These Likert scale self-reports are fraught with difficulties in individual assessment styles and self-aggrandizement / disparagement. There are people who will conclude that 99% agreement with something is still just a "mild agree" because the mythical max value can never be attained, while others will swing entirely for max values on even the slightest whims of the day's mood. I also trust less the assessments that give as a result flattering assessments of, "who you are" as a result of those scores - it makes it harder to be objective about whether it is true about you or not. Better when they say things like, "You're often scattered and stuck in daydreams," or "You tend to be prone to unnecessary arguments," which one's ego is not going to claim on the basis of flattery alone.
A more objective kind of testing that tests for actual expressed behaviors and approaches is better, albeit not as easy. Originally the Ink Blot Test was surprisingly useful because certain psychological conditions would predispose a person to parse the "image" in different ways. Whereas a normal mind might look at the outlines to form the "base" image in one, a divergent mind would use the colors as the base image. It actually didn't matter "what" they saw, but "how" they came to see it. Unfortunately when adopted by Hollywood and the popular conception, they turned it into a matter like astrology or dream interpretation seeing a butterfly versus a skull meant something for what butterflies represent as opposed to skulls, and those meanings are more nuanced and messy and prone to subjective interpretation than whether your brain is parsing by color or outline or negative space predominantly.
Anyway, I don't put much stock into self-assessments, but in aggregate it might show hints at a general tendency.
Somewhat agree--I think the Big 5 shows what someone *values* as opposed to what he *is*.
And at least the dimensions of openness / conscientiousness / agreeableness are extremely value laden in practice, so to the extent that someone values openness it seems like a good proxy for openness itself.
What one aspires to be, or fears he is, on a particular day is what gets most readily captured.
Still, it's data useful for your general purposes. Your prediction of an audience with relatively high Openness and mid-low Agreeableness seems to be panning out so far.
So basically it looks like all the higher neuroticism people are INTJs and the few of us low neuroticism people are INTPs. That's why we can talk to you right-wingers without getting upset. :) I got:
O: 89
C: 43
E: 47
A: 41
N: 8
I think descriptors are more fun, so I'll just give the names I've been called by people, which I think validate the results:
- A robot
- A cyborg
- A Soviet spy
- A gay man in a woman's body (this didn't used to have the implications it does nowadays)
- Larry David if he was a hot chick
- An ice queen
- An alien
- Karmic Retribution Woman
- A hedonic flesh computer
- A Valkyrie with a brain transplant from an old Jewish man
I have slowly become more extraverted and less neurotic in recent years (ages ~21->26), and especially since coming out of grad school and the pandemic (24->26).
As others have brought up Myers-Briggs, I always tested as an INTJ as a teenager, though tested INTP a couple times in more recent years, and even just took it again out of curiosity and barely eked out ENTP, which I guess just reflects how close to the boundary I am on a lot of these factors. INTP might be most accurate.
I wonder if more widespread use of personality-testing language might reduce pathologization of innocuous eccentricities, especially this insane rise in self-diagnosis in autism/ADHD. Whether I'm INTJ or INTP, taking that test in high school helped explain a lot of what was "weird" about me without the result being a diagnosis of a disorder. INTx types are going to be a little socially weird and kind of alienated as kids, and then can easily learn more about social norms and gain social skills as they grow up.
A lot of people could probably have higher self-efficacy and better mental health if they just changed their language from the language of disorders to the language of personality. (Though even personality labels lead to some pretty pathologically anxious/self-isolating people reinforcing unhealthy behaviors through this kind of "oh teehee I'm such an introvert" BS, so it's not a silver bullet.)
Totally agree. So much of our current mental health issues is just people not understanding that people do in fact have different personalities that lead them to interact with the world differently. I'm curious as someone else that scores similarly to you, though, are you "diagnosed" ADHD or do you have what are typically classified as those kind of "symptoms"? No pressure to answer, just curious.
In times of particular alienation I've tipped more towards identifying with Asperger's traits than ADHD. Caffeine past a single cup of coffee tends to make me jittery and scattered as opposed to more focused, for whatever that's worth in differentiating the two.
That whole co-morbid autism/ADHD cluster of traits is prevalent in the paternal side of my family, and made its way down to me and my brothers. My brothers might identify more on the ADHD side of things. Even within one family though, it's very revealing to see how differently those traits can manifest, and how differently people can cope with them, or fail to.
I think a lot of the trouble with social cues, difficulty with eye contact, etc., is very much just under-developed social skills and ensuing lack of confidence. Kids need to put in the hours of practicing face-to-face interaction. A lot of the desire for these labels to explain our alienation is just that way too many kids are isolated in suburbia where they can't see any friends without getting a ride across town from mom or dad, and so they scratch the itch of loneliness with screens. What's the difference between a "hyper-fixation" and an algorithmic rabbit-hole anyway?
Shy kids used to be pushed out of their comfort zone to develop social skills, while now "introverted" kids are overly coddled. I don't know about the current usage of these ASD/ADHD labels, but I know my brothers and I all struggled with social anxiety, and I have only gotten to where I have in overcoming it thanks to exposure therapy. I gained social skills by moving repeatedly in pursuit of my career, and having a very sink-or-swim need to make new friends. If I'd stayed close to home and remained in a social bubble of people I grew up with, I could have gotten away with remaining way more socially stunted, and therefore would still be way more socially anxious.
When I was in school I was thrown an Aspergers and a "visual spatial learning disability" diagnosis. I do have some slight autist traits, but I'd never be diagnosed as on the spectrum today.
What's really crazy is ENTPs and ENFPs are theoretically bad at introverted sensing... which is essentially ADD. INTJs and INFJs are bad at extraverted sensing... which is essentially visual spatial problems (learning to drive, always being up in your own head, forgetting where you left the keys).
The most sensor-y of sensors are ESTPs, ESFPs, ISTJs, and ISFJs. To them, the above four types would be hard to understand. Why are they so bad at what is second nature to us? Hence perhaps the overuse of the ADD / autist labels towards us.
I'm not that well-versed in the overall prevalence of the different types, but as an INTx I know such types are on the rarer side, so I have wondered before about how much the pathologization of these kinds of people is simply rooted in being ~different~ from the more common types.
Also interesting parallels between the comparable rarity of INTJ women and differing gendered prevalence of autism spectrum diagnoses.
