Machiavellian Scale

To celebrate the semester’s end, I often like to teach Machiavelli’s The Prince, and this semester is no exception. I thought it would be fun to measure my level of Machiavellianism, or “Mach Level,” this year to see how cynical, or observant, I’ve become. I found this test at Salon on which I scored a 95 (“You are a high Mach, you endorse Machiavelli’s opinions.”) and this one, one which I scored a consistent 45. The latter reveals:

The results of research using the Mach Test have found that (1) men are generally more Machiavellian than women, (2) older adults tend to have lower Mach scores than younger adults, (3) there is no significant difference between high Machs and low Machs on measures of intelligence or ability, (4) Machiavellianism is not significantly related to demographic characteristics such as educational level or marital status, and (5) high Machs tend to be in professions that emphasize the control and manipulation of individuals-for example, managers, lawyers, psychiatrists, and behavioural scientists.

I like number two; it seems consistent with my growing cynicism for humanity. However, I do not seem to fall under number five, unless I really do attempt to indoctrinate my students over to my heathen, liberal ways. The latter would also seem to suggest that just because I agree with Machiavelli to a great extent means I practice what he advocates. Well, in my defense, I am no prince, nor do I have political aspirations.

To celebrate the semester’s end, I often like to teach Machiavelli’s The Prince, and this semester is no exception. I thought it would be fun to measure my level of Machiavellianism, or “Mach Level,” this year to see how cynical, or observant, I’ve become. I found this test at Salon on which I scored a 95 (“You are a high Mach, you endorse Machiavelli’s opinions.”) and this one, one which I scored a consistent 45. The latter reveals:

The results of research using the Mach Test have found that (1) men are generally more Machiavellian than women, (2) older adults tend to have lower Mach scores than younger adults, (3) there is no significant difference between high Machs and low Machs on measures of intelligence or ability, (4) Machiavellianism is not significantly related to demographic characteristics such as educational level or marital status, and (5) high Machs tend to be in professions that emphasize the control and manipulation of individuals-for example, managers, lawyers, psychiatrists, and behavioural scientists.

I like number two; it seems consistent with my growing cynicism for humanity. However, I do not seem to fall under number five, unless I really do attempt to indoctrinate my students over to my heathen, liberal ways. The latter would also seem to suggest that just because I agree with Machiavelli to a great extent means I practice what he advocates. Well, in my defense, I am no prince, nor do I have political aspirations.

The Artilect War

I was recently contacted by one of my former students and a regular commenter on this blog, Sebastian Wolfe, about Hugo de Garis’ work on technoculture, along the lines of Kurzweil and Joy. In his The Artilect War, De Garis’ postulates the the production of “artilects,” or autonomous artificial intelligences whose intellects far exceed their human creators, and his support sounds very much like Kurzweil’s first couple of chapters in which he outlines the exponential growth of microprocessing technology and discusses the inevitability of of artificial intelligences. What makes de Garis’ work interesting is that he is a researcher and scientist that employs “evolutionary engineering” to grow artificial neural nets. While he presents little that hasn’t been covered elsewhere, his overall point is clear: that humanity must decide what it means to be human, because this century — or maybe even these next two decades — will perhaps change our definition irrevocably. It’s good to see this discussion in the scientific community, and we know that doomsday predictions sell. Thanks, Sebastian.

I was recently contacted by one of my former students and a regular commenter on this blog, Sebastian Wolfe, about Hugo de Garis’ work on technoculture, along the lines of Kurzweil and Joy. In his The Artilect War, De Garis’ postulates the the production of “artilects,” or autonomous artificial intelligences whose intellects far exceed their human creators, and his support sounds very much like Kurzweil’s first couple of chapters in which he outlines the exponential growth of microprocessing technology and discusses the inevitability of of artificial intelligences. What makes de Garis’ work interesting is that he is a researcher and scientist that employs “evolutionary engineering” to grow artificial neural nets. While he presents little that hasn’t been covered elsewhere, his overall point is clear: that humanity must decide what it means to be human, because this century — or maybe even these next two decades — will perhaps change our definition irrevocably. It’s good to see this discussion in the scientific community, and we know that doomsday predictions sell. Thanks, Sebastian.

Star Trek: 1966-2005

Today’s Op-Ed section of the NYTimes prints the obituary of our long-beloved Star Trek. Since the Times only has its articles available for a short time, I’ll reprint the whole thing here:

By the middle of May, the “Star Trek” franchise will be no more, having died a death as long and lingering as — well, insert your favorite Trekkie long-and-lingering-death simile here. UPN has decided to bring “Star Trek: Enterprise” – the latest version of the saga – to an end and to give the whole idea of “Star Trek” a creative rest. The producers of the show have rejected a hopeless last-ditch effort to raise funds directly from fans to continue production.

The original “Star Trek” series proved what a little imagination, a little patience and a lot of plywood and foam core could do for televised science fiction. It ran for only three seasons on NBC in the late 1960’s but attracted a devoted following that seems, somehow, to have replicated itself by cloning. It also inspired four additional series, 10 “Star Trek” movies and a delightful parody called “Galaxy Quest,” starring Tim Allen and Sigourney Weaver, which flirted momentarily with the nihilistic possibility that a television show about space might merely be a television show about space.

For “Star Trek” fans, a future with no “Star Trek” at all must seem as empty as one of those great space voids the ever-endangered starship Enterprise kept getting sucked into. But somewhere, a TV executive is undoubtedly repeating the slogan about going where no one has gone before – and wondering how to make that idea about direct fan-financing work.

It was so young, but felt so damn old. I know it was tired and suffering. I say, may it rest in peace for a long time before some executive gets the idea to resurrect it as Star Trek: The Geriatric Generation. Let’s wipe away the tears and turn our attention toward the future, shall we?

The New York Times > Opinion > An End to the Enterprise

Today’s Op-Ed section of the NYTimes prints the obituary of our long-beloved Star Trek. Since the Times only has its articles available for a short time, I’ll reprint the whole thing here:

By the middle of May, the “Star Trek” franchise will be no more, having died a death as long and lingering as — well, insert your favorite Trekkie long-and-lingering-death simile here. UPN has decided to bring “Star Trek: Enterprise” – the latest version of the saga – to an end and to give the whole idea of “Star Trek” a creative rest. The producers of the show have rejected a hopeless last-ditch effort to raise funds directly from fans to continue production.

The original “Star Trek” series proved what a little imagination, a little patience and a lot of plywood and foam core could do for televised science fiction. It ran for only three seasons on NBC in the late 1960′s but attracted a devoted following that seems, somehow, to have replicated itself by cloning. It also inspired four additional series, 10 “Star Trek” movies and a delightful parody called “Galaxy Quest,” starring Tim Allen and Sigourney Weaver, which flirted momentarily with the nihilistic possibility that a television show about space might merely be a television show about space.

For “Star Trek” fans, a future with no “Star Trek” at all must seem as empty as one of those great space voids the ever-endangered starship Enterprise kept getting sucked into. But somewhere, a TV executive is undoubtedly repeating the slogan about going where no one has gone before – and wondering how to make that idea about direct fan-financing work.

It was so young, but felt so damn old. I know it was tired and suffering. I say, may it rest in peace for a long time before some executive gets the idea to resurrect it as Star Trek: The Geriatric Generation. Let’s wipe away the tears and turn our attention toward the future, shall we?

The New York Times > Opinion > An End to the Enterprise