This is Google's cache of http://test.789chan.org/psy/res/174.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jun 14, 2012 09:02:09 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more

Text-only version
 
-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

HEY EVERYONE YOU SHOULD CHECK OUT THIS THREAD, AND THIS ONE, AND THIS ONE!


[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 174)
Message
File
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5883 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 76 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2012-03-22 Show/Hide Show All

File 133469075451.gif - (938.07KB , 469x317 , 1266359230133.gif ) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
174 No. 174
The CIA uses this. It may be a watered down version, but it's still looks pretty useful. Maybe it can be tweaked by some of you guys. Anyway, just thought I'd share.

http://anonym.to/? http://www.pasf.org/ (check out the resources tab)
http://anonym.to/? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_Assessment_System
>> No. 176
Personality typologies, inventories, assessments, etc. are very limited in what they tell you about a person and while they may achieve validity, they really do not meet the standard of a good "people person" having 5 minutes with someone. Applying this science leads to synthetic conclusions. Someone with innate abilities will quite often be more effective. Few have these abilities and they cannot be easily trained, so stuff like this, MBTI, OCEAN, etc. are a good enough fit. They can help, but there's better methods that naturally fill in the gaps of unmeasured phenomena.


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason  




Inter*Chan Imageboard Top List