because they do stupid shit like this. 



> Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives.


I kinda doubt that. :laughing: I don't think most people in general lead "clean moral lives."



> Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble.


Agree times a thousand. What can I say, I have trust issues. But that aside, this is great advice.



> The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that the criminals are stupid enough to get caught.


I disagree. I think the biggest difference is that "regular people" respond to incentives better. If they knew for certain that they could rob a bank without getting caught, they would definitely do it.



> Most people are brave.


No.



> It is wise to flatter important people.


Yes.



> It is possible to be good in all respects.


No.



> P.T. Barnum was wrong when he said that there's a sucker born every minute.


Yes he was. In truth, there is a sucker born every second. :laughing: A few of them even! 



> It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there.


It is hard*er*. 



> People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death.


Yes, I support euthanasia. 



> Most people forget more easily the death of their parents than the loss of their property.


That depends how much property was at stake.


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli

StraightCrushin said:


> HAHA. These are the moments I live for. Thank you for making my day!


No problem!


----------



## starshipuk

Your score was 82 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because of that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## Zster

49 - LOWWWWW mach. How shocking.


----------



## StraightCrushin

Zster said:


> 49 - LOWWWWW mach. How shocking.


Why's that? Is it cause you're an ENFP?


----------



## RoughEstimate

46 out of 100.
Lowmachs.
Go figure.


----------



## Waynetta180

62 out of 100. INFP ( ? _ ? )

This puts you in the high Machs...
Yeah I agree with my score, I'm becoming more & more disgusted with the World over the past while. 
The greed and corruption baffles me. 
I'd feel terrible if I were to tell someone about an article I read/news I heard, and made a mistake with even a little piece of information, like a figure, location etc. It would bother me until I tell them I was wrong. Maybe I'm alone on this?! But I often think about why people hurt one another & it's upsetting. The governments are Hippocrates. Not only them though...


----------



## Jewl

Pffft. 

I got *37* out of 100. ENFP. 

Lol. ^^


----------



## Aerorobyn

Your score was 80 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative.


----------



## Randroth

52/100 -- low Machs.

Not terribly surprised considering I'm not too big into manipulating people. However, I do have a very dim, Hobbesian view of humanity. I don't doubt that what we call civilized society really only exists because each individual by and large benefits from not going berserk on their fellow man.


----------



## MNiS

> Your score was 55 of 100.
> 
> This puts you in the category of the _low Machs_, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.


I guess I agree. Machiavelli was pretty misunderstood and I think that was due to politics during his time being pretty messed up.


----------



## Empress Appleia Cattius XII

Your score was 86 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 

*looks shifty eyed*


----------



## silverlark

i scored 50 of 100... i have low machs, are you really surprised?


----------



## cannibaltasticgummybear

Your score was 86 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## RachelAn

Your score was 80 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli

ENTP


My score was 87 of 100.*

Uber high Mach-foo.


----------



## funcoolname

Your score was 57 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of. 


I'm fine with this.


----------



## The Great One

Your score was 82 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _high Machs_, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.

EDIT: And to think: I used to think that I was an Fi user. Guess not, lol.


----------



## Ramysa

Your score was 51 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _low Machs_, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative.


----------



## Phoenix0

Your score was 70 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _high Machs_, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 

Yea I hate the world :3


----------



## Alaya

INFJ

Your score was 72 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## SophiaScorpia

Your score was 78 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _high Machs_, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 


--->>>Oh my, oh my. Now, that's more like it! Woohoo! Cheers for sneaky and crafty ones! The day will come, we shall rule the world!! :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :laughing:


----------



## Isis

I was 79 out of 100....

only problem being that even though I see the strong benefits of dishonesty, I don't seem to really act this way in practice...


----------



## Saira

_Your score was 77 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the_ high Machs_, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because of that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of._

Yeah, people are basically selfish jerks and cowards. And P.T. Barnum's "A sucker is born every minute" is totally true. I don't feel the least guilty of exploiting them. It's their own fault they're suckers. Mwahaha.


----------



## Xiong Mao

INTJ with a 69...not surprising :dry:


----------



## Metaplanar

...73.

I'm actually not that manipulative. But there's no doubt that that tactic works if your aim is simply to get ahead. Also no doubt that there are a lot of suckers and cowards. Doesn't compel me to exploit that, as long as there are other possibilities.


----------



## mushr00m

Your score was 48 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _low Machs_, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative.


----------



## Nymma

Your score was 70 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _high Machs_, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.

Accurate score, I was always aware of a hidden machiavellian streak somewhere within me.


----------



## dcclxxii

Your score was 80 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## owlet

Your score was 45 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _low Machs_, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.

 Quite low, lol!


----------



## Tad Cooper

Your score was 40 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _low Machs_, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.

Weirdly low, I must like people!


----------



## skycloud86

Your score was 73 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative. 








_


----------



## rosencrantz

INTJ



> Your score was *84 of 100. *
> 
> This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.
> 
> A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative.





>


----------



## Choice

Your score was 57 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _low Machs_, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of. 
--

The questions annoyed me. e.g. "sucker born every minute" - I can't disagree or agree since I've no statistics to back that up.


----------



## Eliyahu

My results:
Your score was 82 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## Anonynony

Your score was 53 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _low Machs_, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative.


----------



## DeductiveReasoner

scored 79 out of 100.

Apparently Machiavelli would approve of me?


----------



## Flash FM

Your score was 80 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _high Machs_, people who do not believe in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## ParetoCaretheStare

Your score was 58 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _low Machs_, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative. 

_Hmmm, so Machiavelli DIDN'T approve of those who couldn't be easily manipulated? So if we're enduring a mass genocide, he would approve of the ones that decide to stay in this hellhole of a life? I think I'll stay on the planet, where I can choose my own destiny and understand when I'm being used for unethical purposes, honey. After all, even hell on earth can have its holy moments. 

_


----------



## xEmptiness

Your score was 83 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative. 








