I just took the Big 5 test (a free one, not Peterson’s) and found myself wondering in most of them: what do they mean by that word?
Sometimes the ambiguity was in whether they meant “sometimes” or “all the times” about some behavior.

As for constructing test questions: it is an art, and most teachers are not very good at it.

To be more connected to the discussion, there are people for whom experience is like rain on a duck’s back. They may not be able to escape it, but the change…? How does a test measure the likelihood one may be affected or changed by experience?

And can one be moved to an immovable position by an experience which is up close, personal and emotionally impactful while being nowhere near descriptive of the issue in general and, in fact, may miss the point entirely? Probably, for some people. Is that “open”? I have known people who, in effect, give points for being misled by emotionally loaded experiences. It means you’re compassionate or something. At a recent discussion of the J6 hearings, one woman went on about this young person–Hutchinson–being kind of alone, not getting supervision, left out of important things…..soft voice, etc, as if it meant something.

I would think being careful about experience, being able to put it in context, looking at it rationally, would be the better way, but is that being “open”?

Additionally, there’s language and its nuance. It was not so long ago that the words, “I should have….” meant “I would have…..” if something or other were known.
And “I had done….” was used where today we say “I did….”

One of my granddaughters, when in el ed, had an on-line reading course. The foils to the questions were perfect. Without being obviously nonsense, the wrong answers were not stupidly off topic or something. The right answer was right as to the actual subject. IOW, if you followed the reading, the right answer was clear without any flags saying CHOOSE ME, and the others were clearly not without any off-topic wanderings. That is a hell of a lot of work.

I’d be interested in definitions. For example, if I were asked whether I was “fearful”, or a “fearful” person, I’d wonder if the question was whether I found a lot of possibilities scary, or whether, having found something scary, I’d backed down, or gone ahead.

When I was in Jump School, I found three categories of guys. Some were petrified but went ahead anyway. Some liked it so much they’ll be sky diving until they’re eighty. For some it was another way to get to work and beat walking. So how does a graduate of Jump School grade himself as fearful? We all went out the door.

Anyway, my point, too long in the making, is that I distrust personality tests.

Key graf 1 (RTWT):
‘…To read Hitchens is to realize how wrong we are to use the words “honesty” and “integrity” as synonyms. Hitchens is honest in the sense that, as best we can tell, he says what he believes without fear. But on page after page, using one metaphor after another, he describes his personality as not whole, not integral. “I use the words ‘double life’ without any shame,” he writes…’

…Which may call to mind the fractured realities of the personal lives of the extraordinary David Cornwell—at least when at the height of his literary powers—and the notorious Kim Philby, both sons of shamelessly mercurial and, possibly, narcissistic to the point of psychotic fathers. Hitchens’s father was not like this but one may conjecture that the fracture encountered in Hitchens’s case was the overall situation of post-war England, but also the fact that a person of his middling, son-of-an-officer social position was sent to the very best of English public schools (and then there is also the case of his mother, only later to be discovered by him to have been a Jewish refugee who sought, successfully, to conceal her background)…

Key graf 2 (and probably(?) the reason this piece was reposted on July 4, 2022):
‘…Hitchens moved to the America in 1981, drawn by a romantic sense that “the United States [is] at once the most conservative and commercial and the most revolutionary society on Earth.” (A Janus-faced place for Janus-faced people.) It was there that he broke almost all his past alliances….’

Yes, Virginia, there are authoritarians on both ends of the scale.
https://www.psypost.org/2021/06/large-study-indicates-left-wing-authoritarianism-exists-and-is-a-key-predictor-of-psychological-and-behavioral-outcomes-61318

“Authoritarianism has really only been studied in one group of people: conservatives,” said study author Thomas H. Costello, a Ph.D. candidate in psychology at Emory University.

“The reasons for this are a little circular — namely, lots of scholars have theorized and argued that only conservatives can be authoritarian. But if this isn’t the case, and authoritarian individuals also exist on the left — as I think we show in the study — then the lack of research concerning left-wing authoritarianism becomes a big deal.”
…
Costello and his colleagues also found a large overlap in personality traits, cognitive styles, and beliefs among those who scored high on left-wing authoritarianism and those who scored high on right-wing authoritarianism. Both groups had heightened levels of psychopathic meanness and boldness, dogmatism, disinhibition, conscientiousness, need for closure, fatalistic determinism beliefs, belief in conspiracy theories, and belief in a dangerous world.

