I took the world's premier aptitude test. My results are hard to a

[iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii]

Since I've been at a total loss for what career to pursue, I decided to take the Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation aptitude test (www.jocrf.org), which has a reputation for accurately revealing one's natural cognitive strengths and weaknesses and providing invaluable insight for educational and career decisions. The test took six hours over two days and cost almost $700.

Here are my results:




So the only area in which I excel is what they call "ideaphoria," or the ability to generate a rapid flow of ideas, which is supposedly valuable in careers such as writing, teaching, and sales. The ideaphoria test doesn't measure the originality, creativity, or value of one' ideas, just how fast he can come up with them. I scored substantially above the 99th percentile for this aptitude - wow.

I scored abysmally bad on the tests of clerical speed and accuracy (not surprising) and inductive reasoning, below average in arithmetic and spatial ability, average in vocabulary knowledge and memory, and somewhat above average, but not high in analytical reasoning ability.

My score of "subjective" on the word association test is typical of people who prefer to specialize and work independently as opposed to through others and need to have a deep personal connection to their work. This is a remarkably accurate description of my attitude toward career. I can't understand how most people (those who don't score subjective) can stand not to have a personal connection to their work.

These results pretty much explain why, at age 30, my only job is delivering newspapers, and I can't even do that right because with my lethal combination of high ideaphoria and low reasoning ability, my inner mental life is a never-ending torrent of stupid ideas and adolescent fantasies that impairs my ability to concentrate and causes me to fuck up almost everything I touch.

 

For a person with the high ideaphoria and subjective personality aptitude pattern, the foundation suggests a career path as a creative specialist in an area that stems from a personal passion or interest, such as writing about issues that interest me, teaching a subject that I'm passionate about to motivated students (as opposed to typical middle or high school students who spend all day sexting and just want class to be over) or selling something that I'm personallly invested in. Indeed, those recommendations cover just about everything that I've ever wanted to do. The problem is that such careers seem extremely impractical, almost unattainable, and that, even though I may have a strong flow of ideas, they aren't necessarily good ones, and I'm not necessarily that good at conveying them. I'm not Steve Jobs or Ayn Rand.

 

Looking at my other scores, it doesn't seem like I have the ability to do anything practical. I'd never make an engineer, accountant, or doctor. I couldn't look an employer in the eye and tell him I'd be a good administrative assistant. Teaching has always interested me, but I don't know what I'd teach or whom I'd teach it to, and judging from my other scores I may well be too dumb to pick up anything worth teaching. With my low inductive reasoning ability, you probably wouldn't want me troubleshooting your computer or fixing your car, and I wouldn't want to take the job anyway. Due to poor finger dexterity, I'm obviously not fit to handle shap objects, such as tools. It just seems like my aptitude pattern doesn't lend itself to anything realistic.

 

So the results are grim. How much weight do you think I should give this stuff?

Edited December 23, 2013 by iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[whYNOT]

Enough weight to skim it into the trash, I'd say. Geez man, how d'ya let some test scores tell you what you are?!

Maybe some use as a rough indicator - but it won't reveal the only important things: the unique *combination* of abilities (and inabilities) specific to you; what you want and value; your energy and commitment; your view of the world. If you know you're weak in areas that bother you, pay attention and work on those and don't worry about the rest. Also,try not to let "the perfect be the enemy of the good"...

[softwareNerd]

I've never heard of the test. If the test was in contradiction to something you wanted to do, then it would be something to ponder. For example if you were really passionate about being a surgeon, where "finger dexterity" might be important, then you'd need to figure out if the test really spotted a true weakness and if there's anything you can do about it. As it stands, relative to your expressed interests, the test seems to say you're average on most things.

Assuming the test is not quackery, the only score that really jumps out is "inductive reasoning". Their web-site describes a low score this way:
 

... people who score low tend to be careful, deliberate, and methodical in reaching conclusions. They do, of course, solve problems and make connections, but in general they prefer to take more time and have more information before making their final decisions.

Thinking of this as style, people who score low are often characterized by their thoroughness and accuracy. Some describe this as an insistence on quality over speed, and can feel as if they are often rushed through tasks they'd prefer to give more time to. Being pushed to work quickly may lead them to feel that things have been poorly finished or that decisions have been made too hastily.

I think most professions can accommodate people who are quick to shoot, and then fix things later as well as people who are more deliberate. I don't see this score saying that you are low on skills required for doctor, engineer, etc. Where did you get that from? If you think you would like to be a doctor, engineer, etc. I think you should explore it further. 

 

Instead of the test results, I would take your interests as a starting point. You speak of teaching. is that something that interests you, or are you going by the test results? Sounds like you really think that would be interesting, apart from what the test is telling you. Is there any other such field? If you were to visualize -- with just a touch of optimism -- about what career you'd like to be in, say, when you're 40 what would it be?

Edited December 23, 2013 by softwareNerd

[Nicky]

These results pretty much explain why, at age 30, my only job is delivering newspapers,

No, it doesn't. According to the test, you have the potential to be highly creative (that's what divergent thinking means), have well above average analytical reasoning skills, above average memory, above average language skills. You're obviously an underachiever, and should look elsewhere for the cause of your troubles.

The only thing the test shows is that you're not very good at math. So what? We all suck at something. I wish I had your pitch discrimination skills. But I don't, I just have to accept that I can't be a musician.

For a person with the high ideaphoria and subjective personality aptitude pattern, the foundation suggests a career path as a creative specialist in an area that stems from a personal passion or interest, such as writing about issues that interest me, teaching a subject that I'm passionate about to motivated students (as opposed to typical middle or high school students who spend all day sexting and just want class to be over) or selling something that I'm personallly invested in. Indeed, those recommendations cover just about everything that I've ever wanted to do. The problem is that such careers seem extremely impractical, almost unattainable, and that, even though I may have a strong flow of ideas, they aren't necessarily good ones, and I'm not necessarily that good at conveying them.

You obviously have the capacity to attain any of those careers, if you work at it. If you don't, you won't.

And by working at it I don't mean putting in twelve hours a day, every day. If anything, that's counter-productive. I just mean making it a habit to work at it. Do something towards bettering yourself professionally, on a daily basis.

I'm not Steve Jobs or Ayn Rand.

You're probably not. But you should know that most of the people who would score higher on that test than Steve Jobs or Ayn Rand, have died of old age without achieving anything that even comes close to what these two people have done. The reason for most people's failure to become productive isn't the lack of innate skills. You have plenty of innate skills that could allow you to be productive.

[JASKN]

So the only area in which I excel is what they call "ideaphoria," or the ability to generate a rapid flow of ideas, which is supposedly valuable in careers such as writing, teaching, and sales. The ideaphoria test doesn't measure the originality, creativity, or value of one' ideas, just how fast he can come up with them. I scored substantially above the 99th percentile for this aptitude - wow.

Want to go into business together? Seriously, I'm good at a lot of things, but coming up with new ideas isn't one of them.

You're very articulate and obviously intelligent. I agree with sNerd's suggestion that you seem to have some career preferences already, and with Nicky that you'd be able to do any of the careers you mentioned. I sincerely doubt your working as a paperman is for lack of personal potential -- it must be something else. Boredom? Fear? Being too hard on yourself? Being unrealistic about judging success?

I'm fairly certain that the number one factor of importance in success is persistence. As it goes, "Try, try again." You haven't been doing *nothing* for 30 years. The cliche example of Colonel Sanders not achieving "great success" until well into his 60's may still provide something for you to think about. One of these days, you're going to figure out what to do with yourself in a way that you consider good.