_


----------



## tberg

Your score was 58 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative. 








_


----------



## obstinatesnooperr

Your score was 72 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _high Machs_, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative. 










I'm pretty sure I'm either ISTP or ESTP (can't decide whether Ti Se Ni Fe or Se Ti Fe Ni), but I'm leaning toward ISTP.


----------



## Jewl

Took the test again for the heck of it. 32 out of 100 this time.  Apparently I have much faith in humanity? Too optimistic, maybe? XD This test does seem a bit biased towards being what it calls "Machiavellianism", though. The test has the typical problem of asking you how much you agree with something, but not asking why. I'm certain lots of people would get lower scores than they are currently getting. ^_^



> Your score was 32 of 100.
> 
> This puts you in the category of the _low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.
> 
> A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative.
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


----------



## DomNapoleon

Your score was 64 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative. 

__







_​


----------



## staticmud

_I have taken this test before. I scored high then as well._

Your score was 86 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _high Machs_, people who do not believe in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative.


----------



## Faithiest

50 out of 100. Fuck Machiavelli, I want to help people for a living!


----------



## 37119

Your score was 74 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _high Machs_, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 

I have some trust issues.


----------



## Caterell

Your score was 51 of 100. This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## darude11

Your score was 59 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _low Machs_, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative. 









nice, I tought I'll have 80+ score


----------



## SherlyDEDUCE

*68/100*

_"This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. "

_INTJ_

_


----------



## corvus12

Your score was 60 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative. 








_


----------



## Metalize

I don't really like this test. For example, if I wholly disagree with this:


Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives. 

It does not mean that I would endorse that ideology; it would just be noting a personal observation on my part. It does not indicate that I would risk my personal morality to "get ahead", simply that I personally believe there is a negative correlation between the two. 



Your score was 67 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _high Machs, people who do not believe in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 
_


----------



## ALongTime

Metasentient said:


> I don't really like this test, although it's good in concept. For example, if I wholly disagree with this:
> 
> 
> Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives. 
> 
> That doesn't make me "Machiavellian", nor does it mean that I would endorse that ideology. It would just be a personal observation on my part. It does not indicate that I would risk my personal morality to "get ahead", simply that I personally believe there is a negative correlation between the two.


You're right, in fact if you disagree that statement then my instinct would be to say that would mean you're not a Machiavellian. I don't know which way that is scored to be honest.


----------



## Metalize

ALongTime said:


> You're right, in fact if you disagree that statement then my instinct would be to say that would mean you're not a Machiavellian. I don't know which way that is scored to be honest.


I edited my post a bit when I realized that perhaps I had an incomplete definition of "Machiavellian" - I had thought the term is used to describe one's external behavior based on a set of certain beliefs/motivations... not the indication of one's worldview. I don't have to believe that "most people are bad" to decide that I'd rather not be manipulative/"evil" anyway, even if it costs me on some physical material level... or to understand that a high degree of awareness is necessary in order not to get manipulated/otherwise unfavorably treated.


----------



## Darkbloom

I think that person knows if they are or aren't Machiavellian without the test anyway


----------



## Katie Koopa

Your score was 78 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## Bassmasterzac

Estp - 80.


----------



## sacrosanctsun

Your score was 62 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not believe in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## Nein

Your score was 98 of 100. 

hahaha... haha... ha.


----------



## smooooth

Your score was 68 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. _


----------



## To_august

_Your score was *81 of 100*. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative. _


----------



## keiralexa

INFJ

Your score was 53 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## Notus Asphodelus

Your score was 68 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not believe in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Living dead said:


> I think that person knows if they are or aren't Machiavellian without the test anyway


Not really. People like me & I see myself as this nice dude <.< yet I got 80.


----------



## Darkbloom

FreeBeer said:


> Not really. People really like me & I see myself as this nice dude <.< yet I got 80.


And do you like people and see them as nice? :laughing:


----------



## LibertyPrime

Living dead said:


> And do you like people and see them as nice? :laughing:


XD hell no. I like some individuals sure, other then that ....


----------



## finesthour

Your score was 61 of 100.

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative. 

Wow. Maybe I made a mistake somewhere.


----------



## lunagattina

this is unexpected:


Your score was 55 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## Recluse BrainStormer333

Only 86 out of 100... I failed . It should be 100 out of 100.


----------



## ScientiaOmnisEst

68/100.

What? From other descriptions the low-Machs sound more like how I see myself. I wanted to answer "Neutral" to a lot of those questions, generalizations are hard.


----------



## Jenko

ENTP

84 - 100 High Machs.


----------



## Rhaegar

Your score was 78 of 100.

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## Im FiNe

53 out of 100.


----------



## HoldenCawffled

76 out of 100.

I dunno. I have trust issues definitely, and sometimes I use people and all that, but I value honesty and love being honest to myself and about myself so.


----------



## Hei

Your score was 52 of 100 :tongue:


----------



## QuiteCharmed

Your score was 58 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## tokillamockinghuman

Your score was 66 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## Aetheria

Your score was 28 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _low Machs_, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.

:crazy:


----------



## LavenderMoon

1.4K





Your score was 42 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## GoosePeelings

*Your score was 72 of 100. *

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## Fuzzystorm

Your score was 66 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _high Machs_, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## Ardielley

Interesting... probably a bit unusual for an INFP, too.

Your score was 62 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative._


----------



## Occams Chainsaw

As requested:

Your score was 100 of 100.

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative. 










Paha


----------



## Simpson17866

INTP: Your score was 67 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 

... For those of you - such as myself - who wish there was a "Medium" category, the cutoff is 60=Low to 61=High


----------



## Amelia

Your score was 69 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative.


----------



## Highway Nights

Your score was 77 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative.


----------



## gardengnome

INFP:

Your score was 70 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## yanibrin

(INFP)

Your score was 53 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## charlie.elliot

I got 48


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

Your score was 60 of 100. 


This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## Windblownhair

Your score was 71 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.

