r/BigFive

Like the title: To what extent can tools like psychological tests really reflect a person's true nature?
I mean, from paper-and-pencil tests to AI-powered question-and-answer tests - I know there are some that can detect Alzheimer's, intellectual disabilities, schizophrenia, but I don't know if they're actually accurate

I'm a data engineer finishing my MSc at the University and I've been spending the last few weeks building a personality assessment based on the Big Five model using the IPIP-50 question set.

The thing that bothered me about most personality tests online is that the results always feel like a horoscope. Vague enough to apply to anyone, positive enough that nobody disagrees, and forgotten by the next day.

So I tried to write descriptions that are actually honest about what each trait costs you, not just what it gives you. High agreeableness doesn't just mean you're kind, it also means you probably say yes when you mean no. Low extraversion doesn't mean something is wrong with you, it means your energy works differently from most people's and that has real trade-offs.

It's completely free, takes about eight minutes, and doesn't need an account or sign-up. I've had about ten people use it so far and the results have been interesting but I need feedback from people outside my own circle.

Two things I'd genuinely love to hear. Did any of the five trait descriptions make you stop and think "that's actually true about me." And did any of them feel off or generic.

Here's the link: https://known-nine.vercel.app

This is very early. I'm building it solo and there's a lot more planned, but the foundation only works if the results actually resonate with real people. Honest criticism is more useful to me than polite encouragement.

G1: Primitive Era (1940–1950):

This is the phase marking the origins of the Big Five model. During the 1940s and early 1950s, independent studies—such as those by D. W. Fiske and by Tupes & Christal—began to repeatedly identify five broad factors in personality data analyses. Although these factors appeared in the results, there was not yet a consolidated name or a specific instrument to measure the "Big Five," and the concept remained relatively overlooked in the following decades.

G2: Revival Era (1980):

In the 1980s, the five-factor model was revived and systematized. Lewis Goldberg formally argued that personality structure could be reduced to five primary factors and popularized the term "Big Five." Simultaneously, Costa & McCrae organized these factors into a coherent model and began developing the NEO-PI, which would become the primary assessment tool based on the model, establishing it as a central reference in personality psychology.

G3: Granular Era (1993):

In 1993, the model was detailed into facets, expanding from five broad traits to 30 specific facets (six for each factor). This version, often associated with the NEO-PI-R, allowed for more than just stating "you are high in conscientiousness"; it enabled the identification of the specific aspects (orderliness, self-discipline, achievement striving, etc.) where that score was particularly high or low. This phase marked the model's greatest level of granularity and descriptive richness, enhancing its utility in research as well as in clinical and organizational practice.

G4: Open Era (1999):

In 1999, researchers created the IPIP-NEO, an “open” and non-proprietary version of the model based on items from the International Personality Item Pool that correspond to the NEO facets. The full version, IPIP-NEO-300, used 300 items to measure the five factors and their 30 facets, offering a royalty-free alternative to the original NEO-PI. This phase marked the democratization of the model, allowing universities, researchers, and institutions to use the instrument without licensing fees.

G5: Lite Era (2014):

In 2014, a shorter version of the IPIP-NEO—the IPIP-NEO-120—was published; it uses 120 items to estimate the five factors and their 30 facets with a good level of precision, but in much less time. This version made the model even more practical for applications in large-scale research, professional screening, career counseling, and initial clinical assessment. The “Lite Era” represented a balance between maintaining the model's detailed structure and reducing the response burden on participants.

View Poll

I've been thinking about how the five traits get self misjudged. My guess is that high scorers on one trait in particular consistently underrate themselves, because the trait feels so normal from the inside that they assume everyone experiences the world the same way.

For me it's the emotional sensitivity dimension. People high on it often think they're just "realistic" rather than reactive, because their baseline is all they've ever known.

Curious what this community thinks. Which of the five do you reckon people are worst at reading in themselves, and why? And has taking a proper measured assessment ever told you something that clashed with your own self-image?

https://preview.redd.it/izv5a1kyaj9h1.png?width=1630&format=png&auto=webp&s=d480ba2d220cd062376b8252362e5c7045d51700

Something I’ve noticed when trying to understand why I struggle with perusing a goal is that there are lots of traits that come to play. It’s easy to just think low contienciousness, but I think for myself it has more to do with a desire to prepare too much, which leads to just planning instead of actually taking action. I’m pretty new to big five so I’m interested in hearing your take on what traits or facets can prevent people from actually working towards their goals.