你先係ON 撚9果位呀幻想狗
屌你老母, MBTI 既E同I 係睇你個TEST 既POINTS 邊一邊多呀你老母臭西
如過有99分, TE=49, TI=50, 下次TEST 變撚左 TE=50 TI=49 已經成個TYPE 唔撚同啦撚樣
點撚樣唔明呀?
屌你老母西, 就算INTP 同ENTJ 都好撚大分別啦撚樣, 你換撚左個E 同I 你所有FUNCTION STACK 都唔撚同左啦, 撚樣.
仲係到講乜撚野姐你, 影撚衰真正既INTP呀打J 仔, 含撚啦, 垃圾
MBTI討論區
GayBlanket
770 回覆
27 Like
8 Dislike
第 1 頁第 2 頁第 3 頁第 4 頁第 5 頁第 6 頁第 7 頁第 8 頁第 9 頁第 10 頁第 11 頁第 12 頁第 13 頁第 14 頁第 15 頁第 16 頁第 17 頁第 18 頁第 19 頁第 20 頁第 21 頁第 22 頁第 23 頁第 24 頁第 25 頁第 26 頁第 27 頁第 28 頁第 29 頁第 30 頁第 31 頁
條友真係唔識傢喎
講撚到尾咪係一句偽科學. 係條撚樣唔撚死心以為自己知好撚多野渣
最撚叻就"條友唔識"
識乜撚野呀? 你字都未撚識打啦, 你教下我你識乜撚野, 屌你老母.
你唔撚係唔知個TEST 點撚樣運作呀? 傻西?
*佢唔撚識* 吠吠
有撚POINT 咩你老母?
連呢到令一位你既同類"INTP" 都知撚到呢樣野唔可信, 人地又XSFJ? 又唔撚識?
最撚識係你? 自戀垃圾網上幻想狗?
你老母自殺啦, 人生失敗者! 呢到係學術台呀, 唔撚係你既"幻想空間" 呀 低能幻想狗!
識乜撚野呀? 你字都未撚識打啦, 你教下我你識乜撚野, 屌你老母.
你唔撚係唔知個TEST 點撚樣運作呀? 傻西?
*佢唔撚識* 吠吠
有撚POINT 咩你老母?
連呢到令一位你既同類"INTP" 都知撚到呢樣野唔可信, 人地又XSFJ? 又唔撚識?
最撚識係你? 自戀垃圾網上幻想狗?
你老母自殺啦, 人生失敗者! 呢到係學術台呀, 唔撚係你既"幻想空間" 呀 低能幻想狗!
上面咁多個巴打可唔可以check下咩係linear discriminant analysis先屌人好唔好？
轉type唔轉type係應該基於個model既assumption。如果佢真係用lda黎分人，用sd去計就搵到本身各種類型係唔係真係differentiate到
都話 mbti完成可以分成高n低n 中間 低s高s
但咁分你數下有幾多type?
成個性格解釋模型你黎重建？
百9幾種人
講大眾化？
所以mbti由一開始就係為左簡化而失去左精度
呢d根本係無可避免
你就呢點引申到冇可信
intp既性格分析係指緊中度至重度既intp
你拎住極為踩界既intp結果
肯撚定唔準傢啦
你要準
自己根據自己分數去判斷咪得囉
以上呢堆根本基本野
有少少理解mbti既人都會明
可惜你係不求甚解，盲信權威既s型人
仲有
你話
連呢到令一位你既同類"INTP" 都知撚到呢樣野唔可信, 人地又XSFJ? 又唔撚識?
你話雷利？
不如你look上去望下人地講咩？
但咁分你數下有幾多type?
成個性格解釋模型你黎重建？
百9幾種人
講大眾化？
所以mbti由一開始就係為左簡化而失去左精度
呢d根本係無可避免
你就呢點引申到冇可信
intp既性格分析係指緊中度至重度既intp
你拎住極為踩界既intp結果
肯撚定唔準傢啦
你要準
自己根據自己分數去判斷咪得囉
以上呢堆根本基本野
有少少理解mbti既人都會明
可惜你係不求甚解，盲信權威既s型人
仲有
你話
連呢到令一位你既同類"INTP" 都知撚到呢樣野唔可信, 人地又XSFJ? 又唔撚識?
你話雷利？
不如你look上去望下人地講咩？
Mbti邊有講話bimodal 
屌你老母西, 一撚早咪講撚左佢唔撚準係個問題
重乜撚野INTP, 輕乜撚野INTP 姐
佢INTP 既FUNCTION 入面本身已經有方式去定咩係高咩係低
INTP TI 最高, NE 高, SI 中, FE 低.
佢本身個MODEL 就係咁撚樣RUN 你講乜柒姐?
INTP 有輕重INTP? INTP 可以突然個NE 高撚過TI?
NE 高過TI 就已經ENTP 左啦狗仔!
