聽撚住啦, 撚樣幻想狗

唔係我對MBTI 既認知, 係學者做撚完RESEARCH 得出既認知呀, 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!

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。

我見到你好開心, 你好!

There are several reports of the testretest
reliabilities of the four dimensions of
the MBTI (Carskadon, 1977, 1979b;
Howes & Carskadon, 1979; Stricker &
Ross, 1962). These reports offer a consistent
pattern that suggests that the reliability
of the MBTI does not meet expectations
derived from its theory. For example,
Sticker and Ross found that across a 14-
month period the reliabilities ranged from a
low of r(38)
.48 for the TF scale to a
high of r(38)
.73 for the EI scale

呢個STAT 你會點睇?

請問有完整版嗎？

:^(

另外有一個問題係，究竟工作既性質會唔會影響到結果？
我宜家做緊既工作經驗係有關analytics方面，結果測出黎就係intp-a(但主觀上覺得唔太significant，都係大概五十幾到六十幾左右)。而做咗樓上巴打俾既個份test ，個結果d描述又好似intp-a。

其實係有可能有影響. 所以做呢D TEST 要諗得好清楚. 但如果你係做16-PERSONALITY 果個,果個其實唔太準.

而BIG 5 既,如果你用收錢果D SERVICE 會比一個好DETAIL 既REPORT 你.

之前我都做過prism個test同埋美國勞工處個RIASEC test。但係見到個d分數個standard deviation大得好離譜, 2 sigma error就已經包括咗大部分range，即刻覺得好唔可信。係上面哩d test我地有無可能知道個sd係幾多？

:^(

:^(

MBTI 有一樣野叫FUNCTION TEST, 我幾年前仲自己STUDY 緊MBTI 果陣做過.

你會見到你係8個FUNCTION 既高低, 之後你就會見到個問題

EXAMPLE

你INTP

TI 80

TE 70

NE 70

NI 40

SE 20

SI 20

FI 30

FE 10.


咁拿, 你望到個問題啦, INTP 就係TI/NE/SI/FE

但你TE 一樣高, NI 又唔係低, 通常T TYPE 都係F 比較低, 所以最後你既決定就要睇你自己"認為" 邊樣FIT 你多D. 咁但係如果你當自己係INTP, 你個TE 會唔撚見左, 變左SHADOW FUNCTION.

你話幾痴線

:^(