Psychoanalysis Revisited

A review of the results of a 2013 Psychoanalysis Test and a retrospective look back at the same test taken in 2003!

The analysis compares me to other males of a similar age. It estimates an individual’s level on each of five broad personality domains, namely Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness to Experience. Each domain has six sub domains to provide a more detailed description of personality.

extrovert Personality traits describe, relative to other people, the frequency or intensity of a person’s feelings, thoughts, or behaviours. Such traits are therefore relative and whilst two two individuals might be described as extrovert, one will be seen as more extroverted than the other. The computer program that generates the report classifies individuals as low, average, or high in each trait according to whether the score is approximately in the lowest 30%, middle 40%, or highest 30% of scores obtained by people of the same sex and similar age. It should be noted that low, average and high scores revealed in such tests are neither good nor bad as scores and descriptions can only approximate an individual’s actual personality. High and low score descriptions are usually accurate, but average scores close to the low or high boundaries might wrongly classify one as merely average.

Under the first personality domain of Extroversion, my score was a decidedly average 50 meaning I’m neither a subdued loner nor a jovial chatterbox. I enjoy the company of others but also time alone. The individual sub domains showed scores as follows:

Friendliness 74 Gregariousness 20 Assertiveness 69 Activity Level 73 Excitement-Seeking 37 Cheerfulness 27

So what exactly do these headings cover?

Friendliness:  Friendly people genuinely like other people and openly demonstrate positive feelings toward others. They make friends quickly and it is easy for them to form close, intimate relationships. Low scorers on Friendliness are not necessarily cold and hostile, but they do not reach out to others and are perceived as distant and reserved. My level of friendliness is high.
Gregariousness:  Gregarious people find the company of others pleasantly stimulating and rewarding, enjoying the excitement of crowds. Low scorers tend to feel overwhelmed by, and therefore actively avoid, large crowds. They do not necessarily dislike being with people sometimes, but their need for privacy and time to themselves is much greater than for individuals who score high on this scale. My level of gregariousness is low.
Assertiveness:  High scorers in Assertiveness like to speak out and direct the activities of others such as leaders in groups. Low scorers tend not to talk much and let others take control. My level of assertiveness is high.
Activity Level:  Active individuals lead fast-paced, busy lives. They move about quickly, energetically, and vigorously, and they are involved in many activities. People who score low on this scale follow a slower and more leisurely, relaxed pace. My activity level is high.
Excitement-Seeking:  High scorers on this scale demand high levels of stimulation. They love the bright lights and are likely to take risks and seek thrills. Low scorers are overwhelmed by noise and commotion and are averse to thrill seeking. My level of excitement seeking is average.
Cheerfulness:  This heading measures positive mood and feelings, not negative emotions (which form part of the Neuroticism domain). Persons who score highly here typically experience a range of positive feelings, including happiness, enthusiasm, optimism, and joy. Low scorers are not as prone to such energetic, high spirits. My level of positive emotions is low.

introvertNext is Agreeableness which reflects individual differences in concern with cooperation and social harmony. Agreeable individuals value getting along with others. They are therefore considerate, friendly, generous, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests with those of others. Such people also have an optimistic view of human nature encompassing basic honesty, decency and trustworthiness. Disagreeable individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They are generally unconcerned with others’ well-being, and their scepticism about others’ motives may cause them to be suspicious, unfriendly and uncooperative.

My score in this category was 91 indicating a strong interest in others’ needs and well being. I am apparently pleasant, sympathetic and cooperative. Individual sub domain scores were:

