Compare how they respond to other people’s achievements, feedback, mistakes, vulnerability and disagreement.
They recognise other people’s contributions, consider feedback and take responsibility without requiring admiration.
They compare, explain or seek reassurance first. The answer describes the acknowledgement or adjustment you actually saw.
They diminish contributions, shift their responsibility or use threats and penalties to require approval or obedience.
Valuing yourself can include pride in your abilities, asking for support and setting limits. It can coexist with recognising another person’s achievements, admitting a mistake and accepting disagreement.
The difference becomes observable when someone belittles others, treats status as a reason not to answer questions or demands admiration. The tool looks at those actions; it cannot measure private self-worth or determine what insecurity lies behind them.
Use the comparison to examine responses from the same person across situations. Consider whether their confidence is compatible with respect for other people’s contributions and decisions.
Think of situations you have observed with the same person. If a description does not fit, responses vary or you have not seen what followed, mark the situation as unclear or unobserved. You do not need another encounter to answer.
Choose what you have observed in each situation. If none fits, or you have not seen it happen, mark it as unclear or not applicable.
Choose one description
Choose one description
Choose one description
Choose one description
Choose one description
Choose one description
Understanding the comparison
The comparison cannot tell you how much someone loves themselves or diagnose their personality. It can help you describe a specific response, its effect and what you need to do about it.
A person can keep feelings private, communicate directly, need reassurance or be unavailable to listen. Consider whether they respect another person’s answer and privacy, rather than how emotionally expressive they appear.
A person may have responsibility for a decision and still hear objections, explain relevant reasons and correct mistakes. Expertise or a firm decision alone does not establish arrogance.
No. It compares responses to success, feedback, mistakes, vulnerability, influence and approval. It cannot measure private self-worth or diagnose a personality from those responses.
No. People can ask for support, praise or reassurance. The distinction is whether they accept another person’s response or use insults, threats or penalties to require approval.
Not by itself. People differ in what they share, how they communicate and how available they are. Keeping feelings private does not establish arrogance. Using someone else’s disclosure to humiliate or pressure them is a specific harmful action.
Yes. Authority or expertise can involve decisions other people dislike. Consider whether the person addresses relevant concerns and respects the decisions that belong to others, rather than demanding obedience through humiliation or threats.
No. The result keeps each selected response visible and identifies any selected belittling, imposed blame or coercion. A constructive majority does not establish that a different situation was handled well.
Choose the closest description only if it fits what you have observed. Otherwise mark the situation as unclear. Variation and missing information remain visible; they are not counted as a middle-column response.
TEG-Blue