YGNTI Personality Test

YGNTI

A Study of the Five Neuro-Personality Axes as Survival Strategies and Functional Breakdown States Following the Loss of the "Anchor of Common Sense"

Authored by Younggwan Jung

Abstract

This study proposes the Young Gwan Neuro-Type Indicator (YGNTI), a new model that structures human temperament and personality into five core neuro-personality axes. Whereas existing personality theories have primarily remained at the level of statistical classification of behavioral traits or phenomenological description, the present study redefines personality as a neurocomputational strategy for survival and seeks to explain its operating principles through a neuro-hierarchical structure composed of Commanders and Auxiliaries (Cloninger et al., 1993; DeYoung, 2010; Friston, 2009). YGNTI conceptualizes personality as the interaction of five independent axes: the Policy Selection Axis, Input Axis, Value Appraisal Axis, Execution Regulation Axis, and Weighting Axis. These axes are denoted respectively as V(Venture)/D(Deliberation), I(Idea)/R(Reality), A(Affinity)/L(Logic), C(Control)/W(Whimsical), and G(Gravity)/N(Nonchalant). Each axis is explained through the coupling of a core Commander that represents a strategic direction and an Auxiliary that drives, amplifies, or buffers that direction in actual functioning (Miller & Cohen, 2001; Menon & Uddin, 2010). The core hypothesis of this theory, the Anchor Theory, holds that healthy personality is maintained not by the unilateral dominance of a specific function, but by balance with the antagonistic braking mechanism provided by the opposing Commander-Auxiliary system. In this framework, personality pathology is understood not as a simple excess of a given tendency, but as a Broken State in which the opposing anchor that had constrained that direction is lost, inhibitory feedback collapses, and the output of a specific direction becomes fixed in a self-amplifying closed loop (Carhart-Harris & Friston, 2019; Insel et al., 2010).

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 Background and Purpose of the Study

The study of human personality has long been a core task in psychology. However, many traditional personality theories have focused on observing outwardly expressed behavioral traits and classifying them descriptively. Such approaches are useful for describing individual differences, but they have not provided sufficient causal explanation for why specific personality patterns are formed in those ways, nor for how such patterns are maintained within particular neurobiological structures and functional balances (McCrae & Costa, 2003; DeYoung, 2010).

Modern neuroscience and computational psychiatry view the human mind not as a simple aggregate of psychological states, but as an adaptive information-processing system designed to maximize survival probability under environmental uncertainty. The brain continually regulates what to take in, how much weight to assign to it, by what criteria to evaluate its value, which policy to select, and how stably to execute it (Friston, 2009; Niv, 2009; Miller & Cohen, 2001). Based on this perspective, the present study proposes the Young Gwan Neuro-Type Indicator (YGNTI) as a reconstruction of human personality into five core neuro-personality axes.

The aims of this study are as follows. First, to define the five core axes that compose human personality. Second, to explain each axis as a neuro-hierarchical structure composed of a Commander and an Auxiliary. Third, to present the principle by which healthy personality is maintained through the concept of the Anchor of Common Sense. Fourth, to systematically describe the functional breakdown states that appear when this anchor is lost. Fifth, to provide a new interpretive framework centered on antagonistic circuitry that goes beyond the one-sided trait descriptions of existing personality models (Cloninger et al., 1993; Insel et al., 2010).

1.2 Limitations of Existing Personality Models and the Distinctiveness of YGNTI

The Big Five made a major contribution by precisely describing the statistical dimensions of personality, but it only explains in a limited way how each dimension is divided into health and pathology within an antagonistic neurobiological structure. In other words, while it can describe high extraversion, high neuroticism, or high conscientiousness as single dimensions, it does not sufficiently reveal how those dimensions maintain stability through balance with opposing inhibitory structures (McCrae & Costa, 2003; DeYoung, 2010).