*****

I would like to say I have more faith in the world. It's one of the things that makes FPs absolutely charming to me. But I don't honestly believe it. There's a lot to be said about being guarded.


----------



## Occams Chainsaw

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> Your score was 60 of 100.
> 
> 
> This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.


You clearly lied on the test you Machiavellian psychopath. Don't think your fluffy, pink facade has anybody fooled.

I'm on to you.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

Occams Chainsaw said:


> You clearly lied on the test you Machiavellian psychopath. Don't think your fluffy, pink facade has anybody fooled.
> 
> I'm on to you.


lol. i got the perfect score without even trying!!! 60 is apparently the "saint" cutoff


----------



## Occams Chainsaw

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> lol. i got a perfect score without even trying!!! 60 is apparently the "saint" cutoff


And we're supposed to believe it 'just happened'? Nice try, Fluffy. (but seriously... if I were a psychopath that might be the name I'd choose xD)


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

Windblownhair said:


> Your score was 71 of 100.
> 
> This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.
> 
> *****
> 
> I would like to say I have more faith in the world. It's one of the things that makes FPs absolutely charming to me. But I don't honestly believe it. There's a lot to be said about being guarded.


who says FPs are not guarded? it's just a different kind of "guarded".


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

Occams Chainsaw said:


> And we're supposed to believe it 'just happened'? Nice try, Fluffy. (but seriously... *if I were a psychopath* that might be the name I'd choose xD)


that's pure awesome, coming from the gentle *Chainsaw* spirit :laughing:


----------



## Occams Chainsaw

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> that's pure awesome, coming from the gentle *Chainsaw* spirit :laughing:


Nah. I'm just a socially awkward INTJ. Come check out my basement if you don't believe me ...


----------



## Windblownhair

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> who says FPs are not guarded? it's just a different kind of "guarded".


A fair point. It's all a matter of perspective.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

Occams Chainsaw said:


> Nah. I'm just a socially awkward INTJ. Come check out my basement if you don't believe me ...


Sounds like a perfect afternoon tea spot for a "Psycopaths Anonymous" meeting.  have some crumpets and talk shop?


----------



## Occams Chainsaw

Windblownhair said:


> A fair point. It's all a matter of perspective.


I often see it like FPs guard themselves from seeing the ugly in the world FJs guard themselves from being affected by it. Perhaps this is overly stereotypical and even typist but I notice at least in people I know, FPs tend to have more of a 'finger in ears' policy where regardless of what is going on around them they will get on with their lives but the FJ can't do that... they have to tackle it and so close up because they have to confront the ugly and don't want to be vulnerable to it -- I guess you wish you could embrace that you can do just fine with it happening around you like the FPs seem to. They're different coping mechanisms but both try to shield from whatever is out there.



FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> Sounds like a perfect afternoon tea spot for a "Psycopaths Anonymous" meeting.  have some crumpets and talk shop?


BYOB (bring your own body)


----------



## Grandalf

Your score was 70 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 

INTJ, not even 17 and already see lack of goodness in the world. With that many controversial actions are justified for good results

If anyone has read The Prince such as myself Mach. states that an effective leader knows how NOT to be good. My understanding of this is that getting ahead in life involves not focusing all your decisions for the sake of outer/inner ethics. However, I have my own private moral red tape intended not to allow certain private aspects of my life be interfered with that could lead to stress and unhappiness such as relationships. My morals also serve to give myself some compliance with social norms I'm personally neutral/favorable towards in order to appear "nice" and be out harm's way such as respecting teachers without doing too much sucking up. Combinations of these two would not dating/marrying for gain and my definition of lying as stating something that isn't true; if my wording of statements lead people to think something else then they are the ones who are lying to themselves and not me.

Just something I belive in


----------



## Windblownhair

Occams Chainsaw said:


> I often see it like FPs guard themselves from seeing the ugly in the world FJs guard themselves from being affected by it. Perhaps this is overly stereotypical and even typist but I notice at least in people I know, FPs tend to have more of a 'finger in ears' policy where regardless of what is going on around them they will get on with their lives but the FJ can't do that... they have to tackle it and so close up because they have to confront the ugly and don't want to be vulnerable to it -- I guess you wish you could embrace that you can do just fine with it happening around you like the FPs seem to. They're different coping mechanisms but both try to shield from whatever is out there.


I'd be curious to hear some FP input, but from the FJ side, I'll agree with that assessment. The people that have the power to truly hurt me aren't random strangers. They're the people I choose to trust with pieces of my heart. So when I speak of being guarded, it does refer to taking my time with peeling back the layers and trusting based on already established patterns of behavior. There's no belief in the innate goodness of humankind. I believe in individuals, but not in people.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

Windblownhair said:


> I'd be curious to hear some FP input, but from the FJ side, I'll agree with that assessment. The people that have the power to truly hurt me aren't random strangers. They're the people I choose to trust with pieces of my heart. So when I speak of being guarded, it does refer to taking my time with peeling back the layers and trusting based on already established patterns of behavior. There's no belief in the innate goodness of humankind. I believe in individuals, but not in people.


I think @*Occams Chainsaw *is largely correct about the FP "head in the sand/clouds" coping mechanism, with maybe the exception of INFPs, whose Fi is in the way of blocking the suffering. Incidentally, INFPs are probably the most guarded of the FPs, and it takes them longer to bounce back after a hurtful situation. For the rest of us, optimism is a choice... a form of denial  For me personally, people are generally "innocent until proven guilty".

What do you mean when you say that you believe in individuals, but not in people? Do you have the SO instinctual variant last?


----------



## Occams Chainsaw

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> I think @*Occams Chainsaw *is largely correct about the FP "head in the sand/clouds" coping mechanism, with maybe the exception of INFPs, whose Fi is in the way of blocking the suffering. Incidentally, INFPs are probably the most guarded of the FPs, and it takes them longer to bounce back after a hurtful situation. For the rest of us, optimism is a choice... a form of denial  For me personally, people are generally "innocent until proven guilty".
> 
> What do you mean when you say that you believe in individuals, but not in people? Are you per chance an E-4? Sp/Sx/So?


