Thoughts on a personality test I did

I recently took a personality test. It applies the “Big Five” methodology. This is a premium service, but I will not provide details in the interest of privacy. The results are broadly in line with what I already knew, namely:

Predominantly rational: exceptionally low agreeableness, which is the trait that covers aspects of compassion and politeness.
Moderately introverted: slightly below average extraversion, which is the trait that covers aspects of enthusiasm and assertiveness.
Industrious but not perfectionist: high conscientiousness, which is the trait that covers aspects of industriousness and orderliness.
Open-minded but not too unconventional: high openness, which is the trait that covers aspects of intellect and aesthetics.
Emotionally stable and predictable: exceptionally low neuroticism, which is the trait that covers aspects of withdrawal and volatility.

Still, there is plenty of room for interpretation and scepticism.

The character of a working-line dog breed

One score that is surprising if left unexplained is that of agreeableness. This is the trait that encompasses characteristics of compassion and politeness. While I am on the lower end on both, I think the test does not—and perhaps cannot—capture nuanced points. My disposition is akin to that of a guard dog: I am hostile to offenders and will stand my ground, cautious in the face of radical uncertainty, not too quick to make the first move, and unequivocally loyal towards those I care about. Like a dog, I am not particularly shy, though I do know when to remain silent and when to speak my mind.

As with all of these traits, they have to be understood in relation to each other. For instance, my low agreeableness must be framed in light of my moderate extraversion. Because I am perfectly content with being alone, I meed more time to connect with people and thus appear more distant/cold to those who do not know me. Though I do eventually connect with them deeply. I am not stern, as I enjoy joking and making others laugh (I am open with those I know, as you would expect from the aforementioned).

My conscientiousness is a mixture of super high industriousness and very low orderliness. This means that I am not judgemental despite my work ethic. I tolerate practically everything and do not get upset if things are not the way I want. Adding the super low neuroticism into the mix (thick-skinned and emotionally predictable), I am as easygoing as it gets which, I think, does not make me “cold” but rather “aloof”.

Enthusiastic only for what I care about

The extraversion trait is a curious case. My enthusiasm score is on the lower end which, again, is like how a dog takes time to warm up to strangers. But my assertiveness is high. I am not especially argumentative in one-to-one exchanges because of my dubitative and inquisitive philosophical outlook. I am content to change my mind when faced with cogent counter arguments, though I will not do it just to please someone (also reflected as low agreeableness). Perhaps this is why the assertiveness is high: one will have to make a compelling case to persuade me.

Enthusiasm is a nuanced concept. I consider myself highly enthusiastic about the things I care about. For example, I have been publishing consistently on my website since 2011—I enjoy it! Though I do indeed have a hard time getting excited about something I find dull or which is forced upon me. This is why I was not good at school: I was daydreaming about football and other adventures, which I did excel at, but could not be bothered to parrot whatever boring nonsense they gave us for homework. When I got into college, which I did on my own accord, working and paying for it, I became passionate about my studies and got excellent grades. This is a clear pattern of being eclectic with my enthusiasm: it is not for every thing/one, but once it is there, it is unflinching.

In light of my high assertiveness and low orderliness (more on that below), this selective enthusiasm helps explain why I do not care about a glittering career, a person’s social standing, or authority in general. I respect those who earn it with their deeds and value honour in a person above everything else.

Since I mentioned school, I am reminded of an instance that shows my assertive side which, combined with low agreeableness, makes me independent albeit not contrarian. In my mother tongue, modern Greek, it is common to use archaic forms of words. There is no ambiguity: everyone understands exactly what you are saying (an example for Greek speakers: η πόλη, της πόλεως instead of η πόλη, της πόλης). I once used such a form without thinking about it in the literature class, which the ever-pedantic teacher marked as a mistake. I defended my choice, explaining that I was justified because we employ those forms in the vernacular, providing examples in the process. The teacher dismissed my argument on the parochial premise that those are still not “modern Greek”. They then appealed to their authority and chose not to revise my score. I was not convinced…

When you mix an ant with a grasshopper

The conscientiousness part is as expected, though I think the low orderliness score is misleading if seen in isolation. I am not a messy person in any sense: not physically, nor in terms of my work. I actually am a minimalist and prefer to remove clutter where possible. I am generally careful and consistent in my methods. Though I do not worry if things are not the way I want them and am not obsessive about minimalism: a messy desk does not bother me. I would thus describe myself as “orderly in general” but also “nonchalant”. These sound mutually exclusive, though they are not: I take good care about the things I control but do not get upset if the prevailing conditions do not go my way or, generally, if I have to adapt to evolving states of affairs. Perhaps, then, a better description is “stable basis, varied ways”. This is consistent with my exceptionally low neuroticism, i.e. I am not prone to negative emotions.

I think the high work ethic is perhaps the single most noticeable feature I have. Just do a cursory search on this website to notice how frequently and how much I publish, for example. And then consider that this is something I do on the side, usually after a long day of work… However, I am not a workaholic. Greeks never miss an opportunity to enjoy their tavli with café frappé in hand, after all. 🙃 Well, not exactly what I do though I am taking breaks and have plenty of time for relaxation.

Continuing with the theme of being easygoing, I do not expect anyone to keep apace with me: I neither judge them, nor demand from them to raise their standard. I am industrious simply because it is fun for me (there is practical value as well, but I would not do it if it was not exciting). Again, this nuanced point about enthusiasm… I am highly competitive with myself: I try to push the boundaries and strongly prefer action to the alternative of “just chill”. I would rather go for a long walk than watch a movie, for example, not out of some ideological opposition to cinema but simply because it does not appeal to me. We return to the analogy of the working-line dog breed once more: a police canine will become depressed if it is forced into a sedentary lifestyle, but let it in on the action and it thrives.

