Life Vision in depth.

Living Style integrates two traditions. From Alfred Adler (Lebensstil, Individual Psychology, 1929) it inherits the organising pattern of daily life: the stable way each person structures time, energy and relationships, reflecting values and life goals.

From modern chronobiology it inherits chronotype, formalised by Horne & Östberg (1976) in the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire and refined by Roenneberg through the Munich ChronoType Questionnaire, which measures endogenous circadian rhythms and social jetlag (the mismatch between biological clock and social demand). To this base add dimensions of social energy (introverted/extroverted consumption), eating habits, physical activity and routine intensity versus spontaneity. The whole describes how a person lives, beyond what they are.

You receive your chronotype (morning, intermediate or evening) computed from your answers, with the window in which your cognitive peak typically falls. Alongside it, a social jetlag indicator measures the gap between your ideal biological schedule and your actual social schedule, with a reading of the clinical signals associated when the value is high. The app translates your social-energy level into high, medium or low, based on how many close contacts you consume per week, and qualifies your routine intensity as structured, mixed or flexible, according to how much your daily life is orchestrated by habit versus improvisation.

It adds your declared eating patterns (cooking at home, eating out, restrictions) with a read on relational impact, a map of physical activity and regular hobbies, and your weekend pattern (restorative rest or active adventure) in dialogue with your chronotype. It closes with suggestions: small adjustments to reduce social jetlag or align your rhythm with your productive peak.

Chronotype has robust empirical support: heritability near 50% and predictable variation with age (Roenneberg). Social-energy and routine-intensity dimensions rely on self-report and are subject to cultural bias and social desirability. Living style shifts with life stages (children, career change, health), so periodic reassessment is advised. Alignment on non-negotiable dimensions (sleep, social rhythm) has strong predictive value, above situational complementarity.

What a fulfilled life means to you cannot be reduced to a single metric; it emerges from the crossing of two empirically robust traditions. The first is the Schwartz Value Survey (Shalom Schwartz, 1992), which identifies ten universal human values arranged in a circular circumplex (universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation and self-direction), validated across 80+ countries and culturally diverse samples.

The second is Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), which distinguishes intrinsic motivation (autotelic, driven by the act itself) from extrinsic motivation, and posits three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness. Crossing your priority values with how you motivate yourself yields an operational, personal definition of success, and of what you are willing to trade in order to reach it.

This area's reading returns an articulated set of indicators: your score on Schwartz's ten universal values applied to your case (universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation and self-direction), together with the personal ranking of the three to four values that most steer your choices. You receive your position on Schwartz's circumplex: are you more self-transcendence (universalism/benevolence) or self-enhancement (power/achievement)? More openness (self-direction/stimulation) or conservation (tradition/conformity/security)?

The reading also computes an intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation indicator (Deci & Ryan), measuring how much you do for the sake of the act itself versus for external reward, and a map of the three basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness), flagging which are met and which are in deficit in your current daily life. The reading closes with a "fulfilled life" narrative derived from your choices, suggesting life domains you may be neglecting, and a goal compatibility indicator: which types of goals and which career paths tend to align with your profile.

Cross-cultural validity is excellent: Schwartz has been tested in 80+ countries and the circumplex structure replicates with remarkable consistency. There are, however, caveats. (1) The original instrument (PVQ-40) is long; short versions lose nuance between adjacent values. (2) Values shift with life stage, so periodic reassessment is advisable.

(3) Being self-report, the measure is subject to social-desirability bias, particularly on items like power or hedonism. Values are orienting guides: people with different priorities can coexist well when there is mutual respect and clarity about what each one needs to feel autonomous, competent and related.

The Civic Compass places each person on two independent axes. The vertical one, Liberal ↔ Conservative, is about customs: personal autonomy and openness to change, against continuity and inherited order. The horizontal one, State ↔ Market, is about economics: who guarantees everyday essentials, from health care to old age, and who gets held responsible for how each life turns out.

The structure comes from Duckitt and Sibley's dual-process model (2010), the central finding of the last twenty-five years in political psychology: sociopolitical attitudes are not a single line, they organise into two independent dimensions. Items are adapted from published instruments — the ACT scale by Dunwoody and Funke (2016), which deliberately renames RWA to escape the partisan label; Schwartz's basic values; the economic battery of the World Values Survey and the beliefs about inequality of Kluegel and Smith (1986) for the economic axis.

No statement mentions parties, laws or elections. They are principles, and it is the principle that gets measured.

After twenty-four statements, the app gives you your position on both axes, drawn as a point in the quadrant, and the archetype of the quadrant you landed in: the Builder, the Guardian, the Sower or the Pioneer. Landing near the middle gives you The Bridge, which is not an absent result: it is the reading for someone who moves depending on the question.

Alongside it, two readings that open the horizontal axis from the inside. Provision tells you whether you would rather health care, housing and old age were guaranteed by everyone or by each person; Merit tells you whether you put down what someone achieves mostly to the effort they made or to the circumstances they landed in. When those two pull far apart, the app flags it — a point in the middle can be the average of two strong opposite stances rather than a lukewarm one.

You also get intensity, the distance from the centre, and the consistency of your answers. Half the statements say the opposite of the other half, on purpose; if you agree with both ends, the app tells you the result has lost reliability instead of presenting it as if nothing happened.

The underlying dimensions have solid, replicated empirical support; the reading we build on top of them is ours and does not replace the original instruments. Two caveats matter more than the rest.

The first is about words. "Liberal" does not mean the same thing everywhere: in Portugal, Brazil and France it is read first as economic liberalism, and here it sits on the customs axis. That is why the axis always shows its domain, and why it is worth reading the label before reacting to the name.

The second is that this is a snapshot. Civic positions shift with age, with events and with the people around you, and the result is self-report — it measures what you say about yourself, not what you do. None of the four corners is better than the others, and the test does not exist to file anyone away.