What about ISFP? You seem to make the distinction as if Ne over Se matters in this defense mechanism. I'm curious about whether that's because there's something there I'm not seeing or just an oversight.


----------



## Windblownhair

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> I think @*Occams Chainsaw *is largely correct about the FP "head in the sand/clouds" coping mechanism, with maybe the exception of INFPs, whose Fi is in the way of blocking the suffering. Incidentally, INFPs are probably the most guarded of the FPs, and it takes them longer to bounce back after a hurtful situation. For the rest of us, optimism is a choice... a form of denial  For me personally, people are generally "innocent until proven guilty".
> 
> What do you mean when you say that you believe in individuals, but not in people? Do you have the SO instinctual variant last?


I mean that I believe in people based on my experiences with them, or what I know of them. I trust and believe in my loved ones.

I don't default to automatically trusting anyone. I believe in the darker side of human nature, at large. 

I'm not sure of my instinctual variants. Was something I said indicative of SO last?


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

Occams Chainsaw said:


> What about ISFP? You seem to make the distinction as if Ne over Se matters in this defense mechanism. I'm curious about whether that's because there's something there I'm not seeing or just an oversight.


Yes, I see what you mean, and I need to think about it some more to understand it better. In my experience, INFPs hold on to things longer than ISFPs... perhaps due to tert Si? Fi plays its role in both, but ISFPs seem to be able to bounce back quicker and easier than INFPs, they are also less guarded and cautious... again, that's just my experience.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

Windblownhair said:


> I mean that I believe in people based on my experiences with them, or what I know of them. I trust and believe in my loved ones.
> 
> I don't default to automatically trusting anyone. I believe in the darker side of human nature, at large.
> 
> I'm not sure of my instinctual variants. Was something I said indicative of SO last?


I see, so you tend to trust only the select few whom you have observed, tested, known to be worthy of trust... those whom you trust not to hurt you... sounds like Ti. I am the complete opposite in a way, I have to trust/ give the benefit of doubt, in order to experience relating to a person, but it doesn't mean that I am fully invested -- just open and curious.

re instincts: i was probably projecting a bit... thought i heard an echo of something relatable. 

I tend to connect better with individuals rather than groups, often avoid and mistrust groups... but that's a completely different point from the one you were making, as I understand it now. 

In my case it's probably due to the instinctual stacking -- sp/sx/so, but we are all different, this may or may not be true for you.


----------



## Weiss

Your score was 61 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. _


----------



## ae1905

x


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ae1905 said:


> x


y?


----------



## Occams Chainsaw

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> y?


z.

I win.

Can't wait for my unicorn hug roud:


----------



## ai.tran.75

ENFP.

Your score was *52 of 100.*

This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.


Not surprised 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

Occams Chainsaw said:


> z.
> 
> I win.
> 
> Can't wait for my unicorn hug roud:


why would anyone want to be hugged by a horse?


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ai.tran.75 said:


> ENFP.
> 
> Your score was *52 of 100.*
> 
> This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.
> 
> 
> Not surprised
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Mach would think we're cheese. :tongue:
Hey there!  How are you??


----------



## Occams Chainsaw

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> why would anyone want to be hugged by a horse?


I guess I'm just a sucker for long faces :blushed:


----------



## ai.tran.75

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> Mach would think we're cheese. :tongue:
> Hey there!  How are you??


Haha melted cheese more like it 
I'm great ! How are you ? I see you found your enneagram type  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ai.tran.75 said:


> Haha melted cheese more like it
> I'm great ! How are you ? I see you found your enneagram type
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


doing alright, thanks  
yeah, i think it's 9 before 7 and 2 before the 4... they are all dangerously close though, so wouldn't use "found" deterministically  i know one thing for sure now, i am social last.

are you still 7, 9, 4?


----------



## ai.tran.75

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> doing alright, thanks
> yeah, i think it's 9 before 7 and 2 before the 4... they are all dangerously close though, so wouldn't use "found" deterministically  i know one thing for sure now, i am social last.
> 
> are you still 7, 9, 4?


Haha I'm still indecisive on 794 or 974 - I'm too curious to be a 9 but I'm extremely calm compare to most 7s -I read up on 794 as a tri type though and it sounds like me 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ai.tran.75 said:


> Haha I'm still indecisive on 794 or 974 - I'm too curious to be a 9 but I'm extremely calm compare to most 7s -I read up on 794 as a tri type though and it sounds like me
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


for me it comes down to this: can i be my 7w8 self if i don't feel comfortable, like with a bunch of ESFJs? and the answer is  *drumroll*... wait for it... "MAYBE!" lol  

it's the weirdest thing... the switch between the 7 and the 9 is very tricky

my mom, ENFP 3w2, 7w8 is either showing off or energizing the group *at all times*... but she's So/Sx... variants play a huge role, I think. What do you think?


----------



## ae1905

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> y?


oh, and the right answer: chromosome--of course


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ae1905 said:


> oh, and the right answer: chromosome--of course


are you suggesting that Mach was sexist?  Men generally do have higher scores here..


----------



## Occams Chainsaw

Would be nice to compile the data vs sex and type. Where are the ISTJs when you need them!?


----------



## ae1905

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> are you suggesting that Mach was sexist?  Men generally do have higher scores here..


yes, but it is a well-known fact that it is the mother who gives her son the Y chromosome, an interesting fact since it is also women who choose the traits in men they wish to pass on to their offspring, traits that incl those assoc with, well, with Machiavelli!...surprising how that works, isn't it?! 