MBTI also provides an intuitive typology, but it is relatively weak in explaining the neuro-hierarchical structures underlying each axis and the ways in which they collapse into breakdown states. TCI emphasized biological foundations, but it did not foreground antagonistic inhibitory systems and their collapse as the central principle of personality health (Cloninger et al., 1993).

In contrast, the core distinctiveness of YGNTI lies in viewing each personality axis not as the strength of a single trait, but as the balanced relation between mutually antagonistic neuro-hierarchical structures. In this study, health is defined not as the dominance of a specific Commander system, but as a state in which the opposing Commander-Auxiliary system functions as an anchor; pathology is defined as a state in which, due to the weakening or loss of that antagonistic system, the output of a specific direction becomes fixed in a closed loop (Insel et al., 2010; Carhart-Harris & Friston, 2019).

1.3 Notational Principles and Core Hypothesis

In this study, the two poles of each axis are always expressed by pairing the abbreviation with the official term.

Axis 1, Policy Selection Axis: V(Venture) / D(Deliberation)
Axis 2, Input Axis: I(Idea) / R(Reality)
Axis 3, Value Appraisal Axis: A(Affinity) / L(Logic)
Axis 4, Execution Regulation Axis: C(Control) / W(Whimsical)
Axis 5, Weighting Axis: G(Gravity) / N(Nonchalant)

This paper assumes that human personality is composed through the interaction of these five independent axes. It further assumes that each axis consists of a core Commander representing a strategic direction and an Auxiliary that actually drives, amplifies, or buffers that direction. Healthy personality is established not through one-sided dominance of a specific axis, but through a state in which the opposing Commander-Auxiliary system functions as an anchor and restrains runaway activation. When this anchor is lost, the system becomes trapped in a self-amplifying closed loop and enters a functional breakdown state termed the Broken State (Miller & Cohen, 2001; Insel et al., 2010).

Chapter 2. Theoretical Background

2.1 Computational Redefinition of Personality

YGNTI views personality not as a mere description of temperament, but as the distribution of basic computational policies repeatedly adopted by the brain under survival conditions. This shifts the question from what kind of person someone is to how that person processes the environment and acts upon a particular balance (Friston, 2009; Niv, 2009).

2.2 Supplemental Arrangement from a Processing-Stage Perspective

This study retains the order of presentation as policy selection, input, value appraisal, execution regulation, and weighting. However, from the standpoint of functional information processing flow, the five axes may also be rearranged as follows:

Input: I(Idea) / R(Reality)
Weighting: G(Gravity) / N(Nonchalant)
Value Appraisal: A(Affinity) / L(Logic)
Policy Selection: V(Venture) / D(Deliberation)
Execution Regulation: C(Control) / W(Whimsical)

This rearrangement is not meant to replace the original order, but to serve as a supplementary interpretive framework for explaining the functional position of each axis within the flow of information processing.

2.3 Neuro-Hierarchical Structure: Commander and Auxiliary

In YGNTI, each axis is not merely a personality dimension but a neuro-hierarchical structure composed of a Commander and an Auxiliary. The Commander is the core decision hub representing the strategic direction of the axis, while the Auxiliary provides the energy, amplification, buffering, inhibition, and contextual support necessary for that direction to be implemented in actual behavior and experience (Miller & Cohen, 2001; Menon & Uddin, 2010).

2.4 The Anchor of Common Sense and the Broken State

The Anchor of Common Sense refers to the coarse but reliable braking function provided by the opposing axis, preventing the output of one direction from escalating into an extreme. In this study, a Broken State does not mean merely that one direction is strong. Rather, it refers to a functional breakdown state in which the opposing Commander-Auxiliary system that should restrain that direction is lost, causing a specific computational direction to become fixed in a self-amplifying closed loop (Carhart-Harris & Friston, 2019; Insel et al., 2010).

