So I did this thing. Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation
You can read in much more detail on their site, but the idea is this:
You sit through two different 3.5 hour testing sessions where they give you many different tests to measure what they call your "natural aptitudes". Then there is a ~2 hour exit interview, where they go over your results.
Oh… and you pay them $600.
The premise is that you have innate aptitudes (things such as spatial thinking, creative output, manual dexterity...) that develop between the ages of 6 and 16, and then remain at about that level for the rest of your life. It isn't a measure of intelligence, education, interests, or experience.
The point is that you will find a job more rewarding if it appeals to more of your aptitudes, and (perhaps more importantly) avoids those areas where you have... shall we say... no aptitudes.
Make sense?
So everyone whom I told that I was doing this has been very curious about the tests and results. The questions I get fall into three main categories:
1) What kinds of tests did they give me? What were they testing for?
2) How did I do? What am I good (and bad) at? What jobs should I be looking into?
3) How did I like it? Did I find it useful? Would I recommend it?
As to the first question:
Sometimes I have gone into quite a bit of detail about the test when talking to friends, but I don't think I'll do that now, because I think that if anyone reading has any interest in going through this program as well would not benefit from knowing all the details of the tests. If they are like me, they would try to outsmart the test and possibly skew the results. But while talking about my results, obviously you'll get some idea of what they are testing, if not how the actual tests themselves work. If you do want more detail, let me know and I’ll tell you all about it.
Question genre two:
First off, they try to really cement the idea that scoring high on a test doesn't always mean you are... smarter or better... it just means you have that aptitude. In some cases, scoring lower was actually better for certain jobs. In other words, they tried to frame all the tests as basically value neutral. For many tests, I found this more or less convincing. Sometimes (manual dexterity for example) there really was no way to positively spin the idea that someone had absolutely no manual dexterity. Like me, I scored pretty damn bad (lower 30th percentile or so) on all the manual dexterity tests. The only positive is that... well... who gives a shit. It means I shouldn't work on an assembly line, or be a dentist or surgeon. Done! No worries! The other test that I did pretty poorly at was where they measured how quickly you could scan written information. Sucked at that one. So I shouldn't be editor or be doing proofreading. Great, no clerical work for me.
There were a couple of tests that were obviously value neutral. On a test that measured how well I collaborate with others on a project vs. working independently, I ended up right in the middle, which didn't surprise me. Another interesting test measured how far in the future I should set my goals. Meaning: did I find satisfaction in achieving short term goals or long term goals. On that one, I scored at the very extreme long term goal end. The facilitator actually said that people in my situation often have to set unachievable goals to stay motivated. This resonated with me, and I realized that another aspect of this, at least for me, was that I often find myself becoming very unmotivated and a poor performer as I approach a goal. College was a perfect example of this.
A couple things I scored very highly on were the spatial thinking tests, which means I should be considering things like engineering and architecture. They also mentioned that this aptitude in particular is important to use. Many other aptitudes, even if you score highly on them, won't really cause a problem if you don't use them. But for spatial thinking apparently, not using this aptitude will cause frustration and unfulfillment.
I also scored very highly on the creative output test they call ideaphoria (which I like). Meaning... obviously, I need to find something that has a creative (and if possible tangible) product result or goal. They mentioned this was an interesting mix with the spatial aptitude, because often people who go into engineering and architecture don't get to use this aptitude, and that this should be a concern of mine. Interesting note, scoring poorly on this test is actually a good thing for people like surgeons, who shouldn't be having a constant creative stream of thought when they are doing work on, for example, someone's eye.
The tests that surprised me the most were auditory tests. They test for 3 things, pitch discrimination, pitch memory, and beat memory. I scored highly on all three, and the administrator asked was surprised to find I didn’t play an instrument. This coupled with the spatial and creative thinking suggested to her that I considering something like sound design or engineering.
I scored well on lots of the memory tests (memorizing words, numbers, designs, photos) but it didn't really come up in our conversation much, so maybe it's not that important.
The only other tests I found interesting were the two tests that measured reasoning skills. One was labeled "inductive reasoning" and the other was "analytical reasoning". The different was described to me, and I think it goes something like this. If, when presented with information, you can quickly synthesize it, and come to one conclusion (think ER doctor or nurse who need to make a medical decision quickly based on symptoms.) then you have high inductive reasoning. If you are given a beginning step, and you can reason your way, more methodically through many steps to come to a conclusion, then you are using your analytical reasoning (think solving a math word problem). In some ways I see them as intuitive vs. logical reasoning... but who knows. Anyway, the point is that I did very well at the analytical, but only mediocre at the inductive. Ok! I get it! I can't be a surgeon! jeez...
Ok... so I’m sure there were other tests I am forgetting, but they must not have mattered that much. The main points for me were:
1) Long term goals
2) Tangible products and results (contradiction with 1?)
3) Use spatial thinking
4) Use creative thinking
5) Use auditory skills if possible
With all that, the suggestion that kept coming up was sound design/engineering, which I have to admit, I hadn't put much though into until now, but am definitely going to look into more.
Conclusions (or question genre 3)
If simply asked to recommend this program I would. I found it very useful and informative, and very much worth my $600. Although I would have many caveats and warnings depending on whom I was talking to. The main thing someone needs understand is that exactly they are offering (which I think they make as clear as possible). They are not going to give you a list of your top 10 career options. They are not really going to take your actual interests into account much. They don't consider your education background, or your social skills, which most of us know greatly affect how easy it is to get a job. Basically, they don't give much advise about how to start careers, or change. They simply state that if you are doing a job, they can predict which aspects of it will be rewarding and which will be frustrating. All in all, if used correctly, this is an incredibly important and under represented career advice niche. I find this sort of information most useful as a framework when applied to an industry or job you are already considering. It will give you great ideas about what to ask during an interview, how to evaluate a job offer, and ideas for new jobs and industries to look into. It also provides a good vocabulary and way of thinking about your current situation. Giving names and reasons to the previously vague feelings of unfulfillment (if that's what you have). Like... "Oh, now I understand why I don't like doing task X", or "That’s why I really enjoyed working on project Y, I should look for more Y-esque projects. Mmmmmm... Y".
At first I didn't think this, but I now think it is also a good motivator to make some difficult career decisions. To get off your ass and think about what you want to do with your life. So I recommend it to almost anyone. Special shout out to Carryl for suggesting it, Danielle for getting me to do it, mom for loaning me the money, and Rachel for being my graphorific note-taker. Oh, and dad for making sure it wasn’t a scam.
Also, if anyone is interested, I have all sorts of documention about the aptitudes and my results. I left with LOTS of paperwork. And two books about aptitudes.
