u/KMFDM_

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?

I've been looking at those world IQ rankings and the top 6 are all east asian countries that use or used chinese characters for literacy: Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, China.

It's well known that these countries have some of the best early education in the world, but I've been wondering if it's only about the quality of schooling, the pressure for results, the intense training... or if the writing system itself could be shaping certain executive functions, like memory for concrete visual objects (like Kanji/Hanzi). The amount of memorization a child needs to become literate with an alphabet is way lower than what's required with a logographic system. Basic functional literacy demands drilling around 2,000 to 3,000 characters by rote, and for an educated level it's more like 5,000 to 8,000. Couldn't this be seen as a kind of massive training for working memory, processing speed, and visuospatial reasoning? Or is it just a coincidence and the writing system is irrelevant?

Does anyone know the average score for these countries on perceptual reasoning, working memory, and processing speed?

I don't identify as hikikomori, even though I have social anxiety and I'm still supported by my parents at 29. Many of my problems are duo to my looks.

I was reading about hikikomori in Japan and saw that, even though appearance can be a factor that leads to bullying and isolation, there's often a lot more going on ( family issues, work/school pressure, social expectations, etc.)

I'm curious to know how it is outside Japan (or East Asia). For those who are hikikomori/shut-ins in other countries: is your appearance the main reason you withdrew, or were there other, bigger factors?