Edit: so much for my biology!...women have two XX chromosomes...my bad! 

it was a nice coincidence, anyway  lol

I was just talking to someone about about sunnis and shia muslims and I always get those mixed up cuz they don't have any meaning to me...just like X and Y chromosomes...I know men have XY and women have two of the same, but which ones I always forget...so much for Si


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ae1905 said:


> yes, but it is a well-known fact that it *is the mother who gives her son the Y chromosome*


may i respectfully question your sources? 



ae1905 said:


> an interesting fact since it is also women who choose the traits in men they wish to pass on to their offspring


which may or may not be wishful thinking on the women's part, lol!  it's funny how genetics works! you may admire your partner's traits, but give birth to his grandmother! :laughing:


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ae1905 said:


> yes, but it is a well-known fact that it is the mother who gives her son the Y chromosome, an interesting fact since it is also women who choose the traits in men they wish to pass on to their offspring, traits that incl those assoc with, well, with Machiavelli!...surprising how that works, isn't it?!
> 
> 
> Edit: so much for my biology!...women have two XX chromosomes...my bad!
> 
> it was a nice coincidence, anyway  lol
> 
> I was just talking to someone about about sunnis and shia muslims and I always get those mixed up cuz they don't have any meaning to me...just like X and Y chromosomes...I know men have XY and women have two of the same, but which ones I always forget...so much for Si


 no worries. speaking of the shia and the sunnies, can you believe what's going on in Europe is a direct consequence of Obama's Cairo speech! Blows my mind.


----------



## ae1905

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> may i respectfully question your sources?


my sources don't wish to be questioned right now 

actually, the Y chromosome is where the genes that express the male sex organs are contained...guess my sources were thinking with their wrong heads



> which may or may not be wishful thinking on the women's part, lol!  it's funny how genetics works! you may admire your partner's traits, but give birth to his grandmother! :laughing:


gives grand theft a new meaning, doesn't it?


----------



## ae1905

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> no worries. speaking of the shia and the sunnies, can you believe what's going on in Europe is a direct consequence of Obama's Cairo speech! Blows my mind.


I don't know...look at what happened here in the US after his DNC speech...which is worse, really?


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ae1905 said:


> I don't know...look at what happened here in the US after his DNC speech...which is worse, really?


stupid question -- what happened here?


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ae1905 said:


> my sources don't wish to be questioned right now
> 
> actually, the Y chromosome is where the genes that express the male sex organs are contained...guess my sources were thinking with their wrong heads
> 
> 
> 
> gives grand theft a new meaning, doesn't it?


An ENFP friend of mine has 2 sons. both are the exact replicas of her INTJ husband :laughing:
when she had the first one, she bought both the father and son same t-shirts saying v.1.0 and v2.0... but at least the boy inherited her personality... the second son however is an improved replica, who has inherited both the looks and the personality of his father.... so she now nervously laughs when the 2 year-old (v.3.0), neatly puts away the 5 year-old's (v. 2.0) toys.


----------



## Occams Chainsaw

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> An ENFP friend of mine has 2 sons. both are the exact replicas of her INTJ husband :laughing:
> when she had the first one, she bought both the father and son same t-shirts saying v.1.0 and v2.0... but at least the boy inherited her personality... the second son however is an improved replica, who has inherited both the looks and the personality of his father.... so she now nervously laughs when the 2 year-old (v.3.0), neatly puts away the 5 year-old's (v. 2.0) toys.


Superior genetics.


----------



## keiralexa

Your score was 51 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. _Not the people Machiavelli would approve of. _
Opps sorry Machiavelli.


----------



## ae1905

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> and he appears to have waaay too much fun with this candidacy thing for an actual candidate, also stage presence and experience leading "the apprentice" (read distracting the media) doesn't hurt.


look at our news, it's become entertainment...so why wouldn't an entertainer be regarded as a news-worthy politician?...reality, virtual reality, tv reality: who really knows the diff anymore?...Trump is the exemplar of this new reality, he's the new normal....combine that with the deep dissatisfaction many ppl have with DC and with politics, and you can see why Trump is so wildly popular: he's fresh, frank, and entertaining, everything America today wants in their entertainer-President


----------



## ae1905

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> bottom line -- Trump is a troll, that's why I like him... that and his hair, of course, as you know.
> 
> He's also quite quotable. Know what he said to a journalist about Bill Clinton?
> 
> "We used to be good friends, but now he's too thin"


lol

can't wait for him to drop that on Vlad....ww3 anyone?

of course, Trump could always give Putin an amulet of his hair, that might save the world?...who knows...but it _is _scary to think so much could depend on, well, _so much_

but maybe that's the best reason to elect The Donald?...the Golden Fleece


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ae1905 said:


> look at our news, it's become entertainment...so why wouldn't an entertainer be regarded as a news-worthy politician?...reality, virtual reality, tv reality: who really knows the diff anymore?...Trump is the exemplar of this new reality, he's the new normal....combine that with the deep disaffection many ppl have with DC and with politics, and you can see why Trump is so wildly popular: he's fresh, frank, and entertaining, everything America today wants in their entertainer-President


probably an ESFP  e-8?


----------



## Occams Chainsaw

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> probably an ESFP  e-8?


Seems ESTP to me.


----------



## ae1905

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> probably an ESFP  e-8?


why esfp?....seems clear estp to me


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

@Occams Chainsaw; @ae1905,

just a hunch, hard to prove, and the odds are against me, since he's pretty smart and a bit of a bully (e-8).

here's a random interview:





he's all about people, himself, liking and being liked... very little factual information... very little Ti.


----------



## ae1905

@_Fluffy_theanarchist

there's another thread in this subforum where intjs are leading a poll of "fave type", so your friend is not alone in thinking intjs are the best type...really, how can a girl go wrong by hooking up with an intj, don't you agree?


----------



## Occams Chainsaw

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> he's all about people, himself, liking and being liked... very little factual information... very little Ti.


I wonder whether that's a marketing strategy developed by his campaign team or his 'natural' (whatever in hell that means) self. Either way, hard to say for sure, especially as a brit - I'm not exactly keeping up with it.