Trust 28 Morality 81 Altruism 95 Cooperation 68 Modesty 99 Sympathy 72

Trust:  A person with high trust assumes that people are generally fair, honest and have good intentions. Persons low in trust see others as selfish, devious and potentially dangerous. My level of trust is low.
Morality:  High scorers on this scale see no need for pretence or manipulation when dealing with others and are therefore candid, frank and sincere. Low scorers believe that a certain amount of deception in social relationships is necessary. A low score here does not necessarily indicate immorality but that such people are simply more guarded and less willing to openly reveal the whole truth. My level of morality is high.
Altruism:  Altruistic people find helping others genuinely rewarding and are generally willing to assist those in need. Altruistic people find that doing things for others is a form of self-fulfilment rather than self-sacrifice. Low scorers do not particularly like helping others and see such action as an imposition rather than an opportunity for self-fulfilment. My level of altruism is high.
Cooperation:  Individuals who score high on this scale dislike confrontation and are willing to compromise or to deny their own needs in order to get along with others. Those who score low on this scale are more likely to intimidate others. My level of compliance is high.
Modesty:  High scorers on this scale do not like to claim that they are better than other people. In some cases this attitude may derive from low self-confidence or self-esteem. Nonetheless, some people with high self-esteem find immodesty unseemly. My level of modesty is high.
Sympathy:  High scorers in this sub domain are tender-hearted and compassionate. They feel the pain of others vicariously and are easily moved to pity. Low scorers are not affected strongly by human suffering, being more concerned with truth and impartial justice than mercy. My level of tender-mindedness is high.

The third domain is Conscientiousness which concerns the way in which we control, regulate and direct our impulses. Impulses are not inherently bad; occasionally time constraints require a snap decision, and acting on our first impulse can be an effective response. Also, in times of play rather than work, acting spontaneously and impulsively can be fun. However some impulses are antisocial which not only harm other members of society, but also can result in retribution toward the perpetrator of such impulsive acts. Another problem with impulsive acts is that they often produce immediate rewards but undesirable, long-term consequences.

High conscientiousness has many benefits as conscientious individuals avoid trouble and achieve high levels of success through purposeful planning and persistence. They are perceived as being intelligent and reliable although the negative aspect is that such individuals may be compulsive perfectionists and workaholics and regarded as boring. Unconscientious people may be unreliable and lack ambition, but they will experience many short-lived pleasures and not seen as stuffy or boring.

My score here was a commendable 88 meaning I set clear goals and pursue them with determination. People regard me as reliable and hard working. Individual sub domain scores were:

Self Efficacy 60 Orderliness 89 Dutifulness 84 Achievement Striving 41 Self Discipline 74 Cautiousness 91

Self-Efficacy:  Self-Efficacy is confidence in one’s ability to accomplish things. High scorers believe they have the intelligence/common sense, drive and self-control necessary for achieving success. Low scorers do not feel effective, and may think they’re not in control of their lives. My level of self-efficacy is average.
Orderliness:  Persons with high scores on orderliness are well-organised and like to live according to routines and schedules. They keep lists and make plans. Low scorers tend to be disorganised and scattered. My level of orderliness is high.
Dutifulness:  This sub domain reflects the strength of a person’s sense of duty and obligation. A high score indicates a strong sense of moral obligation. Low scorers find contracts, rules and regulations overly confining and are perceived as unreliable and possibly irresponsible. My level of dutifulness is high.
Achievement-Striving:  Individuals who score high on this scale strive hard to achieve excellence and lofty goals. Some have a strong sense of direction in life, but extremely high scorers may be too single-minded and obsessed with work. Low scorers are content to get by with a minimal amount of work but might be seen by others as lazy. My level of achievement striving is average.
Self-Discipline:  Self-discipline, or will-power, measures the ability to persist at difficult or unpleasant tasks until they are completed. High self-discipline indicates ability to overcome reluctance to begin tasks and stay on track despite distractions. Those with low self-discipline procrastinate and often fail to complete tasks, even those they desire to complete. My level of self-discipline is high.
Cautiousness:  This illustrates the disposition to think through possibilities before acting. High scorers on this scale take their time when making decisions. Low scorers often react impetuously by saying or doing the first thing that comes to mind without deliberating alternatives and consequences of those alternatives. My level of cautiousness is high.

hideNeuroticism referring to the tendency to experience negative feelings is the fourth domain. A high score high here may represent one specific negative feeling such as anxiety, anger or depression, but many are likely to experience several of these emotions. People high in neuroticism are emotionally reactive responding to events that would not affect most people, and their reactions tend to be more intense than normal, even in simple situations. Frequent negative emotional reactions lead to bad moods and an inability to think clearly, make decisions or cope effectively with stress. Individuals who score low in neuroticism are less easily upset and are less emotionally reactive. They tend to be calm, emotionally stable, and free from persistent negative feelings.