I think my big point is that it's probably a lot healthier to label my difference as "INTP brain" than to constantly be waving around the identitarian/victimhood label of being "neurodivergent."
My understanding is that the classical introvert/extrovert distinction isn't about greater or lesser social skills, which (as you say) are learnable, but about inner disposition and what "recharges" vs. "drains." I'm strongly an introvert in this sense. I have no problem mingling and making small talk in social settings, but after a certain amount of time passes, I need some time alone to reflect and gather my thoughts, and if I don't have the opportunity to do that, I get increasingly distracted and restless. That downtime is what "recharges" me before I go back to being social. Other people are the opposite, and get antsy if they're left to themselves for too long without anyone to talk to.
That said, I agree entirely that there are serious problems with the medicalization of what are actually social/structural problems. (Putting my political cap on: a built environment which forces middle class families to live in atomized suburban sprawl, where their kids can't leave the house to socialize independently because there are no sidewalks and nowhere to go, isn't a spontaneous revealed preference. It's the product of concrete political decisions about urban disorder and educational standards. These decisions are foolish, shortsighted, maybe civilization-destroying. Their authors are my enemies.)
The Zoomer use of "hyperfixation" to mean "hobby" drives me absolutely nuts. Oh, you have a "hyperfixation" on your favorite video game or book or TV series, and you'd rather be doing that than going to class? Congratulations, you're a normal human being.
See, I get drained from "low value" social interaction, i.e. being around people I dislike or can't hold a real conversation with. But when I'm around people that I can connect with in a real way, then I do get that "recharge" kind of feeling afterward. That said, at a foundational level I do need alone time for sure, so idk I guess that's what puts me in the middle-ish of it.
This was another point bouncing around in my head in the last couple days after this comment thread, so it's gratifying to come back to this thread and see someone else expressing the same idea.
There's one side of this that's wholesome and uncontroversial: the idea of "finding your people," having good friends who you feel personally connected with, have shared interests, that kind of thing.
Then there's a more taboo side that's much more status-hierarchical. People who are not a good hang will be socially excluded by people who are a good hang. So if you lack social skills, you'll think socialization is draining not only because /you're/ bad at it, but because the people who will accept you as a friend are bad at it.
Isolating yourself to play videogames and scroll social media will feel /relatively/ more energizing than a bad hang with a bunch of awkward geeks who are bad at listening, don't ask follow-up questions, always re-direct the conversation to their interests you don't care about, etc.. A hang with people who are good listeners, funny, share a lot of your interests, etc., will be relatively energizing, and is a much more compelling use of your time relative to solitary dopamine traps.
In another comment I made the analogy to music: you get better by playing with people who are better than you, and you gain social skills by hanging with people who are more fun and charming than you are. In this sense, "social climbing" is stigmatized and looked upon with suspicion, but there's a real pro-social benefit to it.
We tend to look at social climbing in a real zero-sum sense: "if you abandon your former friends to hang out with people who are cooler than them, you're a disloyal jerk." But if more people engaged in social climbing, there would be a real "rising tide" effect. More people would become better listeners, better conversationalists, and better friends. More people would understand others on a deeper level, and feel more understood themselves. The overall depth and quality of communities would increase pretty much across the board.
Yes, I suppose my point is that it’s a lot more exhausting to do something you’re bad at, and vice versa. Interaction is exhausting if you’re socially anxious and having a fight-or-flight response the whole time.
No shame to people who have addressed those problems and remain introverted. But let’s help people address those problems first before they drop out of society.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Screens are definitely a big culprit with all of this stuff. There’s a lot of truth to the coddling as well, but not even actually by the parents themselves but by iPads in proxy. It’s sad that parents don’t even interact with their children like people. Most children can have a pretty healthy socialization just by having parents that are interested in them and a couple siblings and some group regular interaction at church. Some of the best “socialized” kids I’ve interacted with have been homeschooled and raised like that. But most parents that diss homeschool just leave their kids at the mercy of screens and a woman on SSRIs instead of talking to them.
Very good point about homeschool kids and socialization through parents/adults. A lot of people I know who were homeschooled (and/or grew up without siblings) definitely strike me as eccentric/different, but are very affable conversationalists and in many ways seem much socially healthier than people who got less individualized adult attention in childhood. A lot of these people I'm thinking of have ADHD diagnoses, and are just exceptionally awesome people.
I guess one way to put it is that adolescents are horribly mean when their status-consciousness first starts to awaken, so "weird" kids get bullied a lot in typical school environments, but adults really don't give a shit if someone is kinda quirky. So in an only-child and/or homeschool environment, those kids are accepted as they are, and all the while are getting a lot more experience having adult conversation instead of talking about juvenile BS.
In music we always say the best way to improve is to play as much as you can with people who are better than you. I'd say the same applies to conversation. When the socially awkward kids get bullied and band together in school, they become increasingly limited to socializing with people who aren't helping them learn social skills.
We have very similar scores! At least on OEN; your CA is about half of mine. I knew from your writing style and interests that you were a kindred spirit; especially after your manifesto on localism/anti-managerialism/anti-CRA/pro-free association (even though you seem vehemently opposed to allowing me to falling love with / marry a man in a publicly celebrated manner).
I might wish gay marriage had never happened, and I think every nation where it hasn't been passed needs to pass a constitutional ban as soon as it possible can, but invalidating already existing marriages would be chaotic.
In countries where it already exists, I advocate 'privatising marriage', to create 'category overload' and therefore accelerate the return to the traditional definition, though I admit this will be a long process. This is why it's so important to nip it in the bud, and create strong constitutional safeguards, before the majority are indoctrinated to believe it.
One of the greatest mistakes in American history was not making the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act a constitutional amendment. Gay marriage attacks the connection of the law to classical categories and natural biology, allowing postmodern discourse deconstruction to consume the society completely.
Yes, I've read that one of yours, and I don't necessarily disagree at all with any of the object level analysis – especially in terms of broad historical content and structural social incentives (slippery slope is real, etc.). I think the best way to put this is – I'm totally with you on repealing CRA and dismantling political victimhood as a way to attack healthy family formation. I, too, detest the practice of legislating from the bench and the shameless manipulation of extra-electoral processes to drive electoral outcomes within an electoral system.
At the same time, I absolutely include my desire to find a husband and raise children within the definition of healthy family formation (as my friend @mathphysique echoed by the commend he posted in that article). And I'll not allow to let anybody argue otherwise, at least in a personal sense, if not a political sense. Certainly private marriage and/or civil unions seems to comport with this to some degree.
