 | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
|
(...) Hmm, I've never seen it used or marketted in that way. I've mostly seen it used as a self exploration tool, and perhaps a tool for understanding one's co-workers a bit better. Frank (20 years ago, 1-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
|
(...) Well, it was designed, was it not? And presumably the designers made deliberate choices to include some results and not others, right? QED. (...) Sure, they *may* do that, just as tea leaves *may* tell you who you're going to marry. Let me (...) (20 years ago, 1-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote: <snip> the (...) <snip> (...) Hate to intrude... From my experience with NB from back in college, I recall that there are usually an equal number of questions to help define each personality (...) (20 years ago, 1-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
|
(...) "Deliberately" general? Got any empirical proof? :) I wouldn't say it's useless at all, except insofar as it IS error prone. If its category divisions are indeed correct (I'd say they seem to be), they may indeed help us understand how people (...) (20 years ago, 1-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
|
Some of my thoughts on Meyers-Briggs: I have taken this evaluation twice (though I'm not sure if either time was the real evaluation and not just a quick evaluation). The first time I came out INTJ (though very close to the middle). The second time (...) (20 years ago, 1-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