A low score of 24 was achieved in this category indicating that I am exceptionally calm, composed and unflappable. I tend not to react with intense emotions, even in situations that most people would describe as stressful. Individual sub domain scores were:

Anxiety 51 Anger 38 Depression 20 Self-Consciousness 39 Immoderation 20 Vulnerability 17

Anxiety:  People who are high in anxiety often feel like something dangerous is about to happen, either specifically or in general. This creates a feeling of being tense, jittery and nervous. Persons low in Anxiety are generally calm and fearless. My level of anxiety is average.
Anger:  Persons who score high in Anger feel enraged when things do not go their way. However they do not necessarily express this anger as that is measured in Agreeableness. They are sensitive about being treated fairly and feel resentful and bitter when they feel they are being cheated. Low scorers do not get angry often or easily. My level of anger is average.
Depression:  This measures the tendency to feel sad, dejected and discouraged. High scorers lack energy and have difficult initiating activities. Low scorers tend to be free from these depressive feelings. My level of depression is low.
Self-Consciousness:  Self-conscious individuals are sensitive about what others think of them. A concern about rejection and ridicule can lead to shyness and feeling uncomfortable around others. They are easily embarrassed, often feel ashamed and fear almost public ridicule. Low scorers, in contrast, do not suffer from the mistaken impression that everyone is watching and judging them and are confident in social situations. My level or self-consciousness is average.
Immoderation:  Immoderate people feel strong cravings and urges that they find hard to reisit. They tend to be oriented toward short-term pleasures and rewards rather than long- erm consequences. Low scorers do not experience such irresistible cravings and are therefore not tempted to overindulge. My level of immoderation is low.
Vulnerability:  A high score here demonstrates the ease of panic, confusion and helplessness when under pressure or stress. Low scorers feel more poised, confident and clear-thinking when stressed. My level of vulnerability is low.

The final domain in this test is Openness to Experience which basically distinguishes imaginative, creative people from down-to-earth, conventional people. Open people are intellectually curious, appreciative of art, sensitive to beauty and generally more aware of their feelings. They tend to think and act in individualistic and nonconforming ways. However, it is not a fundamental measure of intellect per se. People may have a penchant for mathematical, logical, or geometric thinking, plus music composition or performance, and the visual or performing arts.

People with low scores on openness to experience tend to have narrow, common interests. They prefer the plain, straightforward and obvious over the complex, ambiguous and subtle. They may regard the arts and sciences with suspicion, regarding these endeavours as being of little or no practical use. These so-called closed people prefer familiarity over novelty being conservative and resistant to change.

My score in this category was an average 44 meaning I enjoy tradition but am willing to try new things. My thinking is neither simple nor complex and to others I appear well educated but not an intellectual.

Imagination 0 Artistic Interests 47 Emotionality 95 Adventurousness 86 Intellect 19 Liberalism 49

