Analysing bloggers

Via Bob – in common with The New Centrist and according to Typealizer my blogging identity’s Myers Briggs type is INTP.

INTP – The Thinkers

The logical and analytical type. They are especialy attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.

They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.

I did Myers Briggs before – my ESRC research student’s identity was something different. I don’t like the last sentence at all – when I’m arrogant, impatient and insensitive, it’s because I damn well intended it. In any case I’d have preferred something macho like Bob’s last sentence:

“They enjoy adventure and risk such as in driving race cars or working as policemen and firefighters.”

And I don’t mean finding out (thanks to the New Centrist) on GenderAnalyzer that I write in a somewhat mannish way.


P.S. Did you know that Bob goes to work on a rodeo horse?


9 thoughts on “Analysing bloggers

  1. Fiddlesticks? FIDDLESTICKS!

    How do you think I feel?

    You are 56% probability Male.

    I [Weggis] am 94% probability Female, and B21 is 91%.

    Despite the most popular posts on weggis being about Prostate operations and my picture sporting a Players fag packet beard.

    Course the Weggis analyser is far more accurate and I have you down as a YJFGAV.

    Get yourself a personal number plate to suit!

  2. Active/Passive.

    You’ll have to buy the book to find out if the others are correct, which not all of them are!

    Clue from Myers-Briggs – Sensing/iNtuition

  3. You can always take a look at the serious research Frank,
    if you do that sort of thing. However, not that much has been published as it isn’t taken seriously enough and has obvious problems with not being falsifiable etc.

    (btw although you don’t need that apostrophe in twos, I do like your idiosyncratic approach to language)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s