Self report tends to result in people scoring higher than they do with alternative measures. So, for example, if someone asks you 'do you feel sad' you think... Hmm... Maybe I do... And it primes you to remember all those sad times... So you end up saying 'yes'... And end up getting a high score on a self-report test, whereas objective measures wouldn't rate you high for sadness at all.

When people take a test (like the sanity score) they are typically sure that things aren't right with them (or why would they take it?) The sanity score also seems to be mostly about being safe rather than sorry (so getting people to seek professional advice if at all possible). It would over diagnose considerably compared to other measures.

Are you interested in reading history at all? Reading about the history of psychiatry can be kinda informative. Many things (sadness, anxiety and so on) never used to be thought of as medical problems where you should seek a doctors advice. Instead... People used to seek social supports like their friends, family, clergy and so on. Where we are at now is the 'medicalization of distress' where the rates of mental illness are booming through the roof. It isn't that people have gotten sicker. It is rather that we have broadened the definition of mental illness such that someone who says they 'feel sad' gets given an anti-depressant medication and labelled as mentally ill. Sigh.

Go with the 'just a regular person having some troubles - as indeed are the majority of the human race'. That isn't to undermine troubles... Not at all... But it isn't to magnify them, either... The consequences of taking 'mental disorder' to be partly defining of ones sense of identity... Harms more than helps, I'd say...

Sounds like the professionals told you you shouldn't be concerned. The sanity score is simply about getting to to get a professional opinion. NOT to undermine it...