> every nation where it hasn't been passed needs to pass a constitutional ban
You might be interested to know that last October, India's Supreme Court declined to legalize same-sex marriage (relationships are already decriminalized). The Chief Justice stated that even though he personally wishes same-sex partnerships be granted equal status, it is up to the Parliament and individual states / provinces to make that call (look at that – principled constitutionalism and pro-federalism!)
Additionally, Hindu marriages are required by law to be registered with the government, but in practice a super-majority of marriages are not registered and fall to the level of common law / privatization. There are special provisions for both interfaith marriages, and marriages within other faiths (the most common other one being Muslim marriage).
We could have an interesting back-and-forth at some point. We agree more than we disagree.
‘ And I'll not allow to let anybody argue otherwise, at least in a personal sense, if not a political sense.’
Oh… do I need your ‘permission’? Are you the judge of what I’m allowed to say and believe? Defending marriage as it existed for millennia is apparently beyond the pale, decided by… you?
I’ll have exactly what opinion I want thank you very much.
You’ve done the classic ‘gay conservative’ thing of pretending to agree with me, only to emotionally shame and manipulate me, like you have some kind of moral authority here?
You’ll have whatever ‘rights’ the majority of society allows you to have.
You can have whatever opinion you'd like, but I didn't read Rajeev's prior comment as emotionally manipulative at all — just firmly asserting his unwillingness to submit his prospects of future family to the opinions of others, even if they should form a majority. In all honesty, the allegation of emotional shaming/manipulation comes across as projection of insecurities if anything because I simply don't see how you got that from his last comment. And that's not even considering how you explicitly want to resign gays to the moral fringes of society, which seems like the epitome of emotional shaming.
"You'll have whatever 'rights' the majority of society allows you to have."
While I understand this is functionally how "rights" which are state supported get decided on, I couldn't fathom privileging majority opinions morally just because they're the majority. Also this is precisely why democracies lead to instability: everyone's "rights" become subject to the fickle winds of public opinion, so oppositional voices often sound threatening. Anyway, I just don't associate the types of gays who got married with supporting other excesses along the "slippery slope" since marriage is a normalizing institution.
If you've heard of Malcolm and Simone Collins, I'd be interested in a back-and-forth between you and them since they are also broadly interested in human cultural institutions but who are very much aligned with gays on this issue. They point out the significant chunk of gay men who are increasingly finding themselves on the right, which is unsurprising since no longer being persecuted makes it a lot easier to align oneself with the broader goals of society. Also I can't remember if it was you who recommended the article "Homosexuality as Metaphor," but I recently read it and found it excellent.
This was bad phrasing on my part; I was trying to be a moral authority toward myself, not toward you. I should have said, "I'm not going to let myself be convinced that any of the correct & valid arguments you have put forward about 'natural rights', incentives, structure of law, etc." should have an impact on the idea that my future husband + our children is outside the purview/definition of healthy family formation. You, of course, should be happy to disagree.
I think this is generally correct, probably more agreeable in everyday life as well as little more conscientious. Having been much higher in extraversion in the past and lower in Neuroticism. On MBTI, I come out strongly ENTP, meaning everyone had to be fought verbally.
I will say that I have always found pretty much every personality test I've tried to be lackluster. It's probably because I'm too much of a "thinker" but sliding scale type questions irk me. My results can be a decent bit different on any given period I take the test, though I will say that I think this result is still the ballpark. I wish there was a personality test that was strictly scenario based. I.e., "You are at an obligatory social event that you didn't really want to go to, but were required to for work. Do you: (A) try to make the most of it and meet new people; (B) keep to yourself and only interact when spoken to or necessary; (C) find a familiar face and strike up a conversation; (D) make an excuse to not go at all.
A collection of those would be much more revealing to true disposition than "Do you like people on a scale of 1 to 5?" I'm not even sure what aspect of my personality this qualm reveals lol. Disagreeableness? Low conscientiousness? High Openness paired with those to provide a contrarian creativity? Your guess is as good as mine.
While most NTs realize that their *temperament* is that of an Analyst (as opposed to me, who is a strong Catalyst / NF), their *interaction style* is a lot more fluid.
ENTJ = Analyst + Be In Charge
ENTP = Analyst + Get Things Going
INTJ = Analyst + Chart The Course
INTP = Analyst + Behind The Scenes
Extroverts are much more predisposed to 'being in charge' and 'getting things going' but they will also show up 'charting careful plans' depending on the relationships context. Similarly, introverts aren't always 'behind the scenes'.
And these broad interaction styles can be broken down further, e.g, some extroverts are excellent at initiating things but terrible directing others.
lol I also did the JBP test a few years ago. I got an extremely low conscientiousness score, like 12 or something. The explanation of it said I would basically fail at life and end up an addict in prison. Lol it really was harsh enough that I actually bothered to email the team and question how I was relatively successful at this point in my life and whether it was due to how that score interacted with the others. But I never got a response haha. Typically an INTP with everything close to 50% except N which is usually 75%+
I think JP himself has quite a bias towards conscientiousness, just like most highly conscientious people seem to, where he will bring up the positives and negatives of all the other dimensions but always downplays or neglects the negatives of conscientiousness. Even in his political talks, he will bring up how all kinds of success in the western world is highly selective towards high IQ and high conscientiousness, and always comments on how that’s such a good thing. But why should one personality dimension be singled out like that if they are mathematically derived? To me that selection bias is actually a straightforward indication that the western world is deep into stagnation. Conscientious people are very efficient at running the established systems but they never seem to realize when the system has become obsolete and needs revision and revival.
At least for INTJs, a scam might work once, but not again. It just depends on when it happens in life. Later in life = more $ to lose.
After living in Brazil (which can have super convoluted scams), the lowest common denominator scams you'd find in say Thailand or Vietnam just made me laugh.
Yes, my conscientiousness score is also much higher on this test (x2!!), which actually reflects reality much better, because my executive function is ~fine, and my life is reasonably well-put together.
And my MBTI type is INTJ with the J being less than 5% on the J to P scale. I used to wonder if I will switch to INTP at some point but it stays completely consistent so far.
Why are so many of Walt's subscribers NT, and introverted NTs to boot? Am I the only strong NF in this room?! 😢 A lot of people mistake me for an NT, especially over text, because I have an extremely well-developed Ti. But if anyone talks to me for 30 seconds in person (especially about non-intellectual topics), my Fe-dominance is incredibly clear.
