The University of Cambridge have a demo version of their personality predictory based on text on their website. So, when I found out about it, I, in the self-observed way, first put some of my text there. It seems that I it did not want to decide whenever I am conscientiousness or not. Since they are using the Big Five and MBTI correlation to calculate the MBTI type, that means that it could not make its mind between INTP and INTJ.
For some strange reason, it also could not make up its mind between being female or male. I mean, I can understand the INTP/INTJ confusion, since people that are familiar with the MBTI personality type had made this mistake. But I don't write like a man, right? I think nobody had made this mistake before.
Well, after that I decided to check what are the types of the non-MBTI oriented blogs that I read. Though the results make me wonder about their methodology. Because either their methodology is biased, or I am extremely biased in my reading.
Since it is based on the Big Five and MBTI correlations, it means that these typing are done based on the letter. You can see which letter is connected with which Big Five function.
And here are the results.
|Blogger||Disclosed type||Calculated type||Partial results|
|Steve Pavlina||ENTJ||INTJ||6xINTJ, 1xINTP|
|Penelope Trunk||ENTJ||ISTJ||4xISTJ, 3xINTJ|
|Scott H Young||None?||INTP||5xINTP, 2xINTJ|
|Cal Newport||None?||INTJ||5xINTJ, 2xINTP|
I am not sure that all these results are accurate. But assuming that they are, that just show that my reading seems to be heavily biased at the NT temperament. Not even once did it show to even tilt to the F side.
I wonder why is that. Maybe I don't find it. Or maybe even if I start reading it, it does not hold my attention. Or maybe they simply don't write on the topic that I am interested in reading.
Either way, it is a good exercise. Try it and you might find some interesting results as well.