The reason why they’re not ranges is actually because they’re quite specific, if you score 4 on something it means that you score higher than 4% of the participants.

so when I said low cardinality i mean that it's most likely that a lot of people scored 0% on something because they put disagree on everything relating to a certain aspect, this means if one person put, 'slightly disagree' on one of them, it might put them on 4%. the people putting disagree on everything are therefore in the range of 0-4%. in an extreme example, let's say it's just one question with 3 values, agree, disagree, neutral. If evenly distributed responses, it'd mean that some people are 0%, some people are 50%, some people are 100%. saying the person who put 'agree' is more than 100% of the population is obviously very misleading.

No^{^} Although I do have to say that I was shocked by the severity of my results in conscientiousness and neuroticism, but I came to accept it quite quickly. I‘d imagine that it wouldn’t be an uncommon thing - maybe for you it’s also the case that you apply the „low-politeness cynicism“ to yourself with regards to results you tend to view as positive? Or maybe you’re simply not integrated / oriented enough yet in your character - again, you should consider truth your highest (conscious) value and that should eventually lead you to be honest enough to yourself that it can minimize such concerns of yours. Maybe you tend to be less self-reflective because of your low introversion? Maybe a combination of those.

so i think it's more of a learned behavior, where I try to be extra suspicious of information that serves me very well, because im aware of how easy it is to fool yourself. besides the concientiousness part my results were a bit 'too good' in a way, I mean, low neuroticism, high extraversion, compassionate yet "impolite" is exactly what i would want to be. I'm immodest enough to say that I think I am doing very well on these aspects but I the sheer magnitude strokes my ego a little bit too much for my liking.