Like the title says. I understand that like the other 4 dimensions, trait Neuroticism follows a normal distribution in the human population, so if you're abnormally high on this trait (> 95th percentile), there's nothing wrong with you per se, you just happen to be a part of a pronounced minority (just as you would be if you were extremely extroverted, or extremely conscientious).

My question is, at this level of neuroticism (> 95th percentile), and the extremely heightened level of sensitivity to negative emotions that come along with it, is it possible for somone not to have at least one kind of anxiety or related disorder?

I just feel like there's a lot of fear mongering that I know I don't need to pay attention to. I want to know what I actually need to pay attention to it and worry about.

I'm a lab technician running a pre-study for a master's thesis, and I've hit a gap I can't explain.

The occupational health literature on work breaks, posture and musculoskeletal strain is almost entirely about seated office work. Sit-stand desks, screen breaks, keyboard and mouse posture. What I can't find much of is the equivalent for people doing hands-on science: standing at a bench for hours, gloved work, hoods, microscopes and eyepieces, animal facilities, cleanrooms, field sites.

Two questions for anyone who knows this area better than I do:

1. Is there a literature on this that I'm simply missing, maybe under a different label like manual handling or industrial ergonomics rather than research work specifically?

2. If it genuinely is thin, why? My guess is that researchers aren't a defined occupational group the way nurses or assembly workers are, so nobody funds the cohort study. But that's speculation on my part.

The thesis asks whether the problem is big enough to be worth solving, whether anything already deals with it, and whether a tool for this is worth building. I'm collecting my own data in the meantime, five minutes, anonymous, no name or institute collected, no IP stored, 18+:

https://tally.so/r/A7MeKe?source=reddit-askscience

Pointers to actual papers are more useful to me than the survey responses, so if you have one, please post it.

I know we can’t really define how much is how much but I’m currently reading a book on Johannes Kepler and in the book it talks about how Kepler had a pre-cursor to gravity and the earliest implementation of this is where each celestial body had a sort of spirit or soul that imbued it with a link in between each celestial body. Obviously he was wrong and still had a lot to do but I thought it was so cool that we partially came to the truth through means that seem pretty unreasonable. Dude doesn’t get enough credit. Anyways I was wondering of any other insights, theories or any other information that may have started off similar to this but was a pre cursor to something major or important today.