A Big 5 Personality Test, is a core psychology test designed to help a person understand fundamentally what kind of profession is best for them based on their inherant personality.
I undertook a test designed by Jordan Peterson, a Canadian clinical psychologist. He is a professor for the University of Toronto, and has authored or co-authored more than a hundred academic papers. If you would like to take the test I took to compare yourself, the test is available here on his website.
This psychological profile is split into 5 areas, which have 2 sections each. A higher percentage means the trait exhibits more in the personality, a lower percentage means the person uses this feature less in their psyche.
Click on each section to get a breakdown for what it means to have the traits at these percentages. The breakdown descriptions are split into Exceptionally High, Very High, Moderately High, High, Average, Low, Moderately Low, Very Low, and Exceptionally Low percentage points for how each trait enacts in a person.
The test also gives comparisons to all other test takers for the average. Ie, average % for women, average % for men, so you can see how different you are from the general population of test takers.
These are my percentages for each section;
89% Extraversion (associated with positive emotion) [Very High]
64% Neuroticism (negative emotion) [Moderately High]
20% Agreeableness (the primary dimension of care for others) [Low]
63% Conscientiousness (associated with duty, precision and responsibility) [Moderately High]
91% Openness to Experience (interest in ideas and aesthetics) [Very High]
“”Moral Foundations Questionnaire-2″ was developed by Mohammad Atari, Jonathan Haidt, Jesse Graham, and Morteza Dehghani at the University of Southern California, New York University, and the University of Utah.” It can be found free on https://yourmorals.org/.
“The scale is a measure of your reliance on and endorsement of six moral concerns that seem to be found across cultures: Care, Equality, Proportionality, Loyalty, Authority, and Purity.”
“The idea behind the scale is that human morality is the result of biological and cultural evolutionary processes that made human beings very sensitive to many different (and often competing) issues. Some of these issues are about treating other individuals well and not harming them (Care). Some issues are about equal distribution of resources in the society (Equality) and some concern fairness in terms of merit and deservingness (Proportionality). Other issues are about how to be a good member of a group (Loyalty), respect different kinds of authorities (Authority), or being mindful of contamination both physically and spiritually (Purity).”
“Atari and colleagues (2021) have found that political liberals generally place a higher value on Care and Equality; they are very concerned about issues of harm, inequality, and exploitation. Political conservatives, on the other hand, generally score slightly lower on Care and Equality items. Proportionality is a less political foundation but seems to slightly more important for conservatives. The bigger difference between liberals and conservatives seems to be that conservatives score slightly higher on the Loyalty foundation, and much higher on the Authority and Purity foundations.”
Why I scored the way I did in my opinion:
I care about shit. Sue me.
I actually dont like people caring about me vocally though actually. I like the “secret caring”. Like someone being tough with you because they care about you not being an delinquent.
I like someone telling the truth because they care that you are not living under the shadow of a lie.
I like rough care a lot. Like a baby animal pouncing on their parent to play. This rough-way part of showing you care about something.
I have the traditional Australian, “underdog” mentality in terms of care.
Equality vs Proportionality
I think these two dimensions are actually opposite. You can score high in both but fundamentally I believe they are opposite because they are “different reasons” for choosing the same thing. Ie, you want people to “get what they need”.
In my opinion Equality means you want everyone to have the same things that they need. Proportionality means that everyone gets what they need based on how hard they work for it.
I think these two dimensions are actually opposite. You can score high in both but fundamentally I believe they are opposite because they are “different reasons” for choosing the same thing. Ie, you want people to “get what they need”. Equality means you want everyone to have the same things that they need. Proportionality means that everyone gets what they need based on how hard they work for it. In the following video my opinion is synonymous with Crenshaws.
My issue with proportionality is that fundamentally humanity has a “scaling importance of jobs”. This has always driven me to great complex puzzles in my head and had me considering communism for a while in my late teens. Due to seeing that their “ability to proritise like over money” might be justified. Ie, if all professions get paid the same, then arguably you would just do the job that you liked right?
Unfortunately, this is not how it works because some jobs require more skill so you need to give people a reason to drive towards it. In gaming this is called the “path of least resistance”. Which most players follow even if another way is more fun.
For example, I am not going to med school for 8 years even though I think I would be a fantastic doctor. Because I do not find money adequately incentivising to propritise all my intellectual understanding into one specific area. A lot of people do find money incentivising because it rewards them with other things. Interest from women, status, a variety ways of “flex” superiority over others, etc. So they put their intelligence to work in a profession that rewards their time. Societally money is less of a reward motivator for women due to the higher status and value you have in society sometimes being a deterrant for men. As covered in one of the prior videos on this page.
But fundamentally I actually believe there must be reward motivators for people. I think if you work hard, you should get something in return for that. Whether it be enough money to afford the house you want. Or enough status to be in the right place at the right time to gain access to the knowledge and people you want. Whatever is important to the person. As long as people get “the proportion” that they are due for the amount of effort they put in I think things work really well economically.
There are two phrases. Equality of opportunity and Equality of outcome. I believe that proportionality is more the former and equality is more the latter. I believe that everyone should have food and water which can also be seen as a part of proportionality because being born means you are eligible for a base proportion. Though I don’t believe Little Jimmy should have a mansion because Little Redgie’s dad worked really hard to afford one.
This is also reflected in studies. Such in the following video Henderson describes how studies have shown that rich people care about their wealth and status and middle class or poorer people just don’t really mind. This is what I have found also in my evaluations of people. I have asked people before, “if you were given a million dollars, what would you do?” Most people don’t say, “strive to get another million dollars through continuing to work hard.”
