u/I_AM_neanderthal — reddlx

I'm not asking about philosophers who wrote *about* dark or amoral ideas (like Nietzsche or Machiavelli), but someone for whom some emotional states, or better, intuitive insights, were simply absent or very diminished as a matter of their psyche.

What puzzles me is the motive: folk philosophy is largely driven by wonder, anxiety about death, a longing for “meaning”, moral dilemmas, or some pop debates such as free will. If a psychopath lacks some mental functions where they never get the need for folk philosophy, what would even draw them to write or read philosophy in the first place? Would the philosophy they produced look noticeably different?

Maybe they were forced into it as part of education coming from a noble family in per-modern era, but who were they?

I made a visual/interactive website for an emotion and personality model; a new and enhanced version of those feeling and emotion wheels mostly used by therapists with clients. My main concern is that I may have made it too complex while trying to make the relationships between the logical relationships between concepts visual (color, position, shape).

The design problem:
The site has to introduce an innovative model, explain what it is, and guide different types of users toward the right entry point. But I’m not sure if the landing page clearly communicates what the site is for, or if it feels overwhelming/confusing before the user understands the value.

I’m attaching screenshots of:

the landing page hero/intro https://emotionalintuition.com
the complete interactive visual framework https://emotionalintuition.com/compass/main
the emotion wheel tool page directed for psychotherapists https://emotionalintuition.com/emotion-wheel

Specific questions:

From the first screen, is it clear what the site actually is?
Does it feel like a tool for growth, a theory of a mad man, a research project, a mental health resource, or something else?
Is the structure understandable?
Are you confused about why people would use it?
Does the visual direction help make the concept easier to understand, or does it make it feel not worth the time?
If you landed on this page without context, what would your thoughts be?
What would you remove, simplify, or reorder to make the experience clearer?
Is the emotion wheel tool for therapists info button visually clear?
Is there too much info?
Right now the site explains a lot of the framework upfront. Would it be better to simplify the public-facing version and move the deeper/technical explanations into a separate advanced section?
Is it clear that you can click on specific words on the complete framework?
Is the mobile interactive version easy enough to grasp on how to use/navigate?

I’m specifically trying to understand whether the information architecture, landing page, and visual explanation are working or making the concept harder to approach. I worked on this for so long trying to make it perfect, now it seems like it’s too complex; especially when considered that philosophy and psychology seem to have abandoned this type of attempts at holistic integration.

I’m not a UX professional, and I built this myself, so I’d really appreciate critique from people who can look at it more professionally.