Well the selection is definitely biased towards Analysts both by medium and by genre. Most NFs are too thin-skinned to survive all the provocative stuff (which Walt leans into almost compulsively lol).
I have always thought that we coddle NFs by default these days. Since performative compassion is how everyone gains status, NFs have a natural advantage and they have no real reason to integrate their personalities. So they stay just as thin-skinned and hypersensitive as ever.
But as a very stereotypical ENTP I very deliberately try to keep some NFs around by occasionally writing like an INFJ and embracing romantic sturm und drang aesthetics / countersignaling rationalist rhetoric.
If you wan confirmation that I'm a Feeling Type: what you said isn't *wrong*, but there are much more diplomatic ways to put it 😅
Also, my perception is that this is true of society en-masse, but there are plenty of subcultures where the opposite rings true. Particularly in Silicon Valley and certain colleges (MIT, UChicago, CalTech) – the catering to NTs and neglect of NFs is over-the-top, even in humanities and 'softer' disciplines. This causes a different type of hypersensitivity that's both boring and annoying.
There are more nuances, too, of course. Right now, we are talking about temperaments (NF, NT, SP, SJ). But there's also the orthogonal axis of Interaction Styles.
One of the reasons, I'm able to pull my weight in spaces like this because of my naturally 'In-Charge' interaction style (Direct + Initiating specifically)
Heh, I did not doubt your Fe credentials one bit and I am sorry if that came out too harsh(I still struggle to be more polite, but I am trying).
You are right, us NT types do get catered to a lot too. I personally don’t remember the last time someone told me to stop dissecting and dismantling everything. I tend to get stuck into these depressing spirals of meaninglessness because when you start breaking things down they lose all their magic. I wish someone told me when I was over analyzing things. I try to do that for myself but it is not as easy.
I think openness is the really decisive trait here -- to what extent does that "translate" to types on the MBTI?
A normie whose natural empathy has been hijacked by constructed narratives will see this blog and run away screaming. But there's also no shortage of people who are thin-skinned drama queens on behalf of less reputable causes, and it's a wise move on Walt's part that he deliberately tries to drive these people away as well.
I'm also an NF, although perhaps not a strong one. I test consistently as being just on the cusp between F and T, tilted slightly to F, and I find this distinction useful for understanding my own personality.
Exercising my analytical mind is something I'm good at and enjoy doing. There's a kind of intellectual stimulation that I crave because it feels good, and I go crazy if I'm not getting regular doses of it. (That's what brings me here to write comments, after all.) But there's a sense in which it's not what *motivates* me, in the way that some people, presented with a logical contradiction or philosophical conundrum, can't rest content until they've solved it. I'm most comfortable when I'm living with ambiguity and operating on vibes.
The extroversion score is surprising as I consider myself an introvert, though I tend to get extrovert in socially favorable situations. It's also possible that it's based on my biased view of myself (what-I-think-I-do vs what-I-really-do), or that it's easy to confuse introversion with low agreeableness.
Coming kinda late to this, and of course my claim to fame is how deeply I lack neuroticism. I'm surprised my O isn't higher and that my C is as high as it is, but I guess there is precedent for that in my past. Although I'm a staunch libertarian, maybe I'd make a decent ruler. I do come from the right caste for it...
I consider the Extraversion score to be almost entirely assertiveness, with very little enthusiasm. I was a quiet, awkward kid who successfully trained myself to fit in and be comfortable in social situations, even if I don't enjoy them.
For anyone who might say the MBTI is woo... it's used by most Fortune 500 companies, brand name universities you've heard of, and apparently even the CIA (if you believe the podcast interviews).
MBTI is not woo at all, it is directly based on Jung’s concepts of basic personality dimensions and archetype theory. It is literally a Jungian philosophical construct and it just seems to click, especially for intuitive people, that’s why it’s used by everyone despite its flaws. It’s not liked by most academics because it isn’t quite as replicable as the big 5 and the big 5 is literally just a mathematical model. Usually I would be in favor of the mathematical model too but for measuring something as abstract and subjective as personality, you need the philosophical construct. I think that most people’s MBTI type is their prospective archetype tbh. Like it somehow tests what kind of life-narrative you will self-correct into.
Especially if you have a rare type (INTJ, INFJ), it explains a lot. Jung himself was a lead introverted intuitive. Now it makes sense why so many ENTP guys want to be friends with me, and why I click so so well with ENFP girls.
75% of the population are sensors. Education, bureaucracy etc is all optimized around them.
Openness: 87.5
Conscientiousness: 56
Extraversion: 46
Agreeableness: 62.5
Neuroticism: 65
These Likert scale self-reports are fraught with difficulties in individual assessment styles and self-aggrandizement / disparagement. There are people who will conclude that 99% agreement with something is still just a "mild agree" because the mythical max value can never be attained, while others will swing entirely for max values on even the slightest whims of the day's mood. I also trust less the assessments that give as a result flattering assessments of, "who you are" as a result of those scores - it makes it harder to be objective about whether it is true about you or not. Better when they say things like, "You're often scattered and stuck in daydreams," or "You tend to be prone to unnecessary arguments," which one's ego is not going to claim on the basis of flattery alone.
A more objective kind of testing that tests for actual expressed behaviors and approaches is better, albeit not as easy. Originally the Ink Blot Test was surprisingly useful because certain psychological conditions would predispose a person to parse the "image" in different ways. Whereas a normal mind might look at the outlines to form the "base" image in one, a divergent mind would use the colors as the base image. It actually didn't matter "what" they saw, but "how" they came to see it. Unfortunately when adopted by Hollywood and the popular conception, they turned it into a matter like astrology or dream interpretation seeing a butterfly versus a skull meant something for what butterflies represent as opposed to skulls, and those meanings are more nuanced and messy and prone to subjective interpretation than whether your brain is parsing by color or outline or negative space predominantly.
Anyway, I don't put much stock into self-assessments, but in aggregate it might show hints at a general tendency.
Somewhat agree--I think the Big 5 shows what someone *values* as opposed to what he *is*.
And at least the dimensions of openness / conscientiousness / agreeableness are extremely value laden in practice, so to the extent that someone values openness it seems like a good proxy for openness itself.
What one aspires to be, or fears he is, on a particular day is what gets most readily captured.
