Make important conditions and room to decline clear
This part explores reported withholding, implied debts and inconsistent accounts to obtain agreement, without equating ordinary persuasion or privacy with manipulation.
Complete all 28 selections about ordinary recalled interactions in the past four weeks, from 1 Never to 5 Almost always. Each four-item part needs three ratings for a one-decimal mean; rated reverse items contribute six minus the response, while NA is unscored and not zero-filled. Minimum counts and interpretations are website completeness rules, not the study instrument, norms or clinical cutoffs. Seven continuous readings produce no total, difficulty percentage or highest-score personality, and close or equal means assign no type. Decimal differences establish neither significance, causes nor observer judgments.
What this part asks
Four original items ask about withholding decision-relevant information, implying a debt to obtain agreement, giving inconsistent accounts to steer actions, and explaining conditions while allowing genuine refusal. The last is reverse-keyed. They concern recalled actions, not access to hidden motives, eloquence or strategic skill. Answers cannot establish whether someone was actually influenced or suffered a loss as a result.
Higher and lower do not rank cleverness or morality
A higher mean reflects more reported use of these selected actions, not emotional intelligence, cleverness, negotiating success or a personality disorder. A lower mean guarantees no perfect transparency. Items may concern different situations, so inspect what fits and what was inapplicable. This is not a lie detector. Insufficient ratings remain insufficient rather than inferring unanswered behaviour from another part.
An original request example
For an ordinary request, you could say, “This would take about half an hour and might need one revision; if it does not work for you, you can decline.” State the real scope rather than promising a choice that does not exist. The original example guarantees no agreement and requires no disclosure of every private detail. Explain conditions you actually know that matter to the decision.
Counterexample: persuasion and privacy
Explaining reasons, offering alternatives or keeping unrelated personal information private is not automatically concealment or pressure. Distinguish decision-relevant information, deliberate withholding and whether refusal is genuinely possible. Misremembering a detail is not automatically strategic deception. The test collects self-report, not a factual investigation, and a term cannot become proof against someone or evidence that their intentions have been uncovered.
Compare overriding, suspicion and expectations
Overriding asks about bypassing a say, suspicion about interpreting others without enough evidence, and this part about how you obtain agreement. People-pleasing separately concerns responding to expectations. Their scores are not interchangeable and cannot determine who controls whom. Parts may be similarly high or low without assigning an interpersonal identity, dark-triad score, moral verdict or relationship match.
Facts, willingness and power context
Important conditions, duties or available choices may be unclear in an interaction; clarify facts first. Results judge no whole relationship’s safety and require no disclosure of private answers or submission to questioning by someone applying pressure. Discuss effects using actual information. A mean neither removes responsibility nor proves malicious intent, and it cannot guarantee how another person will interpret what you say.
Try completing one request
For a low-stakes, still-negotiable request, note its purpose, real effort, important known conditions and available choices. Clarify one potentially ambiguous detail without steering acceptance or training someone to cooperate. The note needs no upload and no admission of an error that did not occur. If conditions were already clear, keeping the arrangement is also a valid outcome.
Reverse scoring and insufficient states
Each four-item part needs three ratings from 1 Never to 5 Almost always. The reverse item about conditions and refusal contributes six minus the rating. Make all 28 selections first; NA is excluded without zero-filling or estimation, and means use one decimal. This reading has no study norms, percentiles or clinical cutoffs. Insufficient information assigns no type while retaining all seven full guides and retake.
Original items and research scope
FermatMind independently authored these 28 items and seven guides. Sleep and colleagues’ formal 2021 abstract reports seven antagonism domains; only that abstract and bibliographic information were verified. The paper, its 234-item clinical pool, standard instruments and competitors’ 35 or 21 items are not this bank. Related concepts provide everyday background, without equating selected behaviours with clinical research constructs. Verbal responses do not cover all physical aggression, and consequence consideration does not cover all risk seeking. There are no established website psychometrics, norms, English–Chinese equivalence or researcher endorsement. Results support neither diagnosis, typing others, moral ranking, career judgments, relationship-safety assessment nor harm prediction.