Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Machiavellianism
mooface:
The thing is about Machiavelli is that he was a realist, and it's very hard to argue against the things he said even if you are morally opposed to them. A lot of the questions on the test basically determined how Machiavellian your view of the world is rather than how Machiavellian your actions are.
For example, how can you possibly "strongly agree" with the statement that "Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives"? Just because you can see that many of the people who are wealthy and powerful in the world are obviously immoral and selfish doesn't mean that you yourself condone it. In fact, you can strongly disagree with that statement but also strongly agree that "it is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest."
The questions should have either focused on how Machiavellian you yourself are in your morals, values, and actions; or just tested you on whether you have a Machiavellian philosophy on human nature & society. It was a weird mix of the two and it didn't really work out too well.
I scored a 47, by the way.
Patrick:
You know, I know some mighty influential people. *Mighty* influential. People have tried to flatter them to get ahead, and it did not work out well for them.
Basically, Machiavellianism has absolutely no value in the real world, in my eyes. Maybe back then it was easier to flatter your way into promotions because royalty was inbred to an absurd degree.
My score was 43.
tommydski:
On a localised scale (say that of the business world), I think there is definitely something to be said for the key aspects of Machiavellian theory.
I've definitely used it in all of my past jobs and I use it today. It's a survival trait in this eternally bureaucratic world.
tania:
i scored a 53.
the test says i'm supposed to be dependent and submissive but i'm pretty sure most on my answers were instead influenced by the fact that i've just been in school studying people and the criminal justice system and psychology and all that dang stuff for a really long time. for example, i gave a 1 to the question "the biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that the criminals are stupid enough to get caught" because it just isn't true, period. but most people haven't studied enough crime stats to know that.
also like joe mentioned the questions were poorly worded and way too general. my definition of being good and kind is basically not being a complete fucking psychopath since i'm sure everybody has done at least one selfless thing in their lives. obviously other people will hold a different definition.
E. Spaceman:
--- Quote from: Patrick on 10 Aug 2008, 12:16 ---
Basically, Machiavellianism has absolutely no value in the real world, in my eyes. Maybe back then it was easier to flatter your way into promotions because royalty was inbred to an absurd degree.
My score was 43.
--- End quote ---
You still see this to a ridiculous degree, as tommy pointed out. Think no-bid contracts and that huge company with a name beginnning with E
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version