Still, it's data useful for your general purposes. Your prediction of an audience with relatively high Openness and mid-low Agreeableness seems to be panning out so far.
So basically it looks like all the higher neuroticism people are INTJs and the few of us low neuroticism people are INTPs. That's why we can talk to you right-wingers without getting upset. :) I got:
O: 89
C: 43
E: 47
A: 41
N: 8
I think descriptors are more fun, so I'll just give the names I've been called by people, which I think validate the results:
- A robot
- A cyborg
- A Soviet spy
- A gay man in a woman's body (this didn't used to have the implications it does nowadays)
- Larry David if he was a hot chick
- An ice queen
- An alien
- Karmic Retribution Woman
- A hedonic flesh computer
- A Valkyrie with a brain transplant from an old Jewish man
- Way less of a bitch than I thought you were
extremely surprised your agreeableness was 41
but maybe it's actually your low neuroticism that lets you spit hot takes so easily
Wtf is a flesh computer?
I gotta say some of these names are pretty creative. The worst I ever got was “reverse sphinx” but I think that might have been a compliment.
Openness: 79
Conscientiousness: 52
Extraversion: 46
Agreeableness: 40
Neuroticism: 38
I have slowly become more extraverted and less neurotic in recent years (ages ~21->26), and especially since coming out of grad school and the pandemic (24->26).
As others have brought up Myers-Briggs, I always tested as an INTJ as a teenager, though tested INTP a couple times in more recent years, and even just took it again out of curiosity and barely eked out ENTP, which I guess just reflects how close to the boundary I am on a lot of these factors. INTP might be most accurate.
I wonder if more widespread use of personality-testing language might reduce pathologization of innocuous eccentricities, especially this insane rise in self-diagnosis in autism/ADHD. Whether I'm INTJ or INTP, taking that test in high school helped explain a lot of what was "weird" about me without the result being a diagnosis of a disorder. INTx types are going to be a little socially weird and kind of alienated as kids, and then can easily learn more about social norms and gain social skills as they grow up.
A lot of people could probably have higher self-efficacy and better mental health if they just changed their language from the language of disorders to the language of personality. (Though even personality labels lead to some pretty pathologically anxious/self-isolating people reinforcing unhealthy behaviors through this kind of "oh teehee I'm such an introvert" BS, so it's not a silver bullet.)
Totally agree. So much of our current mental health issues is just people not understanding that people do in fact have different personalities that lead them to interact with the world differently. I'm curious as someone else that scores similarly to you, though, are you "diagnosed" ADHD or do you have what are typically classified as those kind of "symptoms"? No pressure to answer, just curious.
In times of particular alienation I've tipped more towards identifying with Asperger's traits than ADHD. Caffeine past a single cup of coffee tends to make me jittery and scattered as opposed to more focused, for whatever that's worth in differentiating the two.
That whole co-morbid autism/ADHD cluster of traits is prevalent in the paternal side of my family, and made its way down to me and my brothers. My brothers might identify more on the ADHD side of things. Even within one family though, it's very revealing to see how differently those traits can manifest, and how differently people can cope with them, or fail to.
I think a lot of the trouble with social cues, difficulty with eye contact, etc., is very much just under-developed social skills and ensuing lack of confidence. Kids need to put in the hours of practicing face-to-face interaction. A lot of the desire for these labels to explain our alienation is just that way too many kids are isolated in suburbia where they can't see any friends without getting a ride across town from mom or dad, and so they scratch the itch of loneliness with screens. What's the difference between a "hyper-fixation" and an algorithmic rabbit-hole anyway?
Shy kids used to be pushed out of their comfort zone to develop social skills, while now "introverted" kids are overly coddled. I don't know about the current usage of these ASD/ADHD labels, but I know my brothers and I all struggled with social anxiety, and I have only gotten to where I have in overcoming it thanks to exposure therapy. I gained social skills by moving repeatedly in pursuit of my career, and having a very sink-or-swim need to make new friends. If I'd stayed close to home and remained in a social bubble of people I grew up with, I could have gotten away with remaining way more socially stunted, and therefore would still be way more socially anxious.
When I was in school I was thrown an Aspergers and a "visual spatial learning disability" diagnosis. I do have some slight autist traits, but I'd never be diagnosed as on the spectrum today.
What's really crazy is ENTPs and ENFPs are theoretically bad at introverted sensing... which is essentially ADD. INTJs and INFJs are bad at extraverted sensing... which is essentially visual spatial problems (learning to drive, always being up in your own head, forgetting where you left the keys).
The most sensor-y of sensors are ESTPs, ESFPs, ISTJs, and ISFJs. To them, the above four types would be hard to understand. Why are they so bad at what is second nature to us? Hence perhaps the overuse of the ADD / autist labels towards us.
I'm not that well-versed in the overall prevalence of the different types, but as an INTx I know such types are on the rarer side, so I have wondered before about how much the pathologization of these kinds of people is simply rooted in being ~different~ from the more common types.
Also interesting parallels between the comparable rarity of INTJ women and differing gendered prevalence of autism spectrum diagnoses.
I think my big point is that it's probably a lot healthier to label my difference as "INTP brain" than to constantly be waving around the identitarian/victimhood label of being "neurodivergent."
Especially vs the 1990s when we would have just been, say, "the Star Trek fans"
My understanding is that the classical introvert/extrovert distinction isn't about greater or lesser social skills, which (as you say) are learnable, but about inner disposition and what "recharges" vs. "drains." I'm strongly an introvert in this sense. I have no problem mingling and making small talk in social settings, but after a certain amount of time passes, I need some time alone to reflect and gather my thoughts, and if I don't have the opportunity to do that, I get increasingly distracted and restless. That downtime is what "recharges" me before I go back to being social. Other people are the opposite, and get antsy if they're left to themselves for too long without anyone to talk to.
That said, I agree entirely that there are serious problems with the medicalization of what are actually social/structural problems. (Putting my political cap on: a built environment which forces middle class families to live in atomized suburban sprawl, where their kids can't leave the house to socialize independently because there are no sidewalks and nowhere to go, isn't a spontaneous revealed preference. It's the product of concrete political decisions about urban disorder and educational standards. These decisions are foolish, shortsighted, maybe civilization-destroying. Their authors are my enemies.)
The Zoomer use of "hyperfixation" to mean "hobby" drives me absolutely nuts. Oh, you have a "hyperfixation" on your favorite video game or book or TV series, and you'd rather be doing that than going to class? Congratulations, you're a normal human being.
