INFJ-T That's me!!!

[Coventina]

Advocates (INFJs) may be the rarest personality type of all, but they certainly leave their mark on the world. Idealistic and principled, they aren’t content to coast through life – they want to stand up and make a difference. For Advocate personalities, success doesn’t come from money or status but from seeking fulfillment, helping others, and being a force for good in the world.

While they have lofty goals and ambitions, Advocates shouldn’t be mistaken for idle dreamers. People with this personality type care about integrity, and they’re rarely satisfied until they’ve done what they know to be right. Conscientious to the core, they move through life with a clear sense of their values, and they aim never to lose sight of what truly matters – not according to other people or society at large, but according to their own wisdom and intuition.

Perhaps because their personality type is so uncommon, Advocates tend to carry around a sense – whether conscious or not – of being different from most people. With their rich inner lives and their deep, abiding desire to find their life purpose, they don’t always fit in with those around them. This isn’t to say that Advocates can’t enjoy social acceptance or close relationships – only that they sometimes feel misunderstood or at odds with the world.

Fortunately, this sense of being out of step doesn’t diminish Advocates’ commitment to making the world a better place. Advocates are troubled by injustice, and they typically care more about altruism than personal gain. They often feel called to use their strengths – including creativity, imagination, and sensitivity – to uplift others and spread compassion.

[RockRaven]

1. Wet Blanket Brigade reporting for duty! Maybe not be wanted, or even welcome, but here anyhow.

Rather than rehash everything, and for purposes of citing an open access source...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator

From the top/intro section:

Though the MBTI resembles some psychological theories, it has been criticized as pseudoscience[10] and is not widely endorsed by academic researchers in the psychology field.[11] The indicator exhibits significant scientific (psychometric) deficiencies, including poor validity, poor reliability, measuring categories that are not independent, and not being comprehensive.[12][13][14][15]

From the Criticism section:

Despite its popularity, it has been widely regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community.[1][2][3] The validity (statistical validity and test validity) of the MBTI as a psychometric instrument has been the subject of much criticism. Media reports have called the test "pretty much meaningless",[61] and "one of the worst personality tests in existence",.[62] The psychologist Adam Grant is especially vocal against MBTI. He called it "the fad that won't die" in the Psychology Today article.[12] Psychometric specialist Robert Hogan wrote: "Most personality psychologists regard the MBTI as little more than an elaborate Chinese fortune cookie..."[63]

It has been estimated that between a third and a half of the published material on the MBTI has been produced for the special conferences of the Center for the Application of Psychological Type (which provide the training in the MBTI, and are funded by sales of the MBTI) or as papers in the Journal of Psychological Type (which is edited and supported by Myers–Briggs advocates and by sales of the indicator).[64] It has been argued that this reflects a lack of critical scrutiny.[64] Many of the studies that endorse MBTI are methodologically weak or unscientific.[14] A 1996 review by Gardner and Martinko concluded: "It is clear that efforts to detect simplistic linkages between type preferences and managerial effectiveness have been disappointing. Indeed, given the mixed quality of research and the inconsistent findings, no definitive conclusion regarding these relationships can be drawn."[14][65]

The test has been described as one of many self-discovery "fads"[12][13][15][66][67][68][69][70] and has been likened to horoscopes, as both rely on the Barnum effect, flattery, and confirmation bias, leading participants to personally identify with descriptions that are somewhat desirable, vague, and widely applicable.[68][71][72]

[NJCher]

2. You are aware...?

That unfortunately Wikipedia, which I happen to love and which I consult numerous times each day, is afflicted by a gang of these minimalist hyper-science types who edit the daylights out of entries that don’t conform to their tight little behaviorist world view. It’s sad and it’s sick.

The entry you are citing looks like their type of venomist work.

There is a way to check the editing of such entries to see if it’s them but it’s 2:30 a.m. and I’m on my iPad. Checking requires a lot of work best done on a computer.

“Science” as these types think of it can hardly be a part of a healthy, life affirming worldview. In this gang’s POV, humans are but a glob of cells and nothing more.

Repeating: sad and sick.

[Conjuay]

5. I wonder what they call

the wikipedia ‘rewrite’ crowd.

[NJCher]

7. If I find out

I’ll post it. This gang also goes after Ted Talk speakers. They have prevented a few from speaking through their technique of online harassment.

[Earth-shine]

3. I never needed to think of Myers-Briggs as science. It's a tool to help us understand ourselves.

My master's thesis, written almost 40 years ago, was "the philosophy of science" and better methods of teaching science.

Whether it's science or not is a matter of how one defines the term "science." There's physical science vs. social science, theoretical science vs. applied science, religious science vs. other epistemology, and more I can't think of now.

What all science has in common is model building based on observations, experiments, mathematics, predictions, publishing, and refinements of theory.

Myers-Briggs, however flawed, is at least some of that.

Through MB, I have gained some additional insight into my personality, notably that there are others who share major personality traits. I now know that I'm not so unique and not so abnormal.

Science lover that I was, my research 40 years ago led me to an inescapable conclusion well-voiced by Mr. Spock in Star Trek 6, "Logic is but the beginning of wisdom."

I have found wisdom and interesting perspectives in "Chinese fortune cookies."

[Irish_Dem]

6. I was part of the psych testing science community and still used the M-B.

My specialty area in my psychology doctoral program was the development and use of psychological testing and assessment. Included a deep and extensive dive into the statistical underpinnings of psychological tests, IQ, Personalty.

I spent six years studying this topic, including my dissertation in the area of psychology testing. At one point
I thought about working for a large psych testing company, developing and standardizing tests used in psychology and education. But I went into clinical practice instead. (I did later teach testing and assessment classes as adjunct faculty to graduate students.)

All of this was done at a large well known public university with nationally known professors who had written text
books on psych testing and assessment.

I certainly understand the science and statistics behind all major psych tests. I also adhered to the highest standards of legal practice.

Yes the M-B was not always viewed favorably by the science community from a strict psychometric standpoint.
But most of us used it in clinical practice anyway.

There is certainly enough science behind the M-B to be used in clinical practice. I think the psych testing community can be a bit snooty at times. Granted if I was writing a psych report going to courts or other important settings, I didn't use the M-B. Not because I didn't like the M-B, but because the M-B can be used as a whipping boy and I wanted a strong clean report.

But I used it frequently in clinical practice and it was quite helpful and accurate enough for my use. I felt comfortable
with the science behind it for the way I was using it. If I thought it was just a junk test, parlor trick kind of test, I would never have used it.

[NJCher]

8. This experience

Very helpful, interesting post.

Do you know Dr. Gerry Olivero?

[Irish_Dem]

9. Thank you, glad it was helpful.

No, I don't know Dr. Olivero.

What is his speciality and where does he practice?

[Irish_Dem]

4. I am an INFJ too.

One of the rarest type codes.

The description you posted fits me quite well.

[ProfessorGAC]

10. ENTP, Here

I'm anything but an introvert, so the "E" was no surprise.
IIRC, my type is the 4th least common.
I worked with LOTS of ESTJs, which I recall being a common rating among people in the physical sciences.
I was fairly impressed with how the ratings matched the people I knew.

[highplainsdem]

11. I'm ENFP.