Where it started

AI that listens from four directions before it says a word about who you are.

This is the original Multi-Perspective Profile — the first version of what became The Overview Profile.

Four AI-guided conversations, each inspired by a real thinker — Gabor Maté, Esther Perel, Simon Sinek, and Yuval Noah Harari. The idea was that no single perspective could give you the full picture. But maybe four of them, talking to each other, could get closer.

It worked. People tried it. Something landed. But the more I tested the thinking, the more gaps I found — in the science, in the coverage, in the structure. So I rebuilt it.

This version is still here and you can still try it below. If you want the version with five lenses, a stronger foundation, and the tensions front and center:

Try The Overview Profile →

Watch the experiment

A two-minute look at what this is, why it exists, and how it works.

Four guides

Four perspectives. One profile.

If your skills and experience only tell part of the story, the question becomes: how do you surface the rest? Each guide runs a different kind of conversation. They ask different questions, notice different patterns, and look for different truths in what you say.

🌿

The Healer

What need are you trying to meet through work?

Inspired by Gabor Maté. Looks beneath career choices for emotional needs, coping patterns, and the motivations people rarely say out loud.

  • Emotional patterns
  • Needs beneath ambition
  • Big Five signals
🔥

The Provocateur

Who are you when nobody at work is watching?

Inspired by Esther Perel. Explores work identity, performance, tension, and the roles people play in professional life versus private life.

  • Relational dynamics
  • Security versus freedom
  • DISC work style
⭕

The Clarifier

What thread keeps showing up in your story?

Inspired by Simon Sinek. Works from real stories toward meaning, uncovering a Why statement through patterns rather than slogans.

  • Golden Circle
  • Story patterns
  • Ikigai dimensions
  • CliftonStrengths signals
🔮

The Philosopher

What story about yourself are you living inside?

Inspired by Yuval Noah Harari. Questions the narratives people inherit or repeat without noticing. Steps back and examines the frame itself.

  • Life narrative
  • Meaning-making
  • Big Five with openness emphasis
Meet the four guides

How it works

Pick a guide. Talk. Let the pattern emerge.

01

Choose a guide

Start with whichever lens pulls you in: healing, identity, purpose, or narrative.

02

Have a real conversation

Six to eight turns. The guide adapts to what you actually say, not a fixed script.

03

Surface hidden signals

While you talk, the system infers personality traits, work style, values, and recurring themes.

04

Build the profile

After two or more sessions, everything is synthesized into one integrated profile across multiple frameworks.

What comes out

A mirror, not a scorecard.

The profile combines frameworks you might recognize with language that is entirely yours. None of this would show up on a resume.

◎
Why statement

The deeper thread behind your choices. Not a tagline, a pattern.

◈
Core truth

The recurring insight that keeps surfacing across different perspectives.

❝
Your own words

Real quotes that keep the profile grounded in what you actually said.

Golden Circle Why → How → What
Big Five Personality signals, shown as visual bars
DISC Work-style tendencies under pressure
Ikigai map Love, skill, need, and value together
CliftonStrengths Recurring contribution patterns
Tension meter Where strengths pull in opposite directions

My profile

I was the first test subject.

Before asking anyone else to try this, I ran it on myself. After sitting with my own resume and feeling like it missed everything that actually matters, I wanted to see what would come out the other side. The numbers are illustrative, but the patterns are real.

You are driven by clarity, autonomy, and making things make sense for others.

Across different conversations and perspectives, the same pattern keeps returning: you create structure where things feel unclear — and you do it in a way that helps people move forward.

Profile confidence
Strong alignment across perspectives

You are at your best when you can connect ideas, people, and systems into something that feels clear, useful, and human.

Why statement

To bring clarity to complex situations so people can move forward with confidence.

This shows up in how you simplify, connect, and guide — not just in the role written on paper.
Core truth

You thrive when you can connect people, systems, and meaning. You struggle when the human layer is stripped out of the work.

The core truth is the recurring insight that keeps resurfacing across the different guides.
Golden Circle

Why: Create clarity. How: Connect perspectives. What: Build systems, guidance, and stories that move people forward.

This turns scattered stories into a purpose structure that is simple enough to use.
Your own words
"I want technology to feel more human and more useful."
Real quotes keep the profile grounded in what the person actually said rather than what the model assumes.

Reading the pattern

These patterns show up consistently across different lenses — not as labels, but as tendencies that become more useful when read together.

Big Five

Broad personality tendencies, shown as visual bars instead of labels.

Openness
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Emotional sensitivity

DISC

Work-style tendencies: how you decide, communicate, and respond under pressure.

D
I
S
C

Ikigai map

The overlap between what you love, what you are good at, what the world needs, and what creates value.

  • Love: Helping, exploring, creating clarity
  • Good at: Connecting ideas and people
  • World needs: Better systems with a human lens
  • Paid for: Coordination, guidance, transformation

CliftonStrengths

A strengths-based view of the patterns that show up most naturally in how you contribute.

