u/KMFDM_

Hey everyone,

When we cross-reference MBTI with the Big Five model, psychometric studies often show that INTPs are actually among the "Thinker" types with the highest levels of Neuroticism (low emotional stability).

The classic MBTI doesn't measure stress tolerance, which often leaves us stuck with the "cold, logical robot" stereotype. But between analysis paralysis, existential overthinking, and the tendency to isolate, it makes a lot of sense that our baseline for anxiety and stress can be quite high.

I'm curious to see the actual data from this sub. If you've taken these tests, I have two questions:

1. The Big Five: What is your overall Neuroticism score? If you have the breakdown, how do you score on the 6 facets?

• Anxiety
• Anger / Hostility
• Depression
• Self-Consciousness
• Immoderation / Impulsivity
• Vulnerability to Stress

2. The Enneagram: Do you identify with any of the wings highly associated with emotional instability, melancholy, or anxiety (such as 5w4, 4w5, or 6w5)?

A teacher once made fun of me in front of all the other students. He said, “Look at him. If he looked in the mirror, even he would think he’s handsome.”

That stuck with me for a while, and I even looked into how we might see ourselves the way others see us..through their eyes. Mirrors and front-facing cameras are deceptive.

That’s common knowledge, of course. Many people know this, but knowing it and actually experiencing it are two completely different things.

It really is brutal. It even stops me from engaging in any kind of daydreaming or self-delusion whatsoever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m trying to figure out my Enneagram type. Here are my IPIP NEO Big Five scores (0–100 percentile scale). What core type, wing, and instinctual stacking do you think fits?

*EXTRAVERSION — 1*

• Friendliness: 0
• Gregariousness: 5
• Assertiveness: 1
• Activity Level: 0
• Excitement-Seeking: 20
• Cheerfulness: 0

-AGREEABLENESS — 41

• Trust: 1
• Morality: 75
• Altruism: 8
• Cooperation: 80
• Modesty: 98
• Sympathy: 28

*CONSCIENTIOUSNESS — 0*

• Self-Efficacy: 1
• Orderliness: 1
• Dutifulness: 3
• Achievement-Striving: 0
• Self-Discipline: 1
• Cautiousness: 80

*NEUROTICISM — 79*

• Anxiety: 73
• Anger: 42
• Depression: 99
• Self-Consciousness: 88
• Immoderation: 7
• Vulnerability: 94

*OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE — 97*

• Imagination: 96
• Artistic Interests: 48
• Emotionality: 95
• Adventurousness: 56
• Intellect: 88
• Liberalism: 94

What Enneagram type do you think fits this profile? I don't know anything about Enneagram.

It really comes down to personal preference, setting aside issues of cost or space for a moment

INFPs have the stereotype of being people with imagination, a rich inner world, people with a lot of contact with their own emotions (and others') and very high introspection, as if they themselves were their main company.

That resonates a lot with someone who would have a diary, or something analogous to it. But at the same time, having a diary seems like something more suited to people with high conscientiousness, and not to more erratic people, like an INFP. It seems to me more something for someone of the xNxJ type than for someone of the xNxP type.

So, an INFP is a type that should, but at the same time shouldn't, have a diary. I don't really know.

That said, do you have a diary? Or something analogous to it?

We know that typology is just a spectrum( or a sort of prototype)rather than a rigid definition.

With that in mind, do you identify with any other type(s) besides INFP? Or which one do you identify with the most?

Bons tempos...Um dos pioneiros dos debates no Brasil, junto com alguns ancaps(Pedro, acho). Foi ali que tudo começou!

E o Sinotti era muito ruim, mas muito engraçado!

I've heard that Stalin forbade the evacuation of civilians in Stalingrad to give the soldiers more motivation to fight for the city. However, I don't think I've ever come across any material, (whether a book, an article, or a video) explaining what the situation was actually like for those civilians during the battle.

I was wondering if there is any material that explains the civilian situation throughout all the months of the battle, right up to the end, ideally including diaries, letters, etc. Does anything like that exist?

I'm not a WWII expert, so from my ignorant perspective, it feels like this is a highly neglected part of the history.

O argumento da moralidade não faz o menor sentido. A discussão sobre se pode ou não existir moral sem Deus não é, em si mesma, uma prova da existência dele. Se a intenção é derivar uma moral a partir de Deus, então Deus precisaria ser provado primeiro. O que o argumento faz é o contrário: ele parte do desejo de uma moralidade absoluta e conclui que Deus existe.

Os argumentos teleológicos e ontológicos são bem mais interessantes e muito mais sólidos filosoficamente. Eles pelo menos tentam construir um caminho que vai de premissas mais básicas até a conclusão, sem dar esse salto injustificado.

