TweetPsych uses two linguistic analysis algorithms (RID and LIWC) to build a psychological profile of a person based on the content of their tweets. The service analyzes your last 1000 tweets and works best on users who have posted more than 1000 updates. It also works best on accounts that are operated by a single user and use Twitter in a conversational manner, rather than simply a content distribution platform. For more information read the blog post or follow the creator Dan Zarrella

New: check out the TweetPsych Site Profiler

Click here to tweet about TweetPsych

The features displayed below are those for which you score higher than the average. The score indicates how much more often you tweeted something that matched each feature than the baseline.

Cognitive Content

Feature	Description	Score
Time		117.58
Occupation & work	You talk a lot about jobs and your work.	84.3
Cognitive processes	You often talk about various cognitive processes like learning, thinking, knowing, etc.	49.33
Past tense	You tend to talk about the past.	38.09
Similes		35.31
Space		30.68
Positive emotions	You express plenty of positive emotions.	25.67
Sensations	You tweet about your various senses often.	21.18
Insight		17.11
Number		10.75
Motion		6.42

Primordial, Conceptual and Emotional Content

Feature	Description	Score
Temporal References		88.98
Abstract thought		82.33
Constructive behaviors		27.28
Social behavior		26.84
Glory		23.52
Affection		22.86
Moral imperative		8.92
Visual sensations		7.06

The users below are those users who are the closest match to your TweetPsych profile. As we profile more users this will get more accurate.

Some people that think like you:		Tweets	Followers
	vlucas	846	244	Tweet @vlucas
	howard_scott	2196	501	Tweet @howard_scott
	chadpaulson	750	132	Tweet @chadpaulson
	marklobo	1484	565	Tweet @marklobo
	robousbey	1292	370	Tweet @robousbey

Created by Dan Zarrella © 2009 (83,539 accounts analyzed)



The results presented here are for entertainment purposes only and the terms used are psychological and may not equate with their normal, english language usage