The 5 Neuro-Personality Axes

Chapter 3. Axis 1: Policy Selection Axis — V(Venture) / D(Deliberation)

3.1–3.2 Formal Definition & Commander and Auxiliary

The Policy Selection Axis is the computational axis that determines how the threshold for action initiation is set between reward expectancy and loss prediction.

V(Venture): Commander NAcc & Auxiliary VTA

The core Commander of V(Venture) is the nucleus accumbens (NAcc). The NAcc functions as the key hub generating action-initiation signals when potential reward is detected. The Auxiliary of V(Venture) is the ventral tegmental area (VTA), which supplies dopaminergic drive and enables the system to move toward its goals. The NAcc–VTA circuit is strongly associated with reward, motivation, reinforcement learning, and approach behavior (Schultz, 2016; Niv, 2009).

D(Deliberation): Commander lOFC & Auxiliary LHb

The core Commander of D(Deliberation) is the lateral orbitofrontal cortex (lOFC). The lOFC simulates potential loss and risk and establishes the basis for action withholding. The Auxiliary of D(Deliberation) is the lateral habenula (LHb), which inhibits reward initiation and returns the system to stability through disappointment and negative value signals (Bechara et al., 2000; Matsumoto & Hikosaka, 2007).

3.3 Strategic Essence

V(Venture) is reward-seeking policy selection. It tends to detect opportunities first and activate behavior even under uncertainty.

D(Deliberation) is preservation-oriented policy selection. It prioritizes withholding and inhibition in order to protect system stability by calculating possible losses first.

Broken States

V(Venture)-type Broken State

A V(Venture)-type Broken State occurs when the D(Deliberation) anchor system is lost, causing the action-initiation circuit to self-amplify without the braking effect of loss prediction.

D(Deliberation)-type Broken State

A D(Deliberation)-type Broken State occurs when the V(Venture) anchor system is lost, causing the withholding circuit to become self-fixed without compensatory initiation signals.

Chapter 4. Axis 2: Input Axis — I(Idea) / R(Reality)

4.1–4.2 Formal Definition & Commander and Auxiliary

The Input Axis is the computational axis that determines whether internal models or external reality signals are preferentially referenced during judgment and interpretation.

I(Idea): Commander PCC & Auxiliary DMN

The core Commander of I(Idea) is the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC). The PCC functions as a key hub that organizes memory and context and reconstructs the world around internal models. The Auxiliary of I(Idea) is the default mode network (DMN). I is more appropriately understood not as a single PCC region, but as a PCC-centered DMN system. PCC and DMN are closely tied to self-generated thought, internal narrative, and model-based construction (Raichle et al., 2001).

R(Reality): Commander Anterior Insula & Auxiliary SN

The core Commander of R(Reality) is the anterior insula. The anterior insula detects the salience of incoming external sensory information and prioritizes reality signals. The Auxiliary of R(Reality) is the salience network (SN). R is likewise more accurately understood not as the anterior insula alone, but as an anterior-insula-centered SN system. The SN is involved in detecting behaviorally important external stimuli and switching attention between internal and external domains (Menon & Uddin, 2010; Seeley et al., 2007).

4.3 Strategic Essence

I(Idea) is model-based input. It emphasizes structure, meaning, symbols, and causal patterns more than individual facts.

R(Reality) is reality-based input. It places greater trust in presently incoming signals and direct contact with actual conditions. Here, R(Reality) does not simply mean being sensory-oriented; it refers to receptivity that enables immediate contact with external reality (Menon & Uddin, 2010).

Broken States

I(Idea)-type Broken State

An I(Idea)-type Broken State occurs when the R(Reality) anchor system is lost, causing the internal model to self-reinforce without external verification.

R(Reality)-type Broken State

An R(Reality)-type Broken State occurs when the I(Idea) anchor system is lost, causing external input processing to become fixed at the level of stimulus reaction without contextual integration.

