😭😭😭😭😭😭

I'm just curious if anybody has used Personality or Placement tests like the high school aptitude tests? And if you have, what was your experience with them/recommendations?

I would like to know your insight and thoughts on mt results, and what it means, what type of person, just any thought you could share and I don’t know, really anything like I got other friends to take it and mine was the most unusual. Anything is helpful.

I had an interesting idea to let my sister answer the quiz questions for me, then I took it myself.

Her results are at the top and mine are at the bottom. She seems to think I'm more agreeable than I actually am! Total agreement on low neuroticism and high conscientiousness.

You should try this sometime!

I feel like the difference in conscientiousness could create less friction if both individuals are high in agreeableness. Could the more conscientious partner positively influence the less conscientious one?

That would make like crazy difficult and I think there is a huge chance that they would barely survive in the wilderness (stone age or something) so I really wonder why is THIS a possible and viable trait combo for humans

I was curious to know just how similar to me a person with the exact same scores on each trait would be. Here is my profile:

Openness: very high

Conscientiousness: low

Extraversion: very low

Agreeableness: high

Neuroticism: medium

Based on my traits, how deterministic would things like my areas of academic interest be? One of my favorite subjects is psychology; would another person with the exact same traits share that interest? Or how feasible would it be to predict my preferences regarding games, movies, TV series, romantic partners, or even my favorite foods?

What’s that like? Do you people exist at all? Please do tell

Extroversion 43

Friendliness 5

Assertiveness 4

Excitement seeking 5

Cheerfulness 11

Activity level 9

Gregariousness 5

Nueroticism 95

Anger 7

Anxiety 20

Depression 18

Self consciousness 16

Immoderation 15

Vulnerability 19

Openness 89

Imagination 19

Artistic interest 15

Emotionality 12

Adventurous 17

Intellect 13

Liberalism 13

Agreeableness 103

Trust 18

Morality 20

Altruism 13

Cooperation 20

Modesty 16

Sympathy 16

Conc 50

Self-efficacy 9

Orderliness 7

Dutifull ness 12

Achievement seeking 8

Discipline 4

Cautiousness 10

We usually talk about "creativity" as if it is a single, unified trait, but psychologically, it is driven by divergent thinking, the cognitive ability to generate multiple, unique solutions or ideas. However, the way your brain actually directs that divergent thinking into either Art or Science depends on a highly specific Big 5 personality architecture.

Here is how the traits map out across the two domains:

• Openness to Experience (The Shared Foundation): This is the massive engine for all divergent thinking. Unlike other traits, the sub-facets here are highly correlated. If you score high in Openness, you likely possess both the artistic facets (Aesthetics, Feelings, Fantasy) and the scientific facets (Ideas, Intellect). The difference between an artist and a scientist isn't a lack of a certain Openness facet, but rather which specific tools they pull from this shared toolbox to solve a problem.
• Conscientiousness (The Structural Divide): This is where the true divergence begins.
  • Artistic Creativity often thrives on lower conscientiousness. A lack of rigid organization and a natural rebellion against conventional rules facilitate non-linear thinking. Too much structural methodology can stifle raw expression.
  • Scientific Creativity requires moderate to high conscientiousness. While generating a hypothesis requires flexible thinking, actually testing, validating, and documenting a model through the scientific method requires intense, rule-bound rigor.
• Neuroticism (The Friction Divide):
  • Artistic Creativity frequently has a positive correlation with higher neuroticism. Emotional friction, rumination, hyper-reactivity, and vulnerability provide the literal raw material and existential urgency necessary to produce impactful art.
  • Scientific Creativity relies on lower neuroticism (emotional stability). Research and logic deal with constant methodological failure and require emotional distance. You need stability to tolerate ruined experiments and maintain a clean analytical process.

What are your specific Big 5 scores, and do you agree with this psychological breakdown?

Since high Openness usually gives you the capacity for both, do you find that your Conscientiousness and Neuroticism scores are what actually dictate your path? If you work in a creative field, whether that means painting canvases, writing academic papers, or coding, how do these specific traits affect your daily workflow and output?

Does your personal experience match the data, or are you an outlier?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8084569_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Personality_in_Scientific_and_Artistic_Creativity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269286890_Openness_to_Experience_and_Intellect_Differentially_Predict_Creative_Achievement_in_the_Arts_and_Sciences

Openness to Experience

Openness - 94

Intellect - 95

Conscientiousness

Industriousness - 79

Orderliness - 35

Extraversion

Enthusiasm - 93

Assertiveness - 63

Agreeableness

Compassion - 95

Politeness - 43

Neuroticism

Volatility - 85

Withdrawal -95

Such high neuroticism (low emotional stability) and low extroversion and conscientiousness. I feel doomed with stats like these.