Imagination:  High scorers on this scale use fantasy as a way of creating a richer, more interesting world. Low scorers are on this scale are more oriented to facts than fantasy. My level of imagination is low.
Artistic Interests:  A high score reflects a love of beauty both in art and in nature with individuals easily involved and absorbed in artistic and natural events. They are not necessarily artistically trained or talented, although many will be. Low scorers lack aesthetic sensitivity and interest in the arts. My level of artistic interests is average.
Emotionality:  Persons high on Emotionality have good access to and awareness of their own feelings. Low scorers are less aware of their feelings and tend not to express their emotions openly. My level of emotionality is high.
Adventurousness:  High scorers on adventurousness are eager to try new activities, travel abroad and experience new cultures as familiarity and routine are boring. Low scorers tend to feel uncomfortable with change and prefer familiar routines. My level of adventurousness is high.
Intellect:  Intellect and artistic interests are the two most important aspects of openness to experience. High scorers love to play with ideas, being open-minded to new and unusual ideas. They enjoy debating intellectual issues, riddles, puzzles and brainteasers. Low scorers on Intellect prefer dealing with either people or things rather than ideas as intellectual exercises are seen as a waste of time. Intellect does not mean one’s level of intelligence! My level of intellect is low.
Liberalism:  Psychological liberalism refers to a readiness to challenge authority, convention and traditional values. In its most extreme form, psychological liberalism can even represent outright hostility towards rules, sympathy for law-breakers, and love of ambiguity, chaos, and disorder. Psychological conservatives prefer the security and stability brought by conformity to tradition. Psychological liberalism and conservatism are not identical to political affiliation, but certainly incline individuals toward certain political parties. My level of liberalism is average.

In summary this 2013 Psychoanalysis Test reveals that others see me as fresh, lively, charming, amusing, practical and always interesting. Someone who’s constantly the centre of attention but sufficiently well balanced not to let it go to my head. They see me as kind, considerate and understanding; someone who’ll always cheer them up and help them out.

So how do these results compare with 2003? The simple answer is very favourably. My score for Extroversion was 56 and that for Agreeableness 88. Conscientiousness was an impressive 96 whilst Neuroticism revealed a score of 38. Finally Openness to Experience scored 41. My average score across all five domains in 2013 totalled 59 whilst in 2003 this was 64, both falling well within the average category. The main change is within the Neuroticism domain which illustrates a greater degree of calmness than in 2003. At the time the summary said my score was average indicating emotional reactivity as typical of the general population. Stressful and frustrating things were somewhat upsetting to me although I was generally able to get over the feelings and cope with given situations. This is an accurate reflection of me at that time as I was experiencing the trauma of redundancy and some mild depression. Having long since moved on from that, my life has become far more passive but with it an inner peace of mind.


Banned Video

Apparently this video has been banned in Australia and can’t be accessed on the YouTube website

The video suggests that bullying takes place in the University of Newcastle NSW despite denials to the contrary. Bullying in any form must be outlawed and people allowed to live their own lives. The video is reproduced below to endorse my hatred of this outrageous activity.


Much has been written on the subject of bullying but this most abominable subject recently reared its ugly head on none other than Twitter. Fortunately, the matter was dealt with both promptly and effectively but it brought back painful memories of bullying in one form or another for much of my life.

Bullying can take so many forms and is not simply physical. In fact, psychological bullying is probably far harder to deal with. I would be the first to admit that as a young child, I was quite timid and introverted, and these traits were quickly seized upon by others with far fewer scruples. From memory, my first experience of any form of bullying was as a nine year old boy chorister. Now a church is probably the last place one would expect bullying to be present, but as anyone familiar with choirs will be aware, they comprise people of all ages and backgrounds, many of which could hardly be described as Christian. This is somewhat ironic but many youngsters simply join choirs because of parental pressure rather than actually wanting to be a part of the church community.

So what form did this bullying take? In simple terms, I would arrive at the vestry to find that my casssock and surplus had either been purloined by someone else or simply hidden, thereby causing me emotional grief. With a service imminent, there were occasions when I simply had to miss my attendance because I was unable to robe in time for the start. This had further implications because only those with good attendance records were asked to attend wedding ceremonies which paid quite well at the time.

This was only my introduction to bullying which really manifested itself during my years at grammar school. I was one of a few pupils who started the school without knowing anyone, having received my primary education outside the town. Almost from the start, I became a sitting target … again because of my general introversion. As a first year pupil, I looked upon those in the sixth form with awe and a certain degree of fear, especially as they seemed to carry so much authority. On one memorable occasion, the entire class was banned from the classroom during breaks. Unfortunately I had left something in the room and sought permission to return in order to retrieve it. A group of my peers saw this as an opportunity to belittle and humiliate me by preventing me from leaving the classroom. This was possible as the door opened outwards into a corridor.

