{paginate}
1 of 2
1
{/paginate}
Machiavellianism test
Posted: 25 January 2012 06:59 AM   [ Ignore ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2012-01-25

http://personality-testing.info/tests/MACH-IV.php

I took it. I’m not a saint.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 January 2012 12:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

I’m apparently more trusting and not manipulative.

 Signature 

SilentTone: hulitoons blog of just plain silliness?
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2012 09:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2878
Joined  2005-06-15

I got 56 out of 100

 Signature 

I’m not some ordinary moron.
I’m an Oxy-Moron!

Mental Giant: A very tall person who is more than slightly confused.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2012 02:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15276
Joined  2006-01-17

Your score was 54 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.

 Signature 

Research Mod

“We are wise to avoid association with those who hide their identity in Internet chat rooms.”
                                                                  - The Watchtower

The platypus is mother nature’s way of saying, “I made this thing out of spare parts I found on the workshop floor, and it can still ****ing cripple you.”

Sylvia Browne

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2012 05:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8165
Joined  2005-02-06

59 out of 100, a low-Mach as well.

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2012 05:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8165
Joined  2005-02-06

WARNING:

I find the inclusion of this question suspicious:

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

This is suspicious to me, as this has little to do with Machiavellism. It is on the terrain of right to self-determination, i.e. personal freedom of choice. It is also strangely worded (“put to death”?).

So I start to wonder: is this test a shill to try to forge a connection between evil Machiavellist personalities and a pro-euthanasia viewpunt?

Note that it is completely unclear who is behind this test. It asks if it may use your answers “for research purpose” but nowhere it is mentioned which research institute is conducting this research. That is odd.

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2012 07:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

I was not comfortable with that one either but then I remembered, when entering the test:

This test was developed by Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis in the 1960’s

...I had just become a teen at that time by a single year so I understood just how long ago this test was created AND the social setting as well.

 Signature 

SilentTone: hulitoons blog of just plain silliness?
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2012 01:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6930
Joined  2005-10-21
LaMa - 28 January 2012 05:10 AM

WARNING:

I find the inclusion of this question suspicious:

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

This is suspicious to me, as this has little to do with Machiavellism. It is on the terrain of right to self-determination, i.e. personal freedom of choice. It is also strangely worded (“put to death”?).

So I start to wonder: is this test a shill to try to forge a connection between evil Machiavellist personalities and a pro-euthanasia viewpunt?

Note that it is completely unclear who is behind this test. It asks if it may use your answers “for research purpose” but nowhere it is mentioned which research institute is conducting this research. That is odd.

That or they are conducting research on euthanasia, and rather than asking people flat-out, are tucking it into the test as a whole, to try and get more accurate results. I’ve seen it done before.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2012 10:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8451
Joined  2006-02-28

45 out of 100.
The euthinasia question ignores the fact that not all incurable diseases are painful!

I am not “trusting” and very savvy about other people (street smart)... so the broad generalizations used to evaluate and simplistic evaluation given at the end seem to be a poor indicator to me…

 Signature 

Life is what happens when you are busy making other plans. - John Lennon
You can twist perceptions, reality won’t budge. - Rush

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2012 11:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  92
Joined  2010-04-13

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.

I’m happy enough with that, although there was hardly a single question there I felt could be answered properly with the choices provided.

 Signature 

For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert - Arthur C Clarke

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2012 12:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5530
Joined  2007-03-14
Paul Taylor - 29 January 2012 11:09 AM

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.

I’m happy enough with that, although there was hardly a single question there I felt could be answered properly with the choices provided.

I found that too.  There were quite a few questions where I didn’t agree with any of the answers so i just picked the closest one.  I ended up with a 55.

 Signature 

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes.

Seen on a tshirt - “If life gives you melons you may be dyslexic”

When life hands you lemons make apple juice. Then laugh while life tries to figure out how you did it.

My blog
My Website

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2012 06:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism

In psychology
Main article: Machiavellian intelligence

Machiavellianism is also a term that some social and personality psychologists use to describe a person’s tendency to deceive and manipulate other people for their personal gain. In the 1960s, Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis developed a test for measuring a person’s level of Machiavellianism. This eventually became the MACH-IV test, a twenty-statement personality survey that is now the standard self-assessment tool of Machiavellianism. People scoring above 60 out of 100 on the MACH-IV are considered high Machs; that is, they endorsed statements such as, “Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so,” (No. 1) but not ones like, “Most people are basically good and kind” (No. 4). People scoring below 60 out of 100 on the MACH-IV are considered low Machs; they tend to believe, “There is no excuse for lying to someone else,” (No. 7) and, “Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives” (No. 11). Christie, Geis, and Geis’s graduate assistant David Berger went on to perform a series of studies that provided experimental verification for the notion of Machiavellianism.

Machiavellianism is one of the three personality traits referred to as the dark triad, along with narcissism and psychopathy. Some psychologists consider Machiavellianism to be essentially a subclinical form of psychopathy,[5] although recent research suggests that while Machiavellianism and psychopathy overlap, they are distinct personality constructs.[6]

In 2002, the Machiavellianism scale of Christie and Geis was applied by behavioral game theorists Anna Gunnthorsdottir, Kevin McCabe and Vernon L. Smith[7] in their search for explanations for the spread of observed behavior in experimental games, in particular individual choices which do not correspond to assumptions of material self-interest captured by the standard Nash equilibrium prediction. It was found that in a trust game, those with high MACH-IV scores tended to follow homo economicus’ equilibrium strategies while those with low MACH-IV scores tended to deviate from the equilibrium, and instead made choices that reflected widely accepted moral standards and social preferences.

Machiavellianism has been found to be negatively correlated with the Agreeableness (r = -.47) and Conscientiousness (r = -.34) dimensions of the Big Five personality model (NEO-PI-R).[6]

 Signature 

SilentTone: hulitoons blog of just plain silliness?
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
 
   
{paginate}
1 of 2
1
{/paginate}