Personality Types & Magic Sauce
I have just finished reading the book Platform by Cynthia Johnson which I found excellent. It’s not a book about personality types but addresses this topic early on because your social media profiles tell a lot more about you than you might expect.
This post looks at one in-depth tool called Apply Magic Sauce (from Cambridge University) and how you can use it to analyse your own social media profiles across Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and your blogs. I discuss my personal findings below to demonstrate how the tool is spookily accurate in most respects.
You can then take the insights and use them to adjust and amend your posting strategy if you would prefer to appear differently – for example, adjusting your professional profiles to match your personal brand – but that is the realm of the book Platform. You can read my review of Platform (the Art & Science of Personal Branding) here.
Your Real (Perceived) Personality Type
According to studies by the University of Cambridge (Psychometrics Centre) in the UK, et al, your social media footprint can be used to accurately determine your personality and qualities more than you think.
The Apply Magic Sauce tool allows you run these same analyses on your Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn data, as well as enter some free text from (for example) a blog post and the University of Cambridge will analyse your data and provide your in-depth results.
How can you do this?
Go to Apply Magic Sauce and follow the steps.
What do you need to do?
For Twitter, it’s easy – you just connect your account through the interface and Magic Sauce will pull your data across.
For Facebook and LinkedIn you will need to download your archives and upload them to the Magic Sauce system. This can take a couple of days to do because LinkedIn takes that long to collate your data. Facebook timing may vary depending on how much you are active on the platform. Magic Sauce has video tutorials about how to do this, but they play quickly, so here’s a quick step-by-step summary. There are also screenshots on the Magic Sauce site below the video if you are visually inclined.
Accessing Your Facebook Archive
- Click the drop-down arrow in the top right of your profile page
- Click “Settings”
- Click “Your Facebook Information” in the list on the left
- Click “Download your information” in the list which then appears on the right
- Change the format to JSON in the drop-down (very important)
- Click “Deselect All” option above the list of Your Information
- Select “Posts”, “Comments”, “Likes and Reactions” and “Profile Information”
- Click “Create File” (in the same section where you selected the JSON format)
- Wait for the file to be created
This can take some time, but you will get a notification when it is completed. When it is, come back to this section and click the “Available Files” tab and then “Download” to download your file.
You can then upload this ZIP file to Magic Sauce.
Accessing Your LinkedIn Archive
- Click on “Me”
- Click on “Settings and Privacy”
- Click on “How LinkedIn uses your data” on the left
- Click on “Download your data” in the options that are displayed on the right
- Select “The Works” when the option is presented
- Click “Request Archive” to begin the operation
You will get 2 emails sent to you. The first contains a link to a basic archive containing a snapshot of your data. This comes quite quickly. The second contains a link to the full dump which you will need to upload to Magic Sauce. For me, this took almost 2 days to arrive.
Download the ZIP file and then upload it to Magic Sauce.
So, who am I? My analysis.
Magic Sauce seems to be a bit erratic. It first analysed my Facebook Likes and Open Text. Everything else came up with an error. Later, I completed a Twitter analysis but everything else came up with an error. I had to revisit the Magic Sauce home page and re-run the analysis a few times to get results below and there are still a few Facebook sections that show errors 🙁 But, it’s worth persevering.
|Metric||Facebook Like||Open Text||Metric|
|Conservative and Traditional||>||>>||>>>||>||Liberal and Artistic|
|Impulsive and Spontaneous||<||>||>||>||Organized and Hard Working|
|Contemplative||<<<||<<||<||<<||Engaged with the outside world|
|Competitive||<>||<>||<>||<>||Team working and Trusting scale|
|Laid back and Relaxed||<||<||>||<||Easily Stressed and Emotional|
What do the chevrons mean?
<> means equality, or almost equal.
> Means a little to the right of centre on the spectrum between the values. For example, if you see “Conservative and Traditional” in the left column and “Liberal and Artistic” on the right and “>” in the table this means about 25% of the way towards “Liberal.”
>> Means about half way to the right of centre on the spectrum.
>>> Means about 75% of the way to the right.
>>>> Means all the way to the right.
Chevrons which point left <, <<, <<< and <<<< show the equivalent leanings to the left-hand value in the table.
Thoughts on my Facebook (Likes)
In the main, I would agree with the Facebook analysis (except the actual age). When I last took a Myers-Briggs test I came out as INFP, so that’s pretty close. However, personality can change over time as I was formerly an INFJ.
Leadership potential seems low given I have been running my own businesses for nearly 20 years, but this could depend on the type of interactions I am having on Facebook (or show an area I need to change the way I do interact – which ties back to the rationale in the book Platform). However, aspects of my Jungian personality type say I am not a straight leader, but step into these shoes when it’s needed.
