aptitude

The Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation Bulletin 165 arrived in the mail today. I devoured it promptly. The bulletin had an article on family members and how their aptitudes played out in their careers. JOCRF has done aptitude testing and research since 1922; the test is performance based rather than interest based. It's not about what you like, it's about what you are good at-- there's not always a correlation. There are two sessions of testing when you play with blocks and tweezers, listen to fake words and tones, compare colors, et cetera. I thoroughly enjoyed the testing.

Ultimately, I found the test results encouraging. I have six really strong, extremely bizarre aptitudes and about ten skills that I fail at. I have a cousin who took it and he scored moderately in most everything (which is how most C-level execs score). Seriously, my little line of bar graphs is a source of entertainment, where his are nice and steady.

I took the test my second year out of university. It's helpful but vague. It gives fields that play to your strengths and others that would thwart them. Their philosophy on aptitude can be summed up in this analogy: a guy who's 5'4" can play in the NBA, but a guy who's 6'7" will never be a jockey. Essentially, a person's strengths define her more than her weaknesses. I can improve my manual dexterity by sewing and palying the piano but I cannot ignore