See, I get drained from "low value" social interaction, i.e. being around people I dislike or can't hold a real conversation with. But when I'm around people that I can connect with in a real way, then I do get that "recharge" kind of feeling afterward. That said, at a foundational level I do need alone time for sure, so idk I guess that's what puts me in the middle-ish of it.
This was another point bouncing around in my head in the last couple days after this comment thread, so it's gratifying to come back to this thread and see someone else expressing the same idea.
There's one side of this that's wholesome and uncontroversial: the idea of "finding your people," having good friends who you feel personally connected with, have shared interests, that kind of thing.
Then there's a more taboo side that's much more status-hierarchical. People who are not a good hang will be socially excluded by people who are a good hang. So if you lack social skills, you'll think socialization is draining not only because /you're/ bad at it, but because the people who will accept you as a friend are bad at it.
Isolating yourself to play videogames and scroll social media will feel /relatively/ more energizing than a bad hang with a bunch of awkward geeks who are bad at listening, don't ask follow-up questions, always re-direct the conversation to their interests you don't care about, etc.. A hang with people who are good listeners, funny, share a lot of your interests, etc., will be relatively energizing, and is a much more compelling use of your time relative to solitary dopamine traps.
In another comment I made the analogy to music: you get better by playing with people who are better than you, and you gain social skills by hanging with people who are more fun and charming than you are. In this sense, "social climbing" is stigmatized and looked upon with suspicion, but there's a real pro-social benefit to it.
We tend to look at social climbing in a real zero-sum sense: "if you abandon your former friends to hang out with people who are cooler than them, you're a disloyal jerk." But if more people engaged in social climbing, there would be a real "rising tide" effect. More people would become better listeners, better conversationalists, and better friends. More people would understand others on a deeper level, and feel more understood themselves. The overall depth and quality of communities would increase pretty much across the board.
Yes, I suppose my point is that it’s a lot more exhausting to do something you’re bad at, and vice versa. Interaction is exhausting if you’re socially anxious and having a fight-or-flight response the whole time.
No shame to people who have addressed those problems and remain introverted. But let’s help people address those problems first before they drop out of society.
Here’s a funny relevant piece: https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/im-not-an-asshole-im-an-introvert
I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Screens are definitely a big culprit with all of this stuff. There’s a lot of truth to the coddling as well, but not even actually by the parents themselves but by iPads in proxy. It’s sad that parents don’t even interact with their children like people. Most children can have a pretty healthy socialization just by having parents that are interested in them and a couple siblings and some group regular interaction at church. Some of the best “socialized” kids I’ve interacted with have been homeschooled and raised like that. But most parents that diss homeschool just leave their kids at the mercy of screens and a woman on SSRIs instead of talking to them.
Very good point about homeschool kids and socialization through parents/adults. A lot of people I know who were homeschooled (and/or grew up without siblings) definitely strike me as eccentric/different, but are very affable conversationalists and in many ways seem much socially healthier than people who got less individualized adult attention in childhood. A lot of these people I'm thinking of have ADHD diagnoses, and are just exceptionally awesome people.
I guess one way to put it is that adolescents are horribly mean when their status-consciousness first starts to awaken, so "weird" kids get bullied a lot in typical school environments, but adults really don't give a shit if someone is kinda quirky. So in an only-child and/or homeschool environment, those kids are accepted as they are, and all the while are getting a lot more experience having adult conversation instead of talking about juvenile BS.
In music we always say the best way to improve is to play as much as you can with people who are better than you. I'd say the same applies to conversation. When the socially awkward kids get bullied and band together in school, they become increasingly limited to socializing with people who aren't helping them learn social skills.
Openness: 98
Conscientiousness: 21
Extraversion: 71
Agreeableness: 25
Neuroticism: 83
We have very similar scores! At least on OEN; your CA is about half of mine. I knew from your writing style and interests that you were a kindred spirit; especially after your manifesto on localism/anti-managerialism/anti-CRA/pro-free association (even though you seem vehemently opposed to allowing me to falling love with / marry a man in a publicly celebrated manner).
I might wish gay marriage had never happened, and I think every nation where it hasn't been passed needs to pass a constitutional ban as soon as it possible can, but invalidating already existing marriages would be chaotic.
In countries where it already exists, I advocate 'privatising marriage', to create 'category overload' and therefore accelerate the return to the traditional definition, though I admit this will be a long process. This is why it's so important to nip it in the bud, and create strong constitutional safeguards, before the majority are indoctrinated to believe it.
One of the greatest mistakes in American history was not making the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act a constitutional amendment. Gay marriage attacks the connection of the law to classical categories and natural biology, allowing postmodern discourse deconstruction to consume the society completely.
https://anglofuturistmag.substack.com/p/why-i-wont-stop-talking-about-gay?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Yes, I've read that one of yours, and I don't necessarily disagree at all with any of the object level analysis – especially in terms of broad historical content and structural social incentives (slippery slope is real, etc.). I think the best way to put this is – I'm totally with you on repealing CRA and dismantling political victimhood as a way to attack healthy family formation. I, too, detest the practice of legislating from the bench and the shameless manipulation of extra-electoral processes to drive electoral outcomes within an electoral system.
At the same time, I absolutely include my desire to find a husband and raise children within the definition of healthy family formation (as my friend @mathphysique echoed by the commend he posted in that article). And I'll not allow to let anybody argue otherwise, at least in a personal sense, if not a political sense. Certainly private marriage and/or civil unions seems to comport with this to some degree.
> every nation where it hasn't been passed needs to pass a constitutional ban
You might be interested to know that last October, India's Supreme Court declined to legalize same-sex marriage (relationships are already decriminalized). The Chief Justice stated that even though he personally wishes same-sex partnerships be granted equal status, it is up to the Parliament and individual states / provinces to make that call (look at that – principled constitutionalism and pro-federalism!)
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/10/17/unpacking-indian-supreme-courts-verdict-on-same-sex-marriage
Additionally, Hindu marriages are required by law to be registered with the government, but in practice a super-majority of marriages are not registered and fall to the level of common law / privatization. There are special provisions for both interfaith marriages, and marriages within other faiths (the most common other one being Muslim marriage).
We could have an interesting back-and-forth at some point. We agree more than we disagree.
‘ And I'll not allow to let anybody argue otherwise, at least in a personal sense, if not a political sense.’
