Abstract

We thank Freudenstein et al. for their thoughtful remarks on our study2 and for the opportunity to clarify our published results. We share the authors’ concern about the premature use of the uncovered types in personality assessment, but must emphasize that the empirical findings of the computational analysis reported in our study remain valid. Indeed, Freudenstein et al. “concur that [their] analyses reveal four meaningful types”, highlighting the methods’ “notable improvement to previous approaches”. We supplement the opinion of Freudenstein et al. on the interpretation of our results along four main directions.