Ideas and actions are good

My openness score shows that I am a person of ideas but I am not going too far with them. This is evident in my intellectual side which, nonetheless, is not too abstract. I consider my philosophy largely practical and I try to explain concepts in a way that is relatable. I also program for leisure (lots of packages for Emacs, for instance), which is a continuation of this “yes to ideas; yes to applications” theme. I still am not the true engineer type, as I find fulfilment in the openendedness of philosophical contemplation.

The trait of openness covers the intellect and aesthetics. The former is not to be confused with intelligence: it is about whether a person is drawn to concepts rather than things. My intellect score is very high but my aesthetics are average. This may explain why I am conventional in many ways. For example, my clothes tend to be simple (those which are fancier are gifts), I have never had a piercing, do not have tattoos, never dyed my hair, did not try smoking, and, generally did not do anything that looks unconventional or remotely edgy. (I am totally okay with all of these, by the way, but do not see any reason to try them myself—again, the easygoing, non-judgemental part).

My average score on aesthetics does seem odd though if seen in isolation. I think of myself as sensitive to art and natural beauty in general. I even write poetry, though I admit it is not of the overtly emotional sort. What is clear, however, is that I do not feel the need to show an artistic flair, especially not to draw attention to myself through it (which makes sense once we factor in the below average extraversion). Though I agree that it cannot be too high because if I was given the choice to, say, play the guitar or participate in a football match I would pick the latter 100% of the time. Same for everything I like, actually, hence why I never tried to learn music, do painting, become an actor, join a dancing club…

Perhaps my score on aesthetics would be much higher if they were asking about natural scenes: my heart skips a beat when I catch the sunset, encounter an eagle, and the like. To me, these belong to the category of aesthetic experiences (with awe being spiritual), although they are not “art”. Limiting aesthetics to what humans produce is bound to completely miss the kind of subtlety I care about, while it will overestimate my dislike for kitsch.

What you see is what you get

Neuroticism as a concept was the one I was not sure about. It sounded vague to me. This is the way a person reacts to negative emotions and/or stressful situations. It thus covers aspects of withdrawal and volatility. I am exceptionally low on these metrics, meaning that I do not withdraw into my own shell and I am emotionally stable (not angry, upset, agitated). Additionally, I am patient, do not hold grudges, take no offence, and do not worry even about things that can be dangerous.

A few days ago, I was in a video call when a viper moved along the floor in my room (there are both venomous and non-venomous snakes around my hut). I learnt after the fact that there was a small opening below my door, which must be where the snake got in. Atlas, one of my two dogs, immediately attacked and ultimately neutralised the snake. I got up right away and calmly contained the serpent with a piece of cloth while it was still moving. I took it outside and then I went back to my call as if nothing had happened.

This has been the norm in my activities (first time I got up so close to a venomous snake though). I have faced difficult situations but coped with them while keeping my cool. A common case is with emergencies, like when I saved a neighbour’s dog from poisoning by first making it vomit and then administering a vaccine I had in store for my own dog. I recently did something similar when I patched the bleeding ear of a stray dog, while others were crying about whether it would survive the night (it is doing well). I cannot tell how much of this is down to personality, experience, or philosophical training, though I remember having this trait to some degree from a young age.

I did, nonetheless, go through a period of depression during the previous decade. This is something I have thought about before: why would it happen to me, given my stable temperament? My best guess is that I went through that phase of doubt, disappointment, powerlessness, and self-loathing because I was in an environment that ran counter to my nature, combined with my extremely precarious financial situation at the time that was bringing into question my basic sense of safety. Basically, I was a wild animal that had to act like a house cat, desperate for food but with no outlet for its hunting drive. This was all gone once I moved to the mountains. I rediscovered myself and even gained insights into aspects of selfhood that were once obscure to me.

Informative but easy to mislead

I expect every self-respecting scientist to admit that these tests are, at best, a thumbnail sketch of what a person is. They do not capture the finer points and leave plenty of room for interpretation. If I were to proclaim “hay, I rank low in terms of compassion” that would make me sound like some kind of a robot when in reality I am friendly. Similarly, if I remark that I am super industrious this can give a sense of being toxic with how I expect others to behave when in actuality I never think in terms of one-size-fits-all and do not feel the need to prove anything to anyone. The way I see it, I am playing around out of sheer enthusiasm.

Furthermore, I am concerned that a report like this may make someone think of their self as not malleable. Especially if they are introduced to it early in life. I would rather have people develop organically than think of themselves in terms of stereotypes like “I am an introvert” and try to explain everything in those terms. Even the most accurate findings will give us about a statistical figment that is decoupled from the particularities of a person’s experience. Every data point needs to be contextualised to better explain the “why” or “how” of phenomena, as well as to hint at the known unknowns involved.

There is a more abstract hesitation I have with this test, which is that we cannot conduct experiments about humans in vitro. The people we study are always culturally informed and determined in vivo. I cannot know, for example, whether my unruliness is due to my peculiar nature or the fact that Greeks have a long history of being suspicious of authority (I would argue it goes back to ancient Greece, before the advent of democracy, but I will not digress)? How much, then, is my nature’s contribution despite the environing cultural milieu and how much is because of it? I cannot run the tests again with me outside of the specifics of my case, so there is no point in arguing the counterfactual. All I can note is that I have my reservations. Adding factors such as upbringing, education, and social expectations will only further reinforce my scepticism.

Overall, I am happy to have taken this test. It did not tell me something new about myself, although it gave me new concepts to think about.