Oh… do I need your ‘permission’? Are you the judge of what I’m allowed to say and believe? Defending marriage as it existed for millennia is apparently beyond the pale, decided by… you?
I’ll have exactly what opinion I want thank you very much.
You’ve done the classic ‘gay conservative’ thing of pretending to agree with me, only to emotionally shame and manipulate me, like you have some kind of moral authority here?
You’ll have whatever ‘rights’ the majority of society allows you to have.
You can have whatever opinion you'd like, but I didn't read Rajeev's prior comment as emotionally manipulative at all — just firmly asserting his unwillingness to submit his prospects of future family to the opinions of others, even if they should form a majority. In all honesty, the allegation of emotional shaming/manipulation comes across as projection of insecurities if anything because I simply don't see how you got that from his last comment. And that's not even considering how you explicitly want to resign gays to the moral fringes of society, which seems like the epitome of emotional shaming.
"You'll have whatever 'rights' the majority of society allows you to have."
While I understand this is functionally how "rights" which are state supported get decided on, I couldn't fathom privileging majority opinions morally just because they're the majority. Also this is precisely why democracies lead to instability: everyone's "rights" become subject to the fickle winds of public opinion, so oppositional voices often sound threatening. Anyway, I just don't associate the types of gays who got married with supporting other excesses along the "slippery slope" since marriage is a normalizing institution.
If you've heard of Malcolm and Simone Collins, I'd be interested in a back-and-forth between you and them since they are also broadly interested in human cultural institutions but who are very much aligned with gays on this issue. They point out the significant chunk of gay men who are increasingly finding themselves on the right, which is unsurprising since no longer being persecuted makes it a lot easier to align oneself with the broader goals of society. Also I can't remember if it was you who recommended the article "Homosexuality as Metaphor," but I recently read it and found it excellent.
You sound indistinguishable from a Woke leftist.
This 'no debate' discourse around 'rights'.
This was bad phrasing on my part; I was trying to be a moral authority toward myself, not toward you. I should have said, "I'm not going to let myself be convinced that any of the correct & valid arguments you have put forward about 'natural rights', incentives, structure of law, etc." should have an impact on the idea that my future husband + our children is outside the purview/definition of healthy family formation. You, of course, should be happy to disagree.
Openess: 92
Conscientiousness: 19
Extraversion: 58
Agreebleness: 25
Neuroticism: 79
I think this is generally correct, probably more agreeable in everyday life as well as little more conscientious. Having been much higher in extraversion in the past and lower in Neuroticism. On MBTI, I come out strongly ENTP, meaning everyone had to be fought verbally.
Openness: 90
Conscientiousness: 44
Extraversion: 50
Agreeableness: 54
Neuroticism: 37.5
I will say that I have always found pretty much every personality test I've tried to be lackluster. It's probably because I'm too much of a "thinker" but sliding scale type questions irk me. My results can be a decent bit different on any given period I take the test, though I will say that I think this result is still the ballpark. I wish there was a personality test that was strictly scenario based. I.e., "You are at an obligatory social event that you didn't really want to go to, but were required to for work. Do you: (A) try to make the most of it and meet new people; (B) keep to yourself and only interact when spoken to or necessary; (C) find a familiar face and strike up a conversation; (D) make an excuse to not go at all.
A collection of those would be much more revealing to true disposition than "Do you like people on a scale of 1 to 5?" I'm not even sure what aspect of my personality this qualm reveals lol. Disagreeableness? Low conscientiousness? High Openness paired with those to provide a contrarian creativity? Your guess is as good as mine.
I've often found that for NT types, what helps them 'buy into the system' a bit more is presenting Linda Berens' research on Interactions Styles.
https://lindaberens.com/resources/methodology-articles/interaction-styles/
https://lindaberens.com/resources/methodology-articles/temperament-theory/
While most NTs realize that their *temperament* is that of an Analyst (as opposed to me, who is a strong Catalyst / NF), their *interaction style* is a lot more fluid.
ENTJ = Analyst + Be In Charge
ENTP = Analyst + Get Things Going
INTJ = Analyst + Chart The Course
INTP = Analyst + Behind The Scenes
Extroverts are much more predisposed to 'being in charge' and 'getting things going' but they will also show up 'charting careful plans' depending on the relationships context. Similarly, introverts aren't always 'behind the scenes'.
And these broad interaction styles can be broken down further, e.g, some extroverts are excellent at initiating things but terrible directing others.
Openness: 100
Conscientiousness: 46
Extraversion: 71
Agreeableness: 37.5
Neuroticism: 42
I also did the test that JP offers on his website a few years ago and I think it was a lot more precise in its questions:
Openness to experience: 99 (intellect: 99, openness: 98)
Conscientiousness: 38 (industriousness: 38, orderliness: 41)
Extraversion: 72 (enthusiasm: 10, assertiveness: 98)
Agreeableness: 20 (compassion: 61, politeness: 3)
Neuroticism: 11 (withdrawal: 31, volatility: 4)
lol I also did the JBP test a few years ago. I got an extremely low conscientiousness score, like 12 or something. The explanation of it said I would basically fail at life and end up an addict in prison. Lol it really was harsh enough that I actually bothered to email the team and question how I was relatively successful at this point in my life and whether it was due to how that score interacted with the others. But I never got a response haha. Typically an INTP with everything close to 50% except N which is usually 75%+
I think JP himself has quite a bias towards conscientiousness, just like most highly conscientious people seem to, where he will bring up the positives and negatives of all the other dimensions but always downplays or neglects the negatives of conscientiousness. Even in his political talks, he will bring up how all kinds of success in the western world is highly selective towards high IQ and high conscientiousness, and always comments on how that’s such a good thing. But why should one personality dimension be singled out like that if they are mathematically derived? To me that selection bias is actually a straightforward indication that the western world is deep into stagnation. Conscientious people are very efficient at running the established systems but they never seem to realize when the system has become obsolete and needs revision and revival.
conscientious people are also pretty bad at figuring out when a low con guy is scamming them or not pulling his weight
for every low con guy who sits at home smoking weed there's another who does 2 hrs of work a week because the high con guy simply got to it first
But, of course, us low con lazy mfs would say all that wouldn’t they?;)
At least for INTJs, a scam might work once, but not again. It just depends on when it happens in life. Later in life = more $ to lose.