死講有撚用,
QUOTE 下比你望
No evidence for dichotomies
As described in the § Four dichotomies section, Isabel Myers considered the direction of the preference (for example, E vs. I) to be more important than the degree of the preference. Statistically, this would mean that scores on each MBTI scale would show a bimodal distribution with most people scoring near the ends of the scales, thus dividing people into either, e.g., an extroverted or an introverted psychological type. However, most studies have found that scores on the individual scales were actually distributed in a centrally peaked manner, similar to a normal distribution, indicating that the majority of people were actually in the middle of the scale and were thus neither clearly introverted nor extroverted. Most personality traits do show a normal distribution of scores from low to high, with about 15% of people at the low end, about 15% at the high end and the majority of people in the middle ranges. But in order for the MBTI to be scored, a cut-off line is used at the middle of each scale and all those scoring below the line are classified as a low type and those scoring above the line are given the opposite type. Thus, psychometric assessment research fails to support the concept of type, but rather shows that most people lie near the middle of a continuous curve.[9][34][42][43][44] "Although we do not conclude that the absence of bimodality necessarily proves that the MBTI developers' theory-based assumption of categorical "types" of personality is invalid, the absence of empirical bimodality in IRT-based research of MBTI scores does indeed remove a potentially powerful line of evidence that was previously available to "type" advocates to cite in defense of their position."[44]
你仲想講乜撚野呀?
重乜撚野INTP, 輕乜撚野INTP 姐
佢INTP 既FUNCTION 入面本身已經有方式去定咩係高咩係低
INTP TI 最高, NE 高, SI 中, FE 低.
佢本身個MODEL 就係咁撚樣RUN 你講乜柒姐?
INTP 有輕重INTP? INTP 可以突然個NE 高撚過TI?
NE 高過TI 就已經ENTP 左啦狗仔!
死講有撚用,
QUOTE 下比你望
No evidence for dichotomies
As described in the § Four dichotomies section, Isabel Myers considered the direction of the preference (for example, E vs. I) to be more important than the degree of the preference. Statistically, this would mean that scores on each MBTI scale would show a bimodal distribution with most people scoring near the ends of the scales, thus dividing people into either, e.g., an extroverted or an introverted psychological type. However, most studies have found that scores on the individual scales were actually distributed in a centrally peaked manner, similar to a normal distribution, indicating that the majority of people were actually in the middle of the scale and were thus neither clearly introverted nor extroverted. Most personality traits do show a normal distribution of scores from low to high, with about 15% of people at the low end, about 15% at the high end and the majority of people in the middle ranges. But in order for the MBTI to be scored, a cut-off line is used at the middle of each scale and all those scoring below the line are classified as a low type and those scoring above the line are given the opposite type. Thus, psychometric assessment research fails to support the concept of type, but rather shows that most people lie near the middle of a continuous curve.[9][34][42][43][44] "Although we do not conclude that the absence of bimodality necessarily proves that the MBTI developers' theory-based assumption of categorical "types" of personality is invalid, the absence of empirical bimodality in IRT-based research of MBTI scores does indeed remove a potentially powerful line of evidence that was previously available to "type" advocates to cite in defense of their position."[44]
你仲想講乜撚野呀?
你贏
訓教
88
訓教
88
屌你老母, 訓啦狗仔, 你連INTP 條撚都冇資格做呀
其實bimodal要拆開變翻兩個distribution,lda係其中一個方法。如果有兩類，lda就係assume有兩個normal distribution癡埋一齊，變成好似兩個山既形狀。然後，用一條線間開兩座"山"，希望咁可以區分兩座山。
Reliability
The test-retest reliability of the MBTI tends to be low. Large numbers of people (between 39% and 76% of respondents) obtain different type classifications when retaking the indicator after only five weeks.[9][43][53] In Fortune Magazine (May 15, 2013), an article titled "Have we all been duped by the Myers-Briggs Test" stated:
“ The interesting – and somewhat alarming – fact about the MBTI is that, despite its popularity, it has been subject to sustained criticism by professional psychologists for over three decades. One problem is that it displays what statisticians call low "test-retest reliability." So if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality category compared to the first time you took the test.
A second criticism is that the MBTI mistakenly assumes that personality falls into mutually exclusive categories. ... The consequence is that the scores of two people labelled "introverted" and "extroverted" may be almost exactly the same, but they could be placed into different categories since they fall on either side of an imaginary dividing line.[54]
唉屌唔知WIKI 已經有, ON 99 去搵RESEARCH 比隻狗睇, 同我食撚左佢啦, 精神病狗仔!
The test-retest reliability of the MBTI tends to be low. Large numbers of people (between 39% and 76% of respondents) obtain different type classifications when retaking the indicator after only five weeks.[9][43][53] In Fortune Magazine (May 15, 2013), an article titled "Have we all been duped by the Myers-Briggs Test" stated:
“ The interesting – and somewhat alarming – fact about the MBTI is that, despite its popularity, it has been subject to sustained criticism by professional psychologists for over three decades. One problem is that it displays what statisticians call low "test-retest reliability." So if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality category compared to the first time you took the test.
A second criticism is that the MBTI mistakenly assumes that personality falls into mutually exclusive categories. ... The consequence is that the scores of two people labelled "introverted" and "extroverted" may be almost exactly the same, but they could be placed into different categories since they fall on either side of an imaginary dividing line.[54]
唉屌唔知WIKI 已經有, ON 99 去搵RESEARCH 比隻狗睇, 同我食撚左佢啦, 精神病狗仔!
Personality test出黎嘅分受太多外在因素影響，做唔到scientifically accurate, 只能停留theory 層面
Raw data 都已經唔準，仲做到lda咩
Raw data 都已經唔準，仲做到lda咩