----------



## ae1905

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> @_Occams Chainsaw_ ; @_ae1905_ ,
> 
> just a hunch, hard to prove, and the odds are against me, since he's pretty smart and a bit of a bully (e-8).
> 
> here's a random interview:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he's all about people, himself, liking and being liked... very little factual information... very little Ti.


he's a wheeler and dealer, exactly what estps are...the ppl part is the fe wanting to be liked...the ti comes out in some questioning...for example, when he said he "liked soldiers who aren't caught", he countered a journalist who tried to corner him on this by saying, "I didn't say I didn't like soldiers who _are _caught, did I?"...that's pure logic


----------



## ae1905

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> @_Occams Chainsaw_ ; @_ae1905_ ,
> 
> just a hunch, hard to prove, and the odds are against me, since he's pretty smart and a bit of a bully (e-8).
> 
> here's a random interview:


btw, if you watch a few of his interviews, you quickly realize he only gives 'random' interviews lol


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ae1905 said:


> @_Fluffy_theanarchist
> 
> there's another thread in this subforum where intjs are leading a poll of "fave type", so your friend is not alone in thinking intjs are the best type...really, how can a girl go wrong by hooking up with an intj, don't you agree?


you know, I am not going down that lane with you.


----------



## Occams Chainsaw

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> you know, I am not going down that lane with you.


In either sense of the phrase.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

Occams Chainsaw said:


> I wonder whether that's a marketing strategy developed by his campaign team or his 'natural' (whatever in hell that means) self. Either way, hard to say for sure, especially as a brit - I'm not exactly keeping up with it.


if it is a marketing strategy, then he has me fooled.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ae1905 said:


> btw, if you watch a few of his interviews, you quickly realize he only gives 'random' interviews lol



haha... that I believe! by random, i meant randomly selected by me right now.


----------



## ae1905

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> he's all about people, himself, liking and being liked... very little factual information... very little Ti.


he's a businessman whose business it is to cut deals...that means face-to-face negotiations, schmoozing, glad-handing, backslapping, etc...you learn to focus on ppl when you negotiate

everything he says is from his pov as a deal-maker...it's his persona, but it's also really who he is cuz that's what he does


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ae1905 said:


> he's a wheeler and dealer, exactly what estps are...the ppl part is the fe wanting to be liked...t*he ti comes out in some questioning...for example, when he said he "liked soldiers who aren't caught", he countered a journalist who tried to corner him on this by saying, "I didn't say I didn't like soldiers who are caught, did I?"...that's pure logic*


is it Ti or Te though? Sounds like bullet points to me, still pretty sloppy in delivery and very "me, me, me" not "it, it, it", you know?


----------



## ae1905

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> you know, I am not going down that lane with you.


haha, but I'm not an intj, am I?


----------



## ae1905

x


----------



## ae1905

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> haha... that I believe! by random, i meant randomly selected by me right now.


that goes w/o saying, no?


----------



## ae1905

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> is it Ti or Te though? Sounds like bullet points to me, still pretty sloppy in delivery and very "me, me, me" not "it, it, it", you know?


see point about being a deal-maker

we both know estps make great salesmen...why?


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ae1905 said:


> see point about being a deal-maker
> 
> we both know estps make great salesmen...why?


yes, but his style is different from an ESTP style, it has a different quality to it. ESTP's charm and corner you, he's merely sharing his opinions... telling you, it's just a hunch, i could be off.


----------



## ae1905

x


----------



## ae1905

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> yes, but his style is different from an ESTP style, it has a different quality to it. ESTP's charm and corner you, he's merely sharing his opinions... telling you, it's just a hunch, i could be off.


so he strikes you as esfp?...or just not-estp?


----------



## ae1905

x


----------



## ENTPness

81/100

Though I should say that the test seems to be testing more for whether or not you agree with Machiavelli about human nature than it is whether or not you behave in a Machiavellian manner. I'm not _that_ manipulative (for an ENTP at least) but yeah, there's a sucker born every minute and you can't really trust most people. Those are things that I do believe.


----------



## Finny

69/100

I feel like a lot of the questions were hard to answer. 

3) One should take action only when sure it is morally right.

What is morally right in one person's eyes could not be in another. Everyone has a different perception of right and wrong or good and evil and will act accordingly whilst their perception of evil are those who contradict what they see as good. So is it asking if you're sure it's morally right, if the public is sure it's morally right, or maybe the more accepted moral principals -- but accepted moral principals change depending on culture??

4) Most people are basically good and kind.

Again, I feel as if everyone follows their own perception of good which would mean no one would act with evil intent; even with vindication, they believe that's the best approach. So is it asking if I believe most people follow my perception of good or their own? 

20) Most people forget more easily the death of their parents than the loss of their property.

This depends on the person's values and how their parents and property affected their life. Two people could grow up poor, so you'd think they'd value the property, but one had wonderful parents and the other had horrible parents. This really depends on experience doesn't it?


----------



## shameless

68


----------



## angelfish

Your score was 58 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of. 

--

I think Machiavellianism is short-term-rewarding, though I don't think it is very useful for long-term happiness. Sometimes I choose it - I will lie when I feel like a situation feels dangerous or otherwise unpleasant and I want to leave, or if a person is making me uncomfortable and I don't trust them. But I don't see much reason to be like that in normal situations.


----------



## Fenrisulfr

Your score was 85 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## frogbonsly76

Your score was 81 of 100.

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.

My score does not really surprise me, I tend to have a very cynical view of the world and people in general so I had a feeling I would be approved of sir Machiavelli.


