MBTI討論區

上面2條友
笑撚死

果個咩撚野e字頭既野
仲以為佢唔識裝中文打字法
原來係要扮哂野

而痴線公司
原來真係痴線
點解可以不斷人身攻擊當自己有point

你唔撚係訓咩? 屌你老母, 係到吠乜撚野呀? 仲未搵撚到間狗屋呀?

係呀, 我係有心攻擊你既, 點? 吹咩? 鬼叫你柒?

唔撚見我屌D 有心學野去討論既人?

因為你連我要同你認真既資格都冇呀, 狗仔

含撚啦, I打JP

比果個e咩撚野打既野搞到我笑到訓唔著
Sorry

我好撚有心傢
問你。ipip比mbti優勝係邊？準確起邊？


Btw你除左狗
仲識點罵人？
你同你fd平時傾計都係咁撚樣詞窮？

有心一早就自己睇撚哂我POST 撚左既STUDY 啦, 一個唔會RETEST 完個RESULT 次撚次都差十理遠, 一個RETAKE 會有連一半機會中返同一個TYPE 都冇, 你咁都唔撚明呀?

你唔撚係INTP 咩? 邊撚到T, 邊撚到N 呀?

智慧係邊呀? 我睇唔撚到呀, 返去你既狗屋打J啦, 柒頭

講時講, 見你係咁攻擊人地打英文, 唔撚識字咩屌你老母. REDDIT 你識講姐係識小小英文啦?

我上面PO 撚左個STUDY GOOGLE TRANSLATE +小小自己既理解應該唔會難撚到你個"INTP" 掛?

LOGIC CONSISTENCY 你都冇, INTP? 你死撚左佢啦. 幻想狗!

Econometrics

之前係MBTI 同我DEBATE 過啦, 你依家都開始明MBTI 冇用吧?
我乜撚野TYPE, 你同條垃圾講, 唔想佢一陣又話我乜撚野冇智慧

巴打我好亂
你係buy mbti 定唔信呢一套？

其實我都係問緊同一個問題...

我真係未試過mbti會出到第2個result
你講呢個問題根本唔係問題

你對mbti既認知
就係佢問題答既方式係有a同b
A係內向b係外向

咁就會出現你講既情況
問題係呢家專業少少既mbti問題都用緊程度類答案啦

至於果個e字頭咩撚野
我勸你睇下佢講d野
再決定當唔當佢係隊友
豬隊友真係仲慘過冇隊友

兩登著名學術台會員烏大龜 google下佢就會搵到佢既事跡
Mbti post實有佢份 就係特登入黎睇下佢係唔係到

原來係烏大龜
失敬失敬
繼續做痴線公司隊友啦
怪錯左你

我好早就BLOCK 左佢

痴線公司好慘
一路以為有人支持緊佢
仲好開心有隊友
呢家先發現人地原來係傻既


一早叫你睇下佢寫左d咩出黎

聽撚住啦, 撚樣幻想狗

唔係我對MBTI 既認知, 係學者做撚完RESEARCH 我出既認知呀, 知你冇撚睇資料, 你字都唔撚識打, 思考又有問題, 我PO 多次比你隻狗當可憐你

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Pittenger/publication/232494957_Cautionary_comments_regarding_the_Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator/links/02bfe50cb18c2dbfd4000000/Cautionary-comments-regarding-the-Myers-Briggs-Type-Indicator.pdf?origin=publication_detail


Howes and Carskadon (1979) provided data that raise additional and equally important
questions regarding the reliability of the four-letter type score. Their analysis indicated that a large portion of their participants received different type profiles when retested.
Not surprisingly, the greatest proportion of changes occurred when the initial preference score was close to the middle of the scale (1 to 15 points on either side of the midpoint). When the initial score was within this intermediate range, 32% of the EI, 25% of the SN, 29% of the TF, and 30% of the JP labels shifted on the second testing.
McCarley and Carskadon (1983) replicated these findings and demonstrated that across a 5-week test-retest interval, 50% of the participants received a different classification on one or more of the scales. Indeed, Myers et al. (1998) reported that 35% of individuals had a different four-letter type score after a 4-week interval.

These results are not surprising given the center-heavy distribution and heterogeneity of variance of the scale scores. Nor are these changes trivial. If we are to presume that “an extraverted sensing type will show extraversion differently from an extraverted thinking type” (McCaulley, 2000), then the alteration of one or more of the four-letter type formula represents a considerable change in personality. These data also raise profound questions regarding the advisability of using the four-letter typing system, while ignoring the magnitude of the scale scores, and raise questions regarding the veracity of any type interpretations for individuals with scale scores close to the midpoint of the scale.

呢D 叫EVIDENCE 呀, 撚樣! 學野啦! 幻想狗!

我一早知佢係乜水啦撚樣, 我CHALLENGE 佢果陣都未撚有呢個POST 呀, 返去打你既J 啦, I打JP.

樓上各位ching嘈黎嘈去做乜9
d性格測試都係拎黎參考啫
以下係有少少數/stat撚既個人見解:
我認為每個人既性格都係一支支vector,d性格測試只係希望令到d vector可以measure到,各自就創造咗唔同既factor/scale去測量。然後再用clustering既方法嘗試去搵到一類類性格相似既人.啱同唔啱就見人見智,畢竟好多時候所謂一同一類人都係以同一類人既性格係正態分佈(normal distribution)去assume。實質上，無人知道佢地係唔係真係咁。