I would have thought my brain was gray, but there is interesting information here. There's something right about this and something distressingly wrong. It's the same sort of thing that often causes more simplistic personality tests to put me in the wrong category because my interests are more similar to those with a personality almost opposite mine, but I approach those interests very differently. So I'll use this opportunity to write a little bit about personality tests and why they often fail to describe me well.
I don't think the words floating around in the green background are all very accurate. Conceptual/abstract -- yes, but that's misleading. I deal with abstract concepts all the time as a philosopher, but it's not the world I live in. I'm very concrete, and I think concretely even when dealing with the abstract concepts in philosophy. I organize the abstract according to specific differences between different concepts, and so on. Abstact subject matters are more interesting to me than cars or sports (which I find utterly boring), but I approach them in a very concrete way.
Inventive and global are just wrong. Given the way they asked the questions, I suspected it would come out this way, but it's inaccurate. I'm the opposite of gloabl. As for inventive, I stick with the tried and true, not investigating new ways of doing things except as an exercise to manipulate data. An example would be when I was a security guard and had to go through 60 electronic points in the plant I worked at, with only the first and last having to be first and last, and I deliberately tried every possible combination I could just as an exercise. Well, it also makes good sense for security guards not to have a set walking pattern, but that's not the main reason I did it. It was fun to try all the different routes to show that I could do it. That doesn't mean I was inventing anything, though. I was reordering and manipulating what was already there.
Investigative and hypothetical are ok but also misleading. They meant the tendency to entertain all sorts of ideas that have no applicability simply out of a sense of imagination. Hypotheticals are fun for some people simply because they enjoy the fantasy. That's not me. I like to investigate to gather information. I like to learn. When I really enjoy something, I'll collect as much information as I can about it, even if it's something as involved as the world envisioned by Tolkien or the Star Trek universe. I'm not the sort of person who would come up with such a world. I'm very good at hypothetical reasoning, which involves figuring out what would follow from various premises, often false premises. Some people are awful at that sort of thing since they can't get around the fact that the premises are false and keep coming back to objections that involve denying the premise, which isn't the point of the exercise. That doesn't mean I live in a world of hypotheticals, which many people do, including those the creators of this test intended to be zeroing in on with the green result.
The description below the green box is much better, though the stuff about not following rules is a little unusual to apply to me. If there's a rule, it's to be followed. There's a place for discussing whether rules should be changed, but that's not the same level as the carrying out of rules already in place. I'll question rules that I think are bad, but I'll follow the rules. It annoys me greatly when people announce in the middle of a game that they're going to use rules that aren't in the rule book and weren't mentioned at the beginning. Maybe the rules in the rulebook are stupid and worth modifying, but you follow the rules that are there until the proper time for evaluation of the rules by the right people. Unless there's a great moral consideration against following rules, they should be followed.
This test roughly goes with the Keirsey temperaments. Orange are artisans, green are rationals, blue idealists, and gold guardians. I'm actually much more like the gold guardians than the green idealists, but they included introversion as a green trait, and my Myers-Briggs thinking trait also dominates in me more than in many guardians, which makes me more like a rational than most guardians are. The first time I took the Keirsey temperament sorter, I tested rational, even though on the Keirsey personality test I came out clearly ISTJ, which is a guardian type. So whoever designed this test has the same problem as Keirsey in assuming that guardians won't be interested in abstract topics and are more interested in sports, cars, gardening, or sewing. Keirsey actually states something like this in his book, and yet I fit all his criteria for a guardian just about perfectly, even being a little extreme in most of them. I very much don't fit his main criteria for being a rational or his description of most rationals. Yet the questions he asks, as with this test, lead to my coming out a guardian. That means it's a bad test, and a number of questions as I was answering them led me to suspect something like that. Still, it's a fun temperament test.
Here is the gold result just for completeness:
As you can see from the above discussion, this also leaves a lot out about me, though more of it's true this time. The biggest problem here is in interests, though I'd have to rewrite half the sentences to give them better precision if I really wanted them to reflect me.
Hat tip to WhatInTarnation?!?!? for discovering this test.