----------



## ae1905

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> is it Ti or Te though? Sounds like bullet points to me, still pretty sloppy in delivery and very "me, me, me" not "it, it, it", you know?


the other thing is he's campaigning, selling _himself_, not his deals....so he's not going to stand there and explain how his deals work--who cares, it'd be boring, and beside the point--he's going to drop names of big shots he's cut deals with to persuade you he has the ability to negotiate with world leaders and get deals done--ie, get results

that's why he talks about himself, his negotiating ability, and the ppl he's done business with...and why it's not organized...what organization is there?...you just keep dropping names at random, there's no order in China, Mexico, Japan, etc...whatever order you name them it's still the same message: everyone wants Trump and you should too! LOL


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ae1905 said:


> the other thing is he's campaigning, selling _himself_, not his deals....so he's not going to stand there and explain how his deals work--who cares, it'd be boring, and beside the point--he's going to drop names of big shots he's cut deals with to persuade you he has the ability to negotiate with world leaders and get deals done--ie, get results
> 
> that's why he talks about himself, his negotiating ability, and the ppl he's done business with...and why it's not organized...what organization is there?...you just keep dropping names at random, there's no order in China, Mexico, Japan, etc...whatever order you name them it's still the same message: everyone wants Trump and you should too! LOL


I see your points. The thing is, if you watch a few of these videos it becomes clear that his responses are rehearsed, if not canned... not in the delivery style, but in terms of content. He's got helpers, and we don't know who they are and how they think. If you recall, at the end of the video I linked, the reporter wants to ask him an additional question, and Trump responds with "yes, this one I can handle". 

The interview with Anderson Cooper is a better example, it clearly happened on the same day, on the same spot at the Trump Tower, but Cooper is a better reporter, and Trump has a hard time evading some of Cooper's questions... you can see more real emotion, real-time reactions better in that interview. Also, as an added bonus, you can see that Cooper (an actual republican) has a hard time taking Trump seriously, with a completely straight face... he's sort of half smiling quite a bit. 






Once again, I don't know, but the vibe I, personally, get from Trump is ESFP.


----------



## ae1905

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> I see your points. The thing is, if you watch a few of these videos it becomes clear that his responses are rehearsed, if not canned... not in the delivery style, but in terms of content. He's got helpers, and we don't know who they are and how they think. If you recall, at the end of the video I linked, the reporter wants to ask him an additional question, and Trump responds with "yes, this one I can handle".
> 
> The interview with Anderson Cooper is a better example, it clearly happened on the same day, on the same spot at the Trump Tower, but Cooper is a better reporter, and Trump has a hard time evading some of Cooper's questions... you can see more real emotion, real-time reactions better in that interview. Also, as an added bonus, you can see that Cooper (an actual republican) has a hard time taking Trump seriously, with a completely straight face... he's sort of half smiling quite a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, I don't know, but the vibe I, personally, get from Trump is ESFP.


I'll watch that...involuntary interviewer reactions is one big reason to watch his interviews  
I like this one, 3-4 min mark






I worked for an esfp who made his name as a deal-maker and he had a diff vibe than Trump, def not insulting, more diplomatic, softer, warmer, not abrasive, smiled a lot, more relaxed, more fluid movements, not domineering...but also dynamic/energetic, outgoing, aggressive, opportunistic


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ae1905 said:


> I'll watch that...involuntary interviewer reactions is one big reason to watch his interviews
> I like this one, 3-4 min mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I worked for an esfp who made his name as a deal-maker and he had a diff vibe than Trump, def not insulting, more diplomatic, softer, warmer, not abrasive, smiled a lot, more relaxed, more fluid movements, not domineering...but also dynamic/energetic, outgoing, aggressive, opportunistic


will watch, thanks. was your boss an e-8? probably a 3 or a 7w8


----------



## ae1905

I agree his answers are canned...he's dealt with politicians his whole career and knows how the game is played...plus, before he started putting out policy positions, he really had no message except, "I'm Donald Trump, trust me, I'll get the job done"...so he was actually being pretty honest when he gave the same non-answers again and again...

and I don't think he has handlers or else he wouldn't shoot off and insult ppl all the time...I think that's just his natural reaction to being criticized, or as he puts it, "attacked"...he's very pugnacious and quick to react, and his instinctual reaction is to go on the offensive...it's his traits and instincts that conspire to produce his unorthodox fighting style


----------



## ae1905

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> will watch, thanks. was your boss an e-8? probably a 3 or a 7w8


don't know cuz I don't type by enneagram normally....will think about it


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ae1905 said:


> I'll watch that...involuntary interviewer reactions is one big reason to watch his interviews
> I like this one, 3-4 min mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I worked for an esfp who made his name as a deal-maker and he had a diff vibe than Trump, def not insulting, more diplomatic, softer, warmer, not abrasive, smiled a lot, more relaxed, more fluid movements, not domineering...but also dynamic/energetic, outgoing, aggressive, opportunistic



C'mon in this video he's even more ESFP!  He's like an adorable 7 year old ESFP trapped in a grown up's body... his thinking is way too fuzzy for an ESTP, the way he expresses his thoughts is Fi childlike. The famed Ti precision is nowhere to be found in the way Trump expresses himself...

Here's an actual ESTP. See how much more controlled, poker-faced, artificially emphatic his responses are? 
His tone alone screams "BS!" lol THAT's an ESTP salesman! Sorry the video quality is not very good.


----------



## ae1905

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> C'mon in this video he's even more ESFP!  He's like an adorable 7 year old ESFP in a grown up's body... his thinking is too fuzzy for an ESTP, the way he expresses his thoughts is Fi childlike.
> 
> Here's an actual ESTP. See how much more controlled, poker-faced, artificially emphatic his responses are?
> His tone alone screams "BS!" lol THAT's and ESTP salesman! Sorry the video quality is not very good.


if he was esfp he'd be talking with Te and it'd be more organized...he talks with Fe backed by Ti which in real time is not as concise as Te...it's like INTP vs INTJ talking...he's like INTP, only more expressive cuz of Fe


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ae1905 said:


> I agree his answers are canned...he's dealt with politicians his whole career and knows how the game is played...plus, before he started putting out policy positions, he really had no message except, "I'm Donald Trump, trust me, I'll get the job done"...so he was actually being pretty honest when he gave the same non-answers again and again...
> 
> and I don't think he has handlers or else he wouldn't shoot off and insult ppl all the time...I think that's just his natural reaction to being criticized, or as he puts it, "attacked"...he's very pugnacious and quick to react, and his instinctual reaction is to go on the offensive...it's his traits and instincts that conspire to produce his unorthodox fighting style


he _is_ quick to react, and his reactions are personal and irrational. "they think i am not a good person"
an ESTP would corner on facts, or some logical sequence.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ae1905 said:


> if he was esfp he'd be talking with Te and it'd be more organized...he talks with Fe backed by Ti which in real time is not as concise as Te...it's like INTP vs INTJ talking...he's like INTP, only more expressive cuz of Fe


No it's like an ISTJ and an ESFP talking lol... an ISTJ is asking a Te question, and gets an Se/Fi response... personal and completely irrelevant.... "oh, look squirrel!... the squirell doesn't like me... it's a loser squirrel!"


