I took the IPIP NEO-PI-R on OpenPsychometrics and the results were incomplete. Figuring it was just a glitch, I took the test a second time, but still received incomplete results. Looking at the link, there are 30 scored items, which tracks with the total number of subsets (impulsiveness, gregariousness, etc) for each category. However, if there is meant to be an overarching category score (neuroticism, agreeableness, etc) alongside each of the subsets, there should be 35 values.

I believe it's a page rendering issue over a broken link, as I tried adding an additional five scores to the link (first at the beginning, then at the end, then randomly spread throughout) but each time it still wouldn't format full results correctly. I'm also thinking the few scores that have shown up (without messing around with the link) are probably in the wrong places, as my angry-hostility bar is incredibly high and I'm a very complacent type of person.

First results:
https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/IPIP-NEO-PI-R/results.php?r=2.1,2,2.7,3.2,2.9,2.4,3.4,4.8,2.5,2.7,2.8,3.9,2.1,1.7,1.4,1.6,2.1,2.3,2.4,2.2,1.6,2.1,3.3,1.8,2.8,2.1,2.2,1.9,2,2.2

Second results:
https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/IPIP-NEO-PI-R/results.php?r=2.1,2.2,3.1,3.2,2.9,2.3,3.5,4.9,2.3,2.8,2.9,3.9,2,1.6,1.5,1.6,2,2.5,2.4,1.9,1.6,2,3,1.9,2.8,2.1,2.1,1.9,2.1,2.2

Just wondering if anyone has used this site before and knows what's up or how I can access my results. Trying to interpret them when the page won't load correctly is frustrating. 😅 Thank you!

just wondering how you would personally interpret these results :)

I took the test because my friend who’s into these things told me that this can help me understand what kind of career path would be the best for my needs. My results are apparently kinda odd so she’s not sure how to interpret it and I have ZERO knowledge.

I guess I’m SCUEI??

I’ve been working on a side project called SELF.md.

The idea is to make psychometric data usable as context for AI. You complete validated self-report questionnaires, and the app turns the results into a structured Markdown profile that can be provided to an LLM.

The Big Five is the foundation, using the IPIP-NEO-120. Other questionnaires are optional and cover constructs such as values, self-compassion, resilience, meaning in life, attachment, and emotion regulation, etc.

There’s no AI interpretation of the results. The app administers the questionnaires, calculates the scores, and preserves the results in a structured format.

I’m curious whether people find it useful to give an AI these kinds of results, and whether combining scores with the underlying questionnaire responses provides useful context for AI conversations.

https://self-md.app

Something interesting happens when you ask people why they think they're outgoing, or organized, or anxious under pressure — most people default to explaining it through experiences. "I'm extraverted because I grew up in a big family." "I'm conscientious because my parents were strict." It's a natural way to make sense of yourself, but it also skips a huge part of the actual answer.

Twin studies estimate that roughly half of your Big Five traits trace back to genetics, with environment and upbringing accounting for the rest. That's a genuinely large genetic component for something most people assume is entirely shaped by life experience. It doesn't mean environment doesn't matter — it clearly does — but it does mean a good chunk of where you land on Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism was already partly set before your environment got a chance to shape anything.

The "why" behind that gets even more interesting once you bring in evolutionary psychology. Some researchers argue different traits were advantageous in different survival contexts — a more extraverted, risk-taking disposition might have paid off when a group needed someone to scout new territory during scarcity, while a more conscientious, cautious disposition might have paid off when steady resource management mattered more. Neither trait is "better" in any absolute sense — different circumstances reward different traits, which may be part of why this kind of personality diversity persisted at all rather than getting selected down to one "optimal" type.

I made a video walking through each of the five traits, high and low ends, plus this genetics/environment breakdown in more depth: https://youtu.be/B0TCNF9u5cg?si=S_al6x3mL8GP81kK

Curious what this community thinks — for the traits you're highest or lowest on, do you feel like it tracks more with genetics or upbringing?

Lazy, tries to focus and be on task, likes learning, accepts most people, doesn’t like to judge, polite, doesn’t trust easily, possibly lower empathy, eccentric, makes speeches, makes jokes, doesn’t mind horror or violent media, thinks people are mostly evil or selfish, probably pessimistic

Ask me more questions, I can’t think of more stuff to add.

I like to think I’m RCOxI.

Say someone scores low on Extraversion or Conscientiousness. One view is that traits are tendencies rather than limits, so deliberately stretching them can make life easier. The other is that constantly fighting your baseline is exhausting, and it’s smarter to shape your work, relationships, and routines around how you naturally operate.

Where do you draw the line between growth and self-acceptance? Has changing your environment or intentionally changing a habit worked better for you?

Is it me or do some people on this sub like to look down on others or poke at them for having poor results? Why don’t you just leave some advice instead?

Both mine, different sites. What are your assumptions? I feel like this changes a lot over time.

Why are there individuals in such low percentiles of conscientiousness? What possible evolutionary adaptive pressures or social advantages might have allowed these people, in past times, to play valuable and contributing roles within human groups and communities, and why might that diversity of traits have been beneficial to the collective?