  • Strategic: Sees patterns and possible paths quickly
  • Learner: Energized by growth and understanding
  • Connectedness: Looks for meaning between ideas and people
  • Responsibility: Takes ownership seriously

Tension meter

Where your strengths pull in different directions. Growth often happens where these tensions become visible.

Clarity vs Complexity
Clarity
Complexity
Autonomy vs Structure
Autonomy
Structure
Depth vs Speed
Depth
Speed

Try it

This is the actual system. Not a demo.

Explore the guides, start a conversation, and see how the profile begins to take shape.

Claude artifact embed Open full screen

If the embed asks you to log in or does not open correctly, use the public artifact page instead.

The backstory

It started with a resume and an empty calendar.

I was between assignments. My contract as an IT business consultant had ended and, for the first time in a while, there was no obvious next match waiting. So I did what you do: I sat down with my resume and started writing down work experience, skills, certifications. The usual exercise of trying to turn a career into a list.

Then a thought crept in. What if I could actually match my resume against what employers are asking for? Not just guess at keywords, but use real data to see where I fit and where the gaps are. That seemed like a useful, solvable problem.

But the more I sat with it, the less satisfying it felt. Because a resume only captures one dimension. It tells you what someone has done, not what drives them or how they show up. I would even argue that your personal traits, your patterns, the way you think and relate to others, those might matter more than any skill on a list. And yet none of that makes it into the matching process.

That is when the project changed direction. The question was no longer "how do I match my resume better?" It became "how do you quantify the parts of a person that do not fit on a resume?" And, maybe harder: what about people who do not even know their own strengths? Who have never had the space or the right questions to map their inner world?

So instead of building a job-matching tool, I started building something that listens first. I borrowed lenses from thinkers I admire — Gabor Maté, Esther Perel, Simon Sinek, Yuval Noah Harari — and designed four AI-guided conversations that each look at a different layer of who you are. The frameworks came in later to give the output practical structure: Big Five, DISC, Ikigai, CliftonStrengths. But the core idea stayed the same: help people see themselves more clearly before they try to sell themselves to anyone else.

Here is the part that still surprises me: I built and visualized this entire idea using AI. Not over months of development, but in days. The fact that someone with an idea and no engineering team can go from a thought to a working prototype this quickly, that is part of the story too. This moment in technology is not just about what AI can do. It is about who gets to build.

The name

Why it is called The Overview.

In 1987, Frank White coined the term "the overview effect" to describe something astronauts kept reporting: the moment they saw Earth from space, borders disappeared. Countries, conflicts, identities, all of it dissolved into one interconnected whole. The shift was not intellectual. It was perceptual. Once you saw it, you could not unsee it.

That is the principle behind this experiment. A resume is ground level. A single personality test is one angle from one altitude. But when you combine four different perspectives, each looking at a different layer of who you are, something shifts. You stop seeing fragments and start seeing the whole person.

The Multi-Perspective Profile is not a view from space. But it is a view from further out than most tools offer. And for some people, that wider angle is exactly what they need to recognize what was already there.

Where this stands

An idea, not a product. And that is the point.

Right now, the Multi-Perspective Profile is a Claude artifact. A working prototype built to make the idea tangible enough that people can react to it. It is not a platform, not a startup, not a polished product. It is an experiment designed to answer one question: does this resonate?

There are real open questions. The thinkers who inspired the four guides, can their ideas be used freely? The short answer: general ideas and psychological concepts are not copyrightable, but specific branded frameworks are. Big Five and DISC are open models. CliftonStrengths is trademarked by Gallup, and the Golden Circle is Sinek's branded concept. A real product would need its own framework names and scoring models, inspired by the thinking but not borrowing the brands. That is a solvable problem, but it is a real one.

Then there is the question of depth. Can AI actually synthesize personality patterns from open-ended conversation well enough to be meaningful? From what I have seen so far: yes, more than I expected. LLMs are strong at recognizing patterns in how people talk about themselves. The weak spot is consistency, the same conversation might surface slightly different signals on a different day. A real platform would need calibration and structure underneath the free-form conversation to make the output reliable.

And building it for real would mean going from a self-contained artifact to a standalone application: an API for the conversations, a database for storing sessions and profiles, and a scoring engine between the raw dialogue and the final output. That is a genuine product, not a weekend project. But the artifact is doing exactly what it should be doing right now: showing the idea clearly enough to find out if it is worth building further.

Open source

Inspect it, copy it, build on it.

The full artifact source is available. Preview the code, download the file, or open it in Claude with a framing prompt that gives it context.

Download the artifact (.jsx)

Why this matters

Because a list of skills was never the whole story.

We reduce people to bullet points because it is efficient, not because it is accurate. Resumes, job descriptions, personality labels. They all try to compress a person into something sortable. But the things that actually determine whether someone thrives in a role, in a team, in their own life, are almost never on that list.

Some people know exactly what they bring. Many do not. Not because they lack strengths, but because they have never had the right questions or the space to find out. This experiment is built for that second group as much as the first.

This is not a finished product. It is an artifact. A working experiment in how AI can help people see themselves more clearly before anyone asks them to sell themselves.