Cài đặt Steam
Đăng nhập
|
Ngôn ngữ
简体中文 (Hán giản thể)
繁體中文 (Hán phồn thể)
日本語 (Nhật)
한국어 (Hàn Quốc)
ไทย (Thái)
Български (Bungari)
Čeština (CH Séc)
Dansk (Đan Mạch)
Deutsch (Đức)
English (Anh)
Español - España (Tây Ban Nha - TBN)
Español - Latinoamérica (Tây Ban Nha cho Mỹ Latin)
Ελληνικά (Hy Lạp)
Français (Pháp)
Italiano (Ý)
Bahasa Indonesia (tiếng Indonesia)
Magyar (Hungary)
Nederlands (Hà Lan)
Norsk (Na Uy)
Polski (Ba Lan)
Português (Tiếng Bồ Đào Nha - BĐN)
Português - Brasil (Bồ Đào Nha - Brazil)
Română (Rumani)
Русский (Nga)
Suomi (Phần Lan)
Svenska (Thụy Điển)
Türkçe (Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ)
Українська (Ukraine)
Báo cáo lỗi dịch thuật
I see a lot of reasonable comments about MBTI, but we shouldn't forget the fact that Myers-Briggs is based on Jung's theories. (I'm not saying his theory is flawless, I'm saying he has an authority in term of psychology.) There is a lot of meaningful psychological researches that are also based on Myers-Briggs by divers organizations. I truly understand that dividing our personalities in 16 types could sound ridiculous, but those 16 types are just a number. It also contains systematic explanations of how it can change organically depending on each situation and mental status. The number of 16 is not the matter. They are just major category like how we divide human races for example.
Psychometric tests (and other research tools) are evaluated on validity and reliability. 16P scores high in first and low in second. Enneagram scores low in either. Serious research demands both high, so neither test is good enough to be called "scientific", but one even less than another.
Now, truly just curious, what is thatspring-like thing in that picture?
no idea why, but that's the main question i have at the moment, lol...
8 Challenger -> ESTP
8 Protector -> ENTJ
8 Nonconformist -> ENTP
8 Diplomat -> ESTJ