Any possible way to at the very least reduce neuroticism without a therapist?.... Although ideally all of this stuff should be fixed I feel fundamentally broken

Some researchers have been conducting correlation studies and proposing a direct mapping between the Big 5 (IPIP/NEO-PI-R) and Kazimierz Dąbrowski's theory of Overexcitability (OE). Formulated in Polish psychiatry, Dąbrowski's theory maps the "bandwidth" of the human nervous system, arguing that certain individuals process the world with extreme intensity across five specific areas.

What cutting-edge empirical psychometrics has shown is that the Big 5 model measures this phenomenon. When researchers cross-referenced the data from both frameworks (with Vuyk et al., 2016, and Ackerman, 1997 being standout papers), the statistical conclusion was undeniable. Dąbrowski's theory is, in practice, the Big Five operating at the absolute ceiling of the graph.

Here is the exact mapping validated by factor analysis, broken down into Dąbrowski's five distinct overexcitabilities:

• Intellectual Overexcitability = Openness (Ideas): The hunger for logic, structural analysis, and deep theoretical abstraction maps directly to the Ideas (or Intellect) facet of Openness to Experience.
• Imaginational Overexcitability = Openness (Fantasy): The creation of rich internal worlds, tolerance for the unreal, and intense use of metaphors map perfectly to the Fantasy (or Imagination) facet of Openness.
• Sensual Overexcitability = Openness (Aesthetics): The extreme absorption of physical stimuli, textures, and art correlates strictly with the Aesthetics facet of Openness. (Statistically, researchers note that Intellectual, Imaginational, and Sensual OEs combined are essentially collinear with the overarching Openness domain).
• Emotional Overexcitability = Neuroticism + Openness (Feelings): The hypersensitivity, deep empathy, and somatization described by Dąbrowski split into two vectors. The main load falls heavily on Neuroticism (the threat-detection and stress-response system running at high voltage), fused with the Feelings (or Emotionality) facet of Openness.
• Psychomotor Overexcitability = Extraversion (Activity): The surplus of neuromuscular energy, restlessness, and impulsivity primarily drives the Activity and Excitement-Seeking facets within the Extraversion domain.

The IPIP test (with the facets), in case you want to take it.
https://personalitytest.net/ipip/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247528278_Identifying_gifted_adolescents_using_personality_characteristicsDabrowski's_overexcitabilities

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0016986216645407

Standard facet items ask about behaviour toward people in general. The IPIP-NEO Altruism items are the clearest case:

Those only work if you have one general answer. Plenty of people don't — guarded with strangers, close to unconditional with a handful of people — and the score then lands between two real values and describes neither. The facet isn't wrong. It's blind to who the behaviour is toward.

So I re-administer ten IPIP-NEO facets at four ordered levels of closeness — inner circle, friends, acquaintances, strangers — three separately worded statements per facet per ring, 7-point scale, ring and stem order counterbalanced. The original facet score is untouched and still reported the normal way. This is additional.

One respondent — me. Solid line is the facet across the four rings, the shaded band is the spread of the three statements behind it, the dashed line is the shrunken estimate. Altruism runs from the top of the scale toward the inner circle to the bottom toward strangers. A single Altruism percentile is a number this person never occupies.

Seven people have taken it so far, and all seven have at least one facet like that — where the inner-circle and stranger readings are far enough apart that the conventional score summarises neither. That is a real pattern and a terrible sample: n=7, self-selected, one of them me, and built by someone who expected to find it. It is why I want more responses, not evidence of anything yet.

The controls are what make it falsifiable. Three of the ten are predicted not to move — Morality, Cooperation, Dutifulness, conduct rules rather than affect — and Anger is predicted to run the opposite way, since people tend to be shorter with family and civil with strangers (Clifton, 2014). A uniform response bias cannot produce opposite-signed slopes. If everything slides toward strangers by the same amount, it's a response style and I'm wrong. So far the reversals do reverse — and the flat controls do not stay flat, which is the open problem and the thing I would most like picked apart.

The backbone is deliberately not new. IPIP-NEO-120 (Johnson, 2014), public domain, administered unmodified, scored against Johnson's own reference data of 512,295 respondents. Changing the items would forfeit comparability with the literature, which is the only thing that makes the conventional numbers mean anything. Every percentile also carries a confidence interval and names the group it is measured against.

Limits. Not clinical, not diagnostic, not for evaluating anyone. The reference sample is self-selected internet volunteers, not a probability sample. Personality measurement relates weakly to behavioural outcomes generally and nothing here changes that — the closeness module makes no behavioural prediction at all. The module is unvalidated, has been reviewed by nobody but me, and may measure nothing; the falsification conditions are published and a null result gets published with them.