Chapter 5. Axis 3: Value Appraisal Axis — A(Affinity) / L(Logic)

5.1–5.2 Formal Definition & Commander and Auxiliary

The Value Appraisal Axis is the computational axis that determines whether the importance of information and situations is evaluated primarily in terms of relational meaning or rule-based consistency.

A(Affinity): Commander vmPFC & Auxiliary TPJ

The core Commander of A(Affinity) is the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC). The vmPFC integrates emotional meaning and social value into information and computes "what this means for me and for us." The Auxiliary of A(Affinity) is the temporoparietal junction (TPJ), which continuously supplies relational variables by inferring others' intentions and mental states. The vmPFC's value integration and the TPJ's mentalizing function align well with the A direction (Bechara et al., 2000; Damasio, 1994).

L(Logic): Commander dlPFC & Auxiliary IPS

The core Commander of L(Logic) is the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). The dlPFC organizes judgment according to universal rules and logical structure by separating out emotional context. The Auxiliary of L(Logic) is the intraparietal sulcus (IPS). However, the IPS is more appropriately described not as logic itself, but as a region that supports comparison, structuring, rule application, and relational alignment. The dlPFC–parietal system is broadly involved in rule maintenance, reasoning, and problem solving (Miller & Cohen, 2001).

5.3 Strategic Essence

A(Affinity) is relation-based value appraisal. It prioritizes who the information matters to and what relational consequences it generates.

L(Logic) is rule-based value appraisal. It prioritizes whether information is correct in principle and structurally consistent.

Broken States

A(Affinity)-type Broken State

An A(Affinity)-type Broken State occurs when the L(Logic) anchor system is lost, causing relational valuation to become fixed as over-identification without the regulation of self-boundaries.

L(Logic)-type Broken State

An L(Logic)-type Broken State occurs when the A(Affinity) anchor system is lost, causing rule-based appraisal to become fixed as objectification and isolation without human resonance.

Chapter 6. Axis 4: Execution Regulation Axis — C(Control) / W(Whimsical)

6.1–6.2 Formal Definition & Commander and Auxiliary

The Execution Regulation Axis is the computational axis that determines how much error and variability are suppressed or permitted during task performance.

C(Control): Commander dACC & Auxiliary Dorsal Striatum

The core Commander of C(Control) is the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC). The dACC monitors discrepancies between goals and actual behavior and regulates the system in the direction of reducing exceptions in order to preserve order and accuracy. The Auxiliary of C(Control) is the dorsal striatum, which enhances stability by executing validated habit routines and repetitive patterns (Botvinick et al., 2001; Shenhav et al., 2013).

W(Whimsical): Commander mPFC & Auxiliary Temporal Association Cortex

The core Commander of W(Whimsical) is the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). The mPFC is set as the axis that relaxes excessive control and shifts the system toward self-generated thought and freer association. The Auxiliary of W(Whimsical) is limited not to the broad temporal lobe as a whole, but to the temporal association cortex and semantic-associative systems. This refinement is intended to specify W not as a vague "temporal lobe" tendency, but as an auxiliary system that supports semantic association and unexpected linkage formation (Raichle et al., 2001; Miller & Cohen, 2001).

6.3 Strategic Essence

C(Control) is convergent execution regulation. It fixes order, minimizes error, and increases efficiency and completion.

W(Whimsical) is open execution regulation. It allows variables and exceptions, opening the possibility of novel combinations and discoveries.

Broken States

C(Control)-type Broken State

A C(Control)-type Broken State occurs when the W(Whimsical) anchor system is lost, causing error suppression and order maintenance to become excessively fixed without flexibility.

W(Whimsical)-type Broken State

A W(Whimsical)-type Broken State occurs when the C(Control) anchor system is lost, causing exploration and drift to persist without a point of return.

Chapter 7. Axis 5: Weighting Axis — G(Gravity) / N(Nonchalant)

7.1–7.2 Formal Definition & Commander and Auxiliary

The Weighting Axis is the computational axis that determines how much emotional and semantic weight is assigned to incoming external stimuli and internal signals.