After living in Brazil (which can have super convoluted scams), the lowest common denominator scams you'd find in say Thailand or Vietnam just made me laugh.
Yes, my conscientiousness score is also much higher on this test (x2!!), which actually reflects reality much better, because my executive function is ~fine, and my life is reasonably well-put together.
That is to say that his test is highly precise and accurate as far as I can tell, but the explanations of the various types are not the most objective
And my MBTI type is INTJ with the J being less than 5% on the J to P scale. I used to wonder if I will switch to INTP at some point but it stays completely consistent so far.
Why are so many of Walt's subscribers NT, and introverted NTs to boot? Am I the only strong NF in this room?! 😢 A lot of people mistake me for an NT, especially over text, because I have an extremely well-developed Ti. But if anyone talks to me for 30 seconds in person (especially about non-intellectual topics), my Fe-dominance is incredibly clear.
Well the selection is definitely biased towards Analysts both by medium and by genre. Most NFs are too thin-skinned to survive all the provocative stuff (which Walt leans into almost compulsively lol).
I have always thought that we coddle NFs by default these days. Since performative compassion is how everyone gains status, NFs have a natural advantage and they have no real reason to integrate their personalities. So they stay just as thin-skinned and hypersensitive as ever.
True.
But as a very stereotypical ENTP I very deliberately try to keep some NFs around by occasionally writing like an INFJ and embracing romantic sturm und drang aesthetics / countersignaling rationalist rhetoric.
This can't become LessWrong.
If you wan confirmation that I'm a Feeling Type: what you said isn't *wrong*, but there are much more diplomatic ways to put it 😅
Also, my perception is that this is true of society en-masse, but there are plenty of subcultures where the opposite rings true. Particularly in Silicon Valley and certain colleges (MIT, UChicago, CalTech) – the catering to NTs and neglect of NFs is over-the-top, even in humanities and 'softer' disciplines. This causes a different type of hypersensitivity that's both boring and annoying.
There are more nuances, too, of course. Right now, we are talking about temperaments (NF, NT, SP, SJ). But there's also the orthogonal axis of Interaction Styles.
https://lindaberens.com/resources/methodology-articles/interaction-styles/
One of the reasons, I'm able to pull my weight in spaces like this because of my naturally 'In-Charge' interaction style (Direct + Initiating specifically)
Heh, I did not doubt your Fe credentials one bit and I am sorry if that came out too harsh(I still struggle to be more polite, but I am trying).
You are right, us NT types do get catered to a lot too. I personally don’t remember the last time someone told me to stop dissecting and dismantling everything. I tend to get stuck into these depressing spirals of meaninglessness because when you start breaking things down they lose all their magic. I wish someone told me when I was over analyzing things. I try to do that for myself but it is not as easy.
I think openness is the really decisive trait here -- to what extent does that "translate" to types on the MBTI?
A normie whose natural empathy has been hijacked by constructed narratives will see this blog and run away screaming. But there's also no shortage of people who are thin-skinned drama queens on behalf of less reputable causes, and it's a wise move on Walt's part that he deliberately tries to drive these people away as well.
Intuitive types, who are half the MBTI categories but only 25% of the population. Even then, ENFJs and INFPs can get pretty woke.
I'm also an NF, although perhaps not a strong one. I test consistently as being just on the cusp between F and T, tilted slightly to F, and I find this distinction useful for understanding my own personality.
Exercising my analytical mind is something I'm good at and enjoy doing. There's a kind of intellectual stimulation that I crave because it feels good, and I go crazy if I'm not getting regular doses of it. (That's what brings me here to write comments, after all.) But there's a sense in which it's not what *motivates* me, in the way that some people, presented with a logical contradiction or philosophical conundrum, can't rest content until they've solved it. I'm most comfortable when I'm living with ambiguity and operating on vibes.
O: 81
C: 62.5
E: 69
A: 19
N: 35
The extroversion score is surprising as I consider myself an introvert, though I tend to get extrovert in socially favorable situations. It's also possible that it's based on my biased view of myself (what-I-think-I-do vs what-I-really-do), or that it's easy to confuse introversion with low agreeableness.
81, 58, 62.5, 35 & 50.
O: 81
C: 65
E: 67
A: 52
N: 0
Coming kinda late to this, and of course my claim to fame is how deeply I lack neuroticism. I'm surprised my O isn't higher and that my C is as high as it is, but I guess there is precedent for that in my past. Although I'm a staunch libertarian, maybe I'd make a decent ruler. I do come from the right caste for it...
Openness: 94
Conscientiousness: 56
Extraversion: 69
Agreeableness: 23
Neuroticism: 15
I consider the Extraversion score to be almost entirely assertiveness, with very little enthusiasm. I was a quiet, awkward kid who successfully trained myself to fit in and be comfortable in social situations, even if I don't enjoy them.
Openness: 92
Consciousness: 71
Extraversion: 44
Agreeableness: 42
Neuroticism: 83
Maps pretty well into INTJ...
For anyone who might say the MBTI is woo... it's used by most Fortune 500 companies, brand name universities you've heard of, and apparently even the CIA (if you believe the podcast interviews).
MBTI is not woo at all, it is directly based on Jung’s concepts of basic personality dimensions and archetype theory. It is literally a Jungian philosophical construct and it just seems to click, especially for intuitive people, that’s why it’s used by everyone despite its flaws. It’s not liked by most academics because it isn’t quite as replicable as the big 5 and the big 5 is literally just a mathematical model. Usually I would be in favor of the mathematical model too but for measuring something as abstract and subjective as personality, you need the philosophical construct. I think that most people’s MBTI type is their prospective archetype tbh. Like it somehow tests what kind of life-narrative you will self-correct into.
Especially if you have a rare type (INTJ, INFJ), it explains a lot. Jung himself was a lead introverted intuitive. Now it makes sense why so many ENTP guys want to be friends with me, and why I click so so well with ENFP girls.
75% of the population are sensors. Education, bureaucracy etc is all optimized around them.
O: 88
C: 42
E: 96
A: 27
N: 12
81, 81, 50, 27, 33
I like art museums, I guess that’s my downfall.
Openness: 98
Conscientiousness: 15
Extraversion: 81
Agreeableness: 40
Neuroticism: 40
(My results a) support your hypothesis; and b) are quite similar to yours, though I'm more agreeable)
Openness: 100
Conscientiousness: 60
Extraversion: 12.5
Agreeableness: 46
Neuroticism: 77