Além disso, os defensores do argumento moral se esforçam para provar o relativismo como consequência da ausência de Deus. Mas, se a gente aceitar a retórica que o próprio argumento propõe, o relativismo vira um ponto contra a existência de Deus. Se a falta de Deus implica relativismo moral, e o que a gente observa no mundo é justamente uma diversidade moral enorme e persistente, então isso é muito mais fácil de explicar num cenário sem Deus do que num cenário com um Deus que supostamente teria gravado uma lei moral objetiva em todos. O tiro sai pela culatra.

Boa parte desse argumento se apoia em uma confusão básica entre o que é moral e ética do ponto de vista descritivo e do ponto de vista normativo. Ele observa que nós, seres humanos, temos intuições morais fortes (plano descritivo) e age como se isso automaticamente provasse que existem deveres morais objetivos independentes de nós (plano normativo). Mas essa passagem não se justifica. O argumento moral se baseia inteiramente na segunda posição, como se ela já estivesse dada, quando na verdade é exatamente isso que está em disputa.

No fim, o argumento moral não entrega o que promete. Ele não prova Deus, se atrapalha com o relativismo e confunde os planos da ética.

**Ateus que respondem o argumento tentando provar uma moral absoluta sem Deus estão tão errados quanto os teístas. A questão não é essa.

Hey everyone, I recently ran a experiment and got some confusing results

What I did:

1. Took the Big 5 test online to get my trait scores.
2. Copied the results and asked three different AIs (ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek) to translate them into an MBTI type based on cognitive functions.

The result: All three AIs unanimously said INFP.

I've consistently typed as INTP for years. I even retook a proper MBTI test directly just to double-check, and it came out as INTP again

I know Big 5 measures dimensions like Openness and Agreeableness, while MBTI is about cognitive functions (Ti/Ne vs Fi/Ne). But I'm puzzled. Is the AI just pattern-matching traits to stereotypes (e.g., high openness + low conscientiousness = INFP)? Or could there be a bias in how I phrased the prompt?

Has anyone else here fed their Big 5 results to an AI to get an MBTI translation? If so, did it match your actual type? And do you think this translation method has any merit, or is it just a fun but flawed party trick?

By age 4 or 5, some kids already show an intense drive to systematize, ask abstract questions, or get lost in specific interests. There are studies with infants ( Baron-Cohen's work on newborns looking longer at mobiles vs. faces) that suggest this preference for patterns or "things" over social stimuli shows up independently of culture or parenting. It's not taught. It's not a decision. It's there from the start.

1- Openness to Experience, especially the Intellect facet, correlates with:

Verbal Comprehension (VCI) on the WAIS

Divergent thinking and creative achievement.

What researchers call "need for cognition" or "craving for complexity."

Though it does not correlate with Perceptual Reasoning (PRI) or with executive functions like working memory and processing speed. .

So a person can have very high Openness/Intellect and very average executive functions. Their VCI might be 140 while their PRI is 115. Their FSIQ is a so-so average, but their mind doesn't feel average at all.

2- Renzulli's model

Renzulli defined giftedness as the intersection of three traits:

Above-average ability (top 15-20%, not top 2%, deliberately broader),Creativity and Task commitment.

The research on real-world creative achievement shows us that what separates leading scientists and artists, the ones who actually push the frontier of knowledge, It's Creativity and Openness to Experience. The highest contributors in fields like physics, mathematics, music, and literature consistently score at the ceiling on this trait, especially the Intellect facet. They aren't just "smart." They're compelled to question assumptions, to play with ideas, to tolerate ambiguity long enough for something new to emerge. High-level creativity isn't a bonus accessory; it's the engine. And that engine is involuntary.

That third ring , task commitment , it is not like the grind of studying for a test. It's not sitting down and forcing yourself to work. It's the opposite. It's an energetic state, a flow, where you're pulled into the activity because it feels intrinsically rewarding. It's intense pleasure, not dutiful effort.The kid who memorizes every dinosaur species isn't "working hard." They're playing. They're feeding something. The adult who learns a programming language in a weekend didn't "discipline" themselves into it. They couldn't stop.

This is crucial because it means task commitment isn't a choice. It's a trait. It's the same thing you see in those 4-year-olds who can't be pulled away from whatever system they're exploring.

What I'm curious about.

If Openness to Experience is an involuntary, stable trait visible in childhood, and if it correlates with both the creativity and the task commitment rings in Renzulli's model, and if it independently predicts creative achievement: how does this fit your own experience?

-Do you agree with this point of view? based on your own experience or research

-Have you taken a Big Five test? What's your Openness percentile? Your Intellect facet?

-Do you recognize yourself in the three rings?

-If your cognitive profile is uneven (high VCI, average PRI, scattered executive functions), how does that affect the way you relate to the label "gifted?

- Or the opposite, do any of you have executive functions and PRI that are higher than your VCI? Since executive functions and PRI tend to correlate with each other, and VCI is the index most strongly tied to Openness to Experience, someone with high IQ but low Openness might actually show a profile where VCI is their weakest point. Is that your case?

-And specifically: when you're deep in something you care about, does it feel like effort or does it feel like being pulled by a current?

Ha outros remedios com efeitos ssmelhantes?