My life satisfaction is influenced because I liked Evanescence, Within Temptation and Doctor Who. Hmm. And the “none” in religious orientation includes Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, Muslims, Jedis and Pastafarians. I didn’t even know that was a thing. And I am not sure how they measure intelligence but things like IQ tests give a different value.
The education section gives me a wide range of scores that the system infers I have specific interests in, then presents a summary of your overall style.
- Art – 14%
- Journalism – 10%
- IT – 10%
- History – 7%
- Biology – 8%
- Psychology – 12%
- Nursing – 8%
- Education – 4%
- Engineering – 8%
- Finance – 5%
- Business – 9%
- Law – 6%
A very mixed bag, which was summarised to have a strong interest in Art. I actually studied science at school (maths, physics and chemistry) and university (physics) and had a penchant for astrophysics. But this list is based on my post likes rather than actual skills so I would proffer that to mean well-read.
Magic Sauce said: “We would predict that you either paint, draw or sculpt yourself or are likely to enjoy and appreciate the creativity of others. More so than most, you can see the beauty in things and actively seek out artistic stimulation.”
If I were to use my personal Facebook profile more professionally, as Platform discusses, I would need to do a clean-up to make it less eclectic and more focused on my chosen area and get more involved in the relevant group conversations. I am connected with quite a few professionals on Facebook who do exactly this but I choose not to use Facebook like this.
Thoughts on my Open Text analysis
Not all sections are generated from the Open Text, but there is a fair correlation between the two sets of data, especially in the Myers-Briggs result which also relates to being more Liberal and Artistic and also more Contemplative. My other ‘Big 5’ are near the mid-points so can fluctuate depending on the needs of the circumstances.
Thoughts on LinkedIn analysis
It closely matches the other platforms though hovers nearer the mid-points. Maybe I am more restrained in the way I post as it’s a professional forum?
It’s quite extraordinary how much can be inferred by a social media platform – more so Facebook than the others – and how this can be used to influence you through adverts (for example) which has been demonstrated through newsworthy pieces such as Cambridge Analytica. See also my review of the book Stealing Fire.
I recently took the Top 5 Clifton Strengths test as part of my ongoing personal development and B-School studies. These work on different categorizations of your strengths but, overall, pointed in a very similar direction of the Jungian personality types. I tend to agree with both of the types that Magic Sauce discovered, and I guess I must be near the cusp between T (thinking) and P (perceiving).
INTJs are very analytical individuals. They are more comfortable working alone than with other people and are not usually as sociable as others, although they are prepared to take the lead if nobody else is up to the task, or they see a major weakness in the current leadership. They tend to be very pragmatic and logical individuals, often with an individualistic bent and a low tolerance for spin or rampant emotionalism. They are also commonly not susceptible to catchphrases and commonly do not recognize authority based on tradition, rank or title. Hallmark features of the INTJ personality type include the independence of thought, strong individualism and creativity.
Persons with this personality type work best given large amounts of autonomy and creative freedom. They harbour an innate desire to express themselves; that is to be creative by conceptualizing their own intellectual designs. Analyzing and formulating complex theories are among their greatest strengths.
INTPs are quiet, thoughtful, analytical individuals who don’t mind spending long periods of time on their own, working through problems and forming solutions. INTPs tend to be less at ease in social situations and the “caring professions” although they enjoy the company of those who share their interests. They also tend to be impatient with the bureaucracy, rigid hierarchies, and politics prevalent in many professions, preferring to work informally with others as equals.
INTPs’ extraverted intuition often gives them a quick wit, especially with language, and they can defuse the tension in gatherings by comical observations and references. They can be charming, even in their quiet reserve, and are sometimes surprised by the high esteem in which their friends and colleagues hold them.
To achieve a consistent and professional profile across all platforms – if that is your goal – will require work on your part but the payoff is clear since other people you interact with, or organisations who can leverage the underlying data, will be making assessments of you before you even talk to them and may even decide whether or not to engage based on this. If your social media footprint has any missteps you could be sabotaging yourself without realising it.
For me, this was an interesting experiment to see how accurate the analysis was based on my own perception of myself and (seemingly) eternal quest to know myself. Based on my (reasonably) objective view of myself I agree with the findings and recommend you take a look at your own analysis. You might discover something new.
What you do after that is up to you!
Private companies are already mining your social profiles (see Stealing Fire review) and recent news that states that private companies contracted by the government are aggregating social data with other metrics such as utilities and credit ratings, seemingly without oversight, raises questions in the press and by campaign groups.
Did you enjoy this post? Have you tried your own analysis? What do you think about the social media platform (et al) being able to easily profile you in this way? Leave a comment below and let’s start the discussion.