----------



## Adena

Your score was 52 of 100.

This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## piano

Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives.

LOL i burst out laughing. trash floats! one must never forget that.

Most people are brave.

HA!

Your score was 76 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## bruh

Your score was 51 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative.


----------



## pointee

Your score was 78 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the _high Machs_, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative. 














Since I was raised by my parents, I learned how selfish they are and how selfish they want me to be. I suppose most parents are selfish. Otherwise they would not procreate.


----------



## SystemDos

89 out of 100.


----------



## xfatalxsnipez

Your score was 47 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## OP

71 out of 100.

INxP.


----------



## nestle_bird

71 out of 100

wow, I didn't think I'd score so high.
I'm actually not all that pessimistic in my daily life...


----------



## nestle_bird

Double post


----------



## Another Lost Cause

Your score was 92 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## Jaune

Your score was 78 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## tinyheart

50/100 - infp '__'


----------



## Silent Theory

Likely INFJ. 

Your score was 62 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative.


----------



## Solar Angel

ENFP

Your score was 55 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## Nephilibata

INFJ

61-65/100, 'high Machs'

I'm curious though, I answered some questions a certain way because that's how I understand the world, but I wouldn't act on that. Such as agreeing that it's wise to flatter important people. It is wise if you want to get ahead, but I wouldn't do it unless absolutely necessary. Then again, that's my justification for many things. Neither am I manipulative though, I very much dislike the concept. I could if I wanted to, but it's not something I do often. 

Are you considered Machiavellian only if you agree with some 'morally corrupt' concepts AND act in accordance to them?

--------------

I found another test:

http://hexaco.org/hexaco-online

my scores:

Honesty/Humility - 3.94 (average - 3.22)

Emotionality - 3.19 (average - 3.34)

Extraversion - 2.56 (average - 3.50)

Agreeableness - 3.31 (average - 3.00)

Conscientiousness - 3.75 (average - 3.47)

Openness to Experience - 3.56 (average - 3.31)


----------



## Terator

Your score was 53 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the low Machs, people who will hold out for the goodness of the world and avoid manipulation. Not the people Machiavelli would approve of. 

A graph of how others who have taken this have scores is below. These scores should not be taken as population norms though, the people who seek out tests of machivellianism on the internet are most likely not representative.


----------



## The Dude

No clue what my type is. 

Your score was 72 of 100. 

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of.


----------



## Solar Angel

Nephilibata said:


> I'm curious though, I answered some questions a certain way because that's how I understand the world, but I wouldn't act on that. Such as agreeing that it's wise to flatter important people. It is wise if you want to get ahead, but I wouldn't do it unless absolutely necessary. Then again, that's my justification for many things. Neither am I manipulative though, I very much dislike the concept. I could if I wanted to, but it's not something I do often.
> 
> Are you considered Machiavellian only if you agree with some 'morally corrupt' concepts AND act in accordance to them?


My score was 55 and I answered some questions like that. Like about a sucker being born every minute, it's probably true, but I don't take advantage of people. I would try to help them avoid scammers. Too low of a score almost suggests naivety.


----------



## Blessing

Your score was 63 of 100.


----------



## pwowq

Your score was 81 of 100.

This puts you in the category of the high Machs, people who do not belive in the goodness of the world and that because that it must be manipulated, people who Machiavelli would approve of. 


Realizing the world is unfair, unjust, terrible etc means you have the knowledge to be a beacon of light in the darkness. You are aware. Question is, will you share your light by reaching out? (yup, put myself in trouble here! it's a tough one)


----------



## 460202

> Your score was 43 of 100, with higher scores indicating more machiavellianism.


.


----------



## Mez

82

But it doesn't help that before taking this test I spent 3 years studying Machiavelli and all related disciplines in university.


----------



## Cal

I'm an INTJ with a Machiavellian score of 95/100. Watch out world, because I am COMING FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Lord Bullingdon

Entp

72/100


----------



## 469090

94 out of 100

I know Niccolò Machiavelli as well as my pockets and I find this pretty accurate.


----------



## OHtheNovelty

ISTP

"Your score was 61 of 100, with higher scores indicating more Machiavellianism."

I prefer being neutral because I believe everyone is born good, but are too tempted to be bad.


----------



## Grey Wolf

Your score was 71 of 100, with higher scores indicating more machiavellianism.


----------



## IHateYouForEternity

95 of 100


----------



## Bunniculla

Your score was 55 of 100, with higher scores indicating more machiavellianism. 

My Fi is seething at all the high scores right now lol.

But actually, it is interesting how these scores seem to correlate to MBTI types so far? I didn't keep track of everything though, it would be cool if this could be made into some sort of poll.


----------



## spaceynyc

51/100

this is basically a T vs F test


----------



## spaceynyc

i suspect that Machiavelli was some sort of NTJ because the people here with the highest scores are indeed NTJ


----------



## backdrop12

ENFP

Your score was 43 of 100, with higher scores indicating more machiavellianism. 

yay I am in the low range ^^


----------



## chi_girl

INFP and I scored 41, pretty predictable I guess. I was surprised at how high the average was, I was expecting around the 50 mark


----------

