Considering the abundance of friends (but not a lot of mutual friends on LJ, to be sure) the lonely part sure doesn't fit. It's true I distrust people who show up on my group anonymously and won't say who they are...but certainly not all strangers. Anonymous posters (when they aren't friends who forgot to log in) have a bad rep for a reason. And the anonymous creator of this test has certainly earned my distrust.
My overall level of weirdness is said to be 28, the average level and the line below says I'm weirder than 63% of other LJers. Someone doesn't understand the math involved with "average," I'm thinking.
I notice that the pie chart is divvied up into herdlike, normal, interesting, peculiar, and unique. This suggests a mindset in which liking what a lot of people like (be it writing, or SF, or ice cream or whatever) isn't normal, but is "herdlike", whatever that means. And that "interesting" isn't "normal" either. Nor is "peculiar" interesting. What defines these terms? Nothing.
I infer, from comparing several results posted on acquaintances LJs, that whoever thought up this thing equates having lots of LJ mutual friends as being popular, and relatively few (I have ten) as being lonely. That having interests (which I'm guessing are grabbed from tags or possibly from interests listed in the profile) in common with others in various proportions gathers labels of herdlike, normal, interesting, and peculiar. Having a tag no one else has might get you a "unique" rating, or maybe not.
I don't *like* the stupid pie chart so I'm not going to paste it in (it has ugly colors: I don't like those colors.)
Oh yes: my writing style as judged by a recent public sample is "conventional." Works for me.