Pew Research thinks there are 9 political typology groups — I didn’t take the test to see what they are.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/quiz/political-typology/

Some more discussion of left-right and all things in-between.

https://coredifferences.com/difference-between-left-and-right-wing/
Has some embarrassing typos and erroneous definitions, but covers most of the territory as understood by the general public.

https://www.political-coordinates.org/
Uses the Nolan chart, and talks about the problems with the Adorno authoritarianism study. Has a quiz you can take for political orientation.

Maybe I’ll take some of the quizzes tomorrow and see how they stack up.

I read through the Wikipedia article you linked here (and also in a reply to me and Eeyore earlier).
Here’s the relevant political portion:

Political identification
The Big Five Personality Model also has applications in the study of political psychology. Studies have been finding links between the big five personality traits and political identification. It has been found by several studies that individuals who score high in Conscientiousness are more likely to possess a right-wing political identification.[204][205][206] On the opposite end of the spectrum, a strong correlation was identified between high scores in Openness to Experience and a left-leaning ideology.[204][207][208] While the traits of agreeableness, extraversion, and neuroticism have not been consistently linked to either conservative or liberal ideology, with studies producing mixed results, such traits are promising when analyzing the strength of an individual’s party identification.[207][208] However, correlations between the Big Five and political beliefs, while present, tend to be small, with one study finding correlations ranged from 0.14 to 0.24.[209]

That’s an extremely weak correlation. (The more simplistic of the resources I looked at considers anything at or below .3 to be weak.)
https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/correlation-coefficient/

I would not use the Big Five test to draw any conclusions about political affiliation, but Peterson’s test “assigned” the factors anyway, which may be why your results seemed odd to you.

Other considerations:
If you click through the links at the Wiki, you can see their definitions for right and left wing.
It’s not clear if the above sources looking at political affiliation used the same definitions; I would have to read the full studies and that’s too much work. 😉

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

Right-wing politics are generally characterized by support for the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, authority or tradition.[4]:?693,?721?[5][6][7][8][9] Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences[10][11] or competition in market economies.[12][13][14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Left-wing politics is the support of social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy.[1][2][3][4] Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.[1] According to emeritus professor of economics Barry Clark, left-wing supporters “claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated.”[5]

I don’t see any immediate relevance for Conscientiousness on the Right and Openness to Experience on the Left, so the correlations, weak as they are, may be capturing some underlying facet (also defined in the Wikipedia article) in some fashion.

However, IF you are only going by someone’s self-reported identification as conservative or liberal, the subjects might not even be using the same definitions as each other, much less Wikipedia, which also leads to a weak correlation.

On the value of self-assessments: Bernard Goldman, in his book “Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News,” noted that Dan Rather considered the New York Times to be politically “middle of the road,” and judged himself IIRC to be in the same category or a bit more liberal.
Big LOL.

One serious problem is that liberal and conservative no longer capture the left-right axis in a meaningful way politically, much less wrt personality.
Some people have suggested a two-axis space instead: left-right per the Wikipedia definitions of ideological goals, and authoritarian vs not-authoritarian to capture the implementation.
Ends and means, if you will.
(I’ve seen such charts on the internet, but can’t find one now, of course.)
You could do independent assessments of those factors (NOT a self-identification), and then correlate that with the Big Five, and maybe get some interesting results.

However, Neo is apparently not the only person surprised by her results.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-of-the-Understand-Myself-assessment-by-Dr-Jordan-B-Peterson?share=1

About the politics. I’m a conservative outlier in a liberal community. I wonder if I lived in another part of the country, I might be a liberal outlier in a conservative community. Probably I just wouldn’t live there. I suspect liberals and conservatives in the same class with the same educational background will score about the same on openness. That is to say, if you are a conservative with a humanities or social science degree (or even more than one degree), you would score about as highly as liberals with the same background would score, though you would be very much an oddity and an outlier, given what humanities and social science departments are like now.

One problem is that I spent 50 years as a surgeon and am now 84. I don’t know how that would affect things. She doesn’t think it has.

I am also quite conservative, to the despair of a couple of my kids who are lefties.

You took part in one, but one WHAT? There are a lot of tests and I am speaking only of this particular test. I doubt you took part in the research in which this particular test was matched with people’s self-reported political affiliations. Political affiliation is not on the test. But certain aspects of the test are correlated with people’s self-reported political affiliations. That means people answering the question Are you a liberal or a conservative?, and then correlating other parts of the test to that answer, using the person’s answer itself as the definition of political affiliation rather than the correlations as a way to define affiliation.