Pretty normal. I like loyalty.
I am okay with people following their true self and picking what is most important to them. I don’t get offended if someone chooses work over me, or doing something with someone else over me. That is not what I see as loyalty.
I see loyalty as providing me my freedoms and me respecting yours. Loyalty to the core of a person. If I’m talking to a conservative, let them be a conservative. If I’m talking to a Japanese, let them be culturally Japanese. Allowing people to be loyal to themselves, and then hoping that that loyalty expands to you in the moments that it benefits you.
Ie, when your in an argument and they decide to not let your public status get beaten to a pulp. Standing up for others is a big part of my beliefs surrounding loyalty. Due to the fact I stand up for others often. I protect before I think to not protect. I act like a guard dog often.
If you’re loyal. Though not publicly. Are you loyal? This is just based on my own personality and I do not think less of others different to me, but I have those kinds of standards for my close associations due to familiarity.
I scored highly on this because I like the knowledge that old people have. I don’t think I should listen to them over anyone else. I don’t believe they have actual authority over me in making decisions. Though I do find experiencial knowledge very valuable and love to listen to knowledge. Not advice. Knowledge of experience.
I think this comes from my dislike of wasting my time and love of history. If they can tell me something valuable. It may make me circumvent errors in my business decisions. As an example.
Similarly, older people tend to understand themselves deeper. So are better for psychological analysis than someone still developing this knowledge. More rich in experiential data of Self. Which can then be reflected in my knowledge of Others.
I like listening to old people’s stories and dad jokes. Sue me.
I’m that person at the table who laughs at all the stupid shit and the person sitting on the floor attentively listening to the old people’s stories that get repeated over and over. I have all the time for old people doing it. No idea why. I just enjoy old people’s company.
I ranked low on this cause I think chastity is “cute” but I am not fundamentally interested in it. I do not believe in waiting till after marriage. Though I believe celibacy is an important tool to have for personal control over your dependancy on others.
I come from a very sexually liberal country where religious attitudes towards sex are not the cultural norm. I would say I am far more liberal towards sex than even the norm in my country. Though even the average in Australia is more left-leaning in regards to sexual choice. Commonly Australia is ranked in the “top countries for promiscuous women” statistics alongside places like the Netherlands and Germany. This is likely due to egalitarianism.
“The “Moral Foundations Sacredness Scale,” developed by Jesse Graham and Jonathan Haidt at the University of Virginia.” It can be found free on https://yourmorals.org/ as a supplementary test after completing the primary test.
“Because we can’t treat “never, for any amount of money” as a dollar figure, we just scored your responses on an 8-point scale, where $0 is scored as “1” and “never for any amount of money” is scored as “8”. Higher bars indicate that you care about that foundation more strongly.”
“The idea behind the scale is that different moral foundations may be sacred for some people and not for others. By “sacred” we mean that you would not for any amount of money violate the principles of that foundation. For instance, if ingroup loyalty were a sacred value to you then you would not betray (or perhaps even criticize publicly) your family, social groups, or nation, even for a million dollars. In this scale we included a range of minor to severe violations, so it is likely that you did not choose the “never for any amount of money” option all that often.”
“Odds are you have already taken the “Moral Foundations Questionnaire.” Your answers on this survey — about sacredness — will let us see whether the same general patterns hold across different ways of measuring moral values. In particular, we want to test our prediction that issues related to harm and fairness are more sacred to liberals, whereas issues related to ingroup, authority, and purity are more sacred to conservatives.”
Why I scored the way I did in my opinion:
Step 1: I do not believe in taking away others freedoms. If people want to be pure, fine. If a dog wants to not be kicked in the face, fine. I generally place myself in the other thing and decide what I think they, or I as them, could handle.
I think people don’t do this enough sometimes. Most of the time people can handle more than you think they can.
In regards to this though. I tend to be a very ethical person. I don’t lie, cheat, steal, etc. I just don’t have time. If I lie, I have to remember that I’ve lied, who I’ve lied to, keep the lie going and continue it with that person, maybe it spreads to a social circle, etc. It’s just too much fucking around. I will just evade a question or say the truth. I would rather not be blatantly unethical. I would say I am extremely blunt. My parents refered to it as being “cheeky” as a kid.
For in-group loyalty. I have a pretty relaxed family. My longest lasting friends are those who have handled my absences, etc. I expect my in-group to handle a lot to do with the more deviant parts of my personality because the fear is that it reflects on them the most. So they must be a particular kind of person to not back down in loyalty even if society says to. I expect them to be able to care for themselves if I am absent.
As I said before, I think purity is “cute”. I don’t adhere to it as much. I am more of a deviant femme fatale overall but I would never harm that in a person. I understand how tough my life has been in some cases and wouldn’t want anyone walking my path without the backbone to support it. I try not to feel wrath towards pure people thinking I am corrupted. This is actually extremely different and over time I have reasoned it is better to respect what others have and leave it alone.
A good example of this is: when you see other people in love what is your first reaction? Do you want to wreck their purity by telling them it wont last, or trying to cheat with their partner to take the happiness that they have? Or do you see it as some pure thing you are not a part of and respect that they are happy.
I don’t like to break others happiness. I am only the cold bearer of truth when it is appropriate. I love to see others happy more than I yearn to be happy myself.
I don’t tend to give a shit about making sure authority figures feel okay. I hope that they have gained enough backbone from their position. In proportionality, they are given enough to withstand my berration. If you are the top of somewhere, you are granted more rights to my time but also more rights to my wrath.
(c) 2021 Siren Watcher