Knowing that I was likely to be punished for contravening the occupancy ban, I started to bang on the door in the hope that those on the other side would disperse. Sadly this had no effect so I banged even harder and subsequently put my fist through a pain of glass. I was extremely fortunate not to have cut my hand or wrist, and in the commotion that followed, the bullies quickly disappeared. It was necessary to report the incident because of the broken glass, and this only added to my trials and tribulations as I was labelled a grass. This was to haunt me for several years.

During breaks, I would avoid mixing with most of my fellow pupils, clinging to one or two whom I tried to befriend. As I progressed through the school, I used to relate more to the younger pupils … in effect trying to protect them from some of the things I had experienced. The usual subtle forms of bullying continued with false rumours circulating, almost daily humiliation, and often being given the silent treatment. I have always been a tidy and organised individual and I would often return to my classroom desk to find that it had been ransacked. On other occasions, all my textbooks would be hidden. Whilst these actions may seem trivial in isolation, the combined effect caused me considerable distress resulting in illness and even more isolation. Like many teenagers, I secured a weekend job to provide me with some spending money and saved hard to buy myself a new bicycle as my parents could not afford to do so. This was my pride and joy and after a period of using public transport to get to and from school, I began to cycle there. Needless to say, my bike didn’t go unnoticed by the bullies. On one afternoon, a group waited for me at the bicycle sheds and as I approached, they deliberately rocked my bike whilst it was locked in the wheel frame. The result was a heavily buckled wheel and forks meaning that I had to drag my bike home for a distance of nearly three miles and then incurred a hefty repair cost. By the time my sixth form education came to a close, the bullying had more or less ceased but I still carried the scars.

The ensuing years saw me grow in emotional strength so that I could more readily deal with the potential nastier sides of life. Like many, I’ve experienced some bullying in the work place but have generally been able to shrug it off. However, at the last company for which I worked, there was a complete change of senior management in my division. This happened following the departure of a managing director who bullied everyone in his sight. The new team was regarded as a breath of fresh air by almost everyone, not least because they were prepared to listen to the staff. Unfortunately, there was a single fly in the ointment. A person had transferred from the parent company, Argos, and it was apparent from the start that he was both incompetent and hostile. Some quick research and conversations with staff at Argos soon ratified this. Suddenly, after over eleven years service, I was being told of rumours circulating the company that I was incompetent at my job, a troublemaker and treated my fellow workers with disrespect. I was dumbfounded to say the least, but then discovered that some colleagues were distancing themselves from me. I eventually traced the source of the unfounded allegations, it being this one new member of management. Even with the help of loyal colleagues who knew the rumours to be totally untrue, it took several months to clear my name and to finally get the bully to confess that he had no grounds on which to base his statements. It was simply because he had taken an instant dislke to me which is no reason for bully boy tactics.

This brings me back to the recent bullying I experienced on Twitter. One of my long term followers, whom I had mistakenly regarded as a friend, decided to criticise me on several occasions for some of the people I followed and effectively said that I shouldn’t be tweeting with them. It would have been a simple matter for this individual to block those persons from appearing in his stream but alas that was far too easy and a major disagreement ensued. Needless to say, this person no longer features in my life as I will not be bullied or controlled by anyone!

I’m sure many of you reading this will question how I could ever be described as introverted. All I can say is that my life experiences have made me a stronger and more resilient person although I still retain a high emotional side to my character. Many will probably say that I talk far too much … indeed I am known to be confined to Twitter jail on occasions for exceeding my hourly limit! That is simply because I love talking with people, communicating generally, and learning from people’s different cultural backgrounds. Maybe that now makes me something of an extrovert!

Most of my experiences happened many years ago at a time when bullying was effectively denied by all in authority. Nowadays it is finally acknowledged but sadly, this appears to have made very little difference. Bullying of any kind, whether that be in school, the workplace, or even on social media sites, is evil and in my opinion should be treated as a criminal offence.