G(Gravity): Commander Amygdala & Auxiliary Locus Coeruleus (LC)

The core Commander of G(Gravity) is the amygdala. The amygdala assigns salience and weight to input signals, causing even small changes to be processed as events of major significance. The Auxiliary of G(Gravity) is the locus coeruleus (LC), which increases global neural gain through noradrenergic arousal and amplifies the weight of signals. The amygdala–LC combination fits well with threat detection, salience, arousal, and gain modulation (LeDoux, 2000; Schultz, 2016).

N(Nonchalant): Commander Rostral/Ventral ACC & Auxiliary Vagus Nerve

The core Commander of N(Nonchalant) is the rostral/ventral ACC family. The Auxiliary of N(Nonchalant) is the vagus nerve, which stabilizes and buffers through parasympathetic regulation so that input does not excessively shake the whole system. The ventral–rostral ACC's role in emotional regulation and autonomic control fits the representative structure of the N direction (Etkin et al., 2011). Note: R(Reality) and G(Gravity) must be distinguished. R(Reality) is closer to input receptivity — the ability to immediately detect external reality signals — whereas G(Gravity) is closer to assigning heavy weight to the signals that have entered.

7.3 Strategic Essence

G(Gravity) is high-weight processing. It treats small changes as events carrying large meaning and emotional weight.

N(Nonchalant) is low-weight buffering. It reduces and buffers incoming signals so they do not destabilize the entire internal system.

Broken States

G(Gravity)-type Broken State

A G(Gravity)-type Broken State occurs when the N(Nonchalant) anchor system is lost, causing high signal weighting to become fixed without downward regulation.

N(Nonchalant)-type Broken State

An N(Nonchalant)-type Broken State occurs when the G(Gravity) anchor system is lost, causing low signal weighting to become excessively fixed and sensitivity to resonance and importance to disappear.

References

Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2000). Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 10(3), 295–307.
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652.
Carhart-Harris, R. L., & Friston, K. J. (2019). REBUS and the anarchic brain: Toward a unified model of the brain action of psychedelics. Pharmacological Reviews, 71(3), 316–344.
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50(12), 975–990.
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. G. P. Putnam's Sons.
DeYoung, C. G. (2010). Personality neuroscience and the biology of traits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(12), 1165–1180.
Etkin, A., Egner, T., & Kalisch, R. (2011). Emotional processing in anterior cingulate and medial prefrontal cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(2), 85–93.
Friston, K. (2009). The free-energy principle: A rough guide to the brain? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(7), 293–301.
Insel, T., Cuthbert, B., Garvey, M., Heinssen, R., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K., Sanislow, C., & Wang, P. (2010). Research domain criteria (RDoC): Toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(7), 748–751.
LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, 155–184.
Matsumoto, M., & Hikosaka, O. (2007). Lateral habenula as a source of negative reward signals in dopamine neurons. Nature, 447(7148), 1111–1115.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Menon, V., & Uddin, L. Q. (2010). Saliency, switching, attention and control: A network model of insula function. Brain Structure and Function, 214(5–6), 655–667.
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202.
Niv, Y. (2009). Reinforcement learning in the brain. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(3), 139–154.
Raichle, M. E., MacLeod, A. M., Snyder, A. Z., Powers, W. J., Gusnard, D. A., & Shulman, G. L. (2001). A default mode of brain function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 676–682.
Schultz, W. (2016). Dopamine reward prediction-error signalling: A two-component response. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17(3), 183–195.
Seeley, W. W., Menon, V., Schatzberg, A. F., Keller, J., Glover, G. H., Kenna, H., Reiss, A. L., & Greicius, M. D. (2007). Dissociable intrinsic connectivity networks for salience processing and executive control. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(9), 2349–2356.
Shenhav, A., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2013). The expected value of control: An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79(2), 217–240.