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
就係，問題係我覺得佢宜家好似只係用緊lda既方法去區分d人。既然佢assume normal distributed for每一類人，就好應該用sd黎做significant testing。
我明你講咩, 咁咪會出現我之前講既轉TYPE 問題, 因為大多既人都係兩個山既中間, 好易就會因為小小既DIFFERENCE 去左其中一邊.
但係因為佢有COGNITIVE FUNCTION 呢樣野, 你去左一邊就成個FUNCTION STACK 會出現變化
咁咪變左人格
所以BIG5 冇呢D 問題係因為人地用一個SCALE 只係講你係個STAT 入面比幾多幾多人外向/內向 OR 你既分INDICATE 你有幾外向/內向
喂, 我今日30分, 一年後35分, 都合理啦
但係如果我TAKE MBTI, 我分分鐘已經成個TYPE 換撚左!
但係因為佢有COGNITIVE FUNCTION 呢樣野, 你去左一邊就成個FUNCTION STACK 會出現變化
咁咪變左人格
所以BIG5 冇呢D 問題係因為人地用一個SCALE 只係講你係個STAT 入面比幾多幾多人外向/內向 OR 你既分INDICATE 你有幾外向/內向
喂, 我今日30分, 一年後35分, 都合理啦
但係如果我TAKE MBTI, 我分分鐘已經成個TYPE 換撚左!
問題佢分分鐘只係hypothesis.
所以我就話significant testing好l重要....
我無知, 係我無視左佢地既SIGNIFICANT TESTING 定係佢地冇做到? 呢方面真係唔太識
你唔明我講咩，就算唔係問卷，俾你可以讀心好未？個approach一樣係睇"一般"/平均個一type人係某個dimension既霖法係點....未一樣係lda,一樣需要做significant testing
我想問清楚, 其實你講緊既係唔係http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/sigtest.htm
"Tests of Significance" 同一樣野?
如果係既, 就算佢有做到好足, 佢個STRUCTURE 都係會引起我頭先提出轉TYPE 既問題吧?
"Tests of Significance" 同一樣野?
如果係既, 就算佢有做到好足, 佢個STRUCTURE 都係會引起我頭先提出轉TYPE 既問題吧?
所以我先問有無個test既sd,有就可以睇到你個結果有幾可信。無/sd太大，咁個test只有參考價值而無實質價值。
屌你同我PO 同一條LINK
係唔係都係GOOGLE 第一個PAGE
係唔係都係GOOGLE 第一個PAGE但就算買CPP 睇到佢既STAT, 你都唔知CPP 有冇MANIPULATE 過入面既DATA
the assumption is iid....
大大, 我搵到了
Based on a short interval (5-week) test-retest reliability of 0.82 and a standard deviation for the E1 scale of 25
(Howes & Carskadon, 1979), The standard error of measurement is approximately 10.6 = 25 V 1.82Z points. This
means that raw scores with a 21-point difference are considered statistically significant.
Based on a short interval (5-week) test-retest reliability of 0.82 and a standard deviation for the E1 scale of 25
(Howes & Carskadon, 1979), The standard error of measurement is approximately 10.6 = 25 V 1.82Z points. This
means that raw scores with a 21-point difference are considered statistically significant.
仆街如果每個trait都係normal distribution的話
成套mbti理論可以即刻收皮
係咪真係有stat back up？
成套mbti理論可以即刻收皮
係咪真係有stat back up？
MBTI 機構自己做既STATS 咪有 但人地做既永遠都BACK 唔到咁解
但人地做既永遠都BACK 唔到咁解一大班神棍, 真心佢地搵好多
我有朋友因為老豆係BUSINESSMAN, 佢自己又讀PSYCHOLOGY 拎左個MBTI LICENSE 去老豆朋友既公司做MBTI, 一間公司50000-100000 HKD 不等
你諗下, 一年做一次, 幾個客已經唔洗做
仲未計INDIVIDUAL 做果推
我有朋友因為老豆係BUSINESSMAN, 佢自己又讀PSYCHOLOGY 拎左個MBTI LICENSE 去老豆朋友既公司做MBTI, 一間公司50000-100000 HKD 不等
你諗下, 一年做一次, 幾個客已經唔洗做
仲未計INDIVIDUAL 做果推
呢個ARTICLE 又係一個有力既証明
http://indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdf
The publishers do a very good job of promoting the test and providing support for its users. The MBTI also has much intuitive appeal. The descriptions of each type are generally flattering and sufficiently vague so that most people will accept the statements as true of themselves. If you tell people that they are "innovative thinkers and good problem solvers, and good at understanding and motivating people, but may have trouble following through on
details of a project," they will believe that the statement is an accurate description of themselves regardless of thetruth of the statement. This phenomenon is known as the "Barnum Effect," named in honor of the great entertainer.
http://indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdf
The publishers do a very good job of promoting the test and providing support for its users. The MBTI also has much intuitive appeal. The descriptions of each type are generally flattering and sufficiently vague so that most people will accept the statements as true of themselves. If you tell people that they are "innovative thinkers and good problem solvers, and good at understanding and motivating people, but may have trouble following through on
details of a project," they will believe that the statement is an accurate description of themselves regardless of thetruth of the statement. This phenomenon is known as the "Barnum Effect," named in honor of the great entertainer.