Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tom]

Telling people that wouldn't suit my purposes.

[Patrick]

My most recent D&D character surprisingly scored only 78; I was expecting him to score higher, although I guess it makes sense because he's not really manipulative so much as a blunt and cynical asshole.

I'd do one for my V:TM character, but I think the results will depend on how far down his humanity level has gone and how long it's been since he fed.

[WriterofAllWrongs]

58. 

I don't mind Machiavellianism.  It's a half-right, half-wrong sort of thing with me.  I believe that most people are on the whole decent members of society, but I also believe that it's easy to manipulate them if you know what they want.   

[normz]

67.... shit guys if i wanna be a lawyer i better start boosting that score upwards a little

[ThePQ4]

I got 65. But I don't usually choose to go with the "extremes" ---strongly disagreeing or strongly agreeing. I tend to just agree or disagree. I try not to "sit on the fence" though too...

[Edith]

76. Stupidly worded questions, for sure. I think it's not too far off, though.

[Dissy]

I got a 72.  I answered a couple of questions neutrally

In my nerdom, and from reading this thread, my RP character got an 81, and his villainous older self got a 95.

[DoubleAW]

Eh. 60.

Though I must say The Prince was a weird book.

[IronOxide]

44.

I guess that means I am sort of an alright person?

[jhocking]

It means you might be interested in this great investment opportunity I have to tell you about.

[Nodaisho]

Yeah, that test is bullshit. Would be nice if someone would make one that didn't suck. For example, I know my score is going to go up for saying that honesty isn't the best policy in all cases, and strongly disagreeing with there being no excuse for lying, but really, there are. Think about it, Germany 1942, police come knocking at your door, "Do you have any jews here?" "Damn, I was hoping you wouldn't ask that, because honestly I do, and honesty is always the best option, even when it means sending a half dozen innocent people to their deaths."

And then, there are the questions which aren't about what you would do, but about other people, so either you are machiavellian or naive? Isn't that nice.

I heard that the prince was actually intended as a satire of such a prince, haven't heard any corroborating evidence for that, though. Same with the corollary to "It is better to be feared than loved," I heard that he also said that it is critical to not be hated, but as I haven't read the book, I don't know for sure.

[Tom]

Yeah, I only posted the test as a mildly fun distraction not a completely legitimate test and why did you Godwin the test, there probably are better examples. How do you know that you wouldn't have been swept up in the propaganda?

[Chesire Cat]

Think about it, Germany 1942, police come knocking at your door, "Do you have any jews here?" "Damn, I was hoping you wouldn't ask that, because honestly I do, and honesty is always the best option, even when it means sending a half dozen innocent people to their deaths."

I thought one of the main tenets in Machiavellianism is to take a pragmatic level of self concern where you would never get in such a situation.

[Alex C]

I think it's worth pointing out again that Machiavelli wrote his book as a practical treatise on how someone in power may maintain the status quo and consolidate his power, not as a general guide on philosophy. The primary theme, more than anything else, was making sure the interests of your subjects aligned with your own-- if they fear you, they won't defy you for their own sakes, and he prefers miliitias over mercenaries because militias want to defend their homes while mercenaries want to live to spend their pay. Machiavelli shouldn't be judged too harshly, the man very pointedly made an effort to seperate political thought and exercises from moral evangelism. For the purposes of the thought exercises he was interested in what works rather than what is right, and you can see in his Discourses on Livy that he was actually a something of a proponent for modern republicanism. He may have been a cynic, but it didn't stop him from thinking a republican system with checks and balances was superior to a principality. He has a lot more in common with the "nicer" political thinkers than most people give him credit for.

[20 jazz funk greats]

i got a 76 and i don't know enough about machiavelli to say whether i'm happy about said score.
i can be fairly cynical, but not manipulative.

[Slick]

Yeah, I only posted the test as a mildly fun distraction not a completely legitimate test and why did you Godwin the test, there probably are better examples.

If you are going to be like that you should really give a better example and not just say you believe one exists.

[Tom]

To clarify, my problem is actuallythe example not the Godwin-ing. A better example would be how Hitler and the Nazi party manipulated the German populace into doing and believing what they did.

[Nodaisho]

Uh, no, it wouldn't. My example was to show how saying that you disagree with it always being the best policy to tell the truth doesn't mean you are a dishonest manipulative bastard, it means you hold something above honesty, such as the value of life.

And it isn't godwin, who was I comparing with the nazis or hitler?

I used that example because Nazi Germany is a setting everyone knows about, and is also an example of life and death hinging on telling the truth in that example. I suppose I could have used the Underground Railroad, but that example doesn't carry quite as much weight, as it is unlikely the penalty for all involved would be death.

[jhocking]

I think it's worth pointing out again

Why? Nobody in this thread is ripping on Machiavelli, so why do you need to repeat your defense?

[Chesire Cat]

To clarify, my problem is actuallythe example not the Godwin-ing. A better example would be how Hitler and the Nazi party manipulated the German populace into doing and believing what they did.

Thats why there was 5 options, as appose to an agree/disagree system

[MarkTBSc]

59, which apparently still counts as low mach...

You really have to be careful how you parse the questions. I suspect if I was feeling Cynical today I would have scored higher but can you be Cynical without being Machiavellian?

[Nodaisho]

I would say so, there is a difference between saying that you should do something and saying that it is easier to do something, or that many people do something.