Okay here's my deal, I'm funky! Yea, we're all unique, and so not so special, except some people are, if the culture finds us useful, else it's just in our heads, or something.
So I take the test.. more than a couple, and each time I'm left realizing that the questions don't seem to make sense. They need to be further qualified, and I imagine myself being able to fill in each sliding scaled dot, depending on the exact situation, and my mood. An answer requires context, which they are without. I'm frustrated, and wonder if most people truly think that black and white, or settle on less than best?! I start to believe I'm untypable, but then decide to defer to a community which might know better.
Disclaimer: Considering the above, I'm on the fence about this system as a whole. I wonder if the framework has any validity, or if the assumptions are too loosely based, and the definitions perhaps are reshaped over time, from one community to the next. Like psychopathy, sociopathy, ASPD. The original definition of psychopathy is not how we know it today, and yet psychopathy is retired in most countries, and sociopathy may be interchanged in some people's minds, or perhaps it has to do with more genetic, and more environmental, or maybe intellectual differences, or processing differences, or maybe they're all archaic now and only ASPD exists, or subtypes within ASPD exist, but we can all agree that they're all different, unless you don't, and so what's the usefulness of these seemingly arbitrary distinctions at this point, and who could be benefiting from creating such a clusterfunk?! ...hrmmm.
My take: keep the minions busy in their confusion, and self-delusions