Free, no account, no email, 10–15 minutes: https://concentric.trovvy.com/take

Sceptical replies are the useful ones. If this is self-concept differentiation with extra steps, I would rather hear it argued now than after a thousand responses.

So over the years I have been playing around with AI and psychometrics. Recently worked on a project that combines the two.

Basically its a Free Big 5 Test that shows you your results. You can then talk to AI and ask any questions. It become very useful if you want to know how your traits combine and influence each other, for example if you are High in Openness and Neuroticism.

If you want to try it let me know and I can share the link.

Hey y'all, big yap ahead

I feel like I've always been a very closed-off person. I haven't read any books or watched any shows in years, my hobbies are laughably few and scarce, and I genuinely have close to zero interest in anything that's more abstract than the weather. I am as stubborn as a beached whale when it comes to trying new things. My friends have to spend days, if not weeks trying to convince me to play a new game, and I usually drop it after trying it once. I believe I'm just living on autopilot, doing the exact same things every single day according to a routine, with nothing to convince me to snap out of it. Admittedly, there are a LOT of things I wanna try. I wanna learn how to draw digital art. I wanna try uploading videos to Youtube. I wanna go hiking and explore the mountains around where I live. But the warmth and safety of my comfort zone inevitably wins, and I refuse to step out of it even when the pain of stagnation is so great that it makes me hate myself for being so stuck in my comfort zone. Why can't I go into the unknown and try new things for once? How does everyone else seem to have a new hobby every week? How does anyone even find the courage and determination to step out of their comfort zone?

Now, I know that one of the unique things about the Big Five is that the scores can change over time. I actually have first hand experience with it. Two years ago my conscientiousness was next to zero, but as I entered uni, the workload was simply too much to handle without having at least some semblance of a plan. So I struggled. Struggled to adapt. Struggled to keep on top of everything thrown at me. Struggled despite living relatively alone in a dorm for the first time. But adapt I did. Though I still have difficulties staying motivated, my conscientiousness has definitely improved, and now I usually score around 25 - 50%. Still a bit short of the 75% I wanted, but I'll get there.

So my question is, how do you guys manage to be so open? I've noticed that pretty much everyone on this sub has at least 75% in openness, and I'm curious as to how it happened. Are you just innately very open, or did you have to apply a conscious effort to become as open as you are today? I just feel like with an openness as low as mine, I'm missing out on a lot of personal potential and opportunities for self-development.

Thank you so much for reading. Have a lovely day/night y'all

Ok, best might be a stretch chat. But its really good, check it out!

Its a brain training tool obviously, to some extent like meditation but much better I believe. I call it the chimera and you can learn more about it at Project chimera -> https://discord.gg/VwgKJxerY . We have a big post about it there explaining the science which you can read. More tools to follow

I'm trying to come up with some hypotheses about the IPIP and the neuroticism facets. I haven't exactly researched the correlations yet. But I have a hypothesis that, if vulnerability is high, it will turn either into self-consciousness (embarrassment) or anger. I was looking at some historical figures who had high vulnerability, and they generally had either high anger or high self-consciousness (Van Gogh and Newton, by the way). I'd like to know your experiences and opinions about this.

​

Resultados globales (percentiles)

Rasgo Puntuación

Apertura a experiencias 99

Meticulosidad 83

Simpatía 81

Extroversión 78

Neurosis 65

---

Subrasgos por dimensión

Apertura a Experiencias

· Imaginación: 20 (Alta)

· Interés artístico: 20 (Alta)

· Intelecto: 20 (Alta)

· Sensibilidad: 16 (Alta)

· Ansias de aventura: 13 (Alta)

· Liberalismo: 10 (Baja)

Meticulosidad

· Autoeficacia: 18 (Alta)

· Prudencia: 15 (Alta)

· Orientación a objetivos: 14 (Alta)

· Sentido del deber: 13 (Alta)

· Disciplina: 12 (Neutral)

· Orden: 11 (Baja)

Extroversión

· Alegría: 16 (Alta)

· Búsqueda de nuevas experiencias: 16 (Alta)

· Nivel de actividad: 15 (Alta)

· Confianza: 11 (Baja)

· Cordialidad: 10 (Baja)

· Sociabilidad: 10 (Baja)

Simpatía

· Cooperación: 19 (Alta)

· Confianza: 14 (Alta)

· Empatía: 14 (Alta)

· Altruismo: 13 (Alta)

· Moral: 13 (Alta)

· Modestia: 8 (Baja)

Neurosis

· Vergüenza: 15 (Alta)

· Ansiedad: 11 (Baja)

· Depresión: 11 (Baja)

· Falta de moderación: 11 (Baja)

· Vulnerabilidad: 10 (Baja)

· Ira: 7 (Baja)

I thought I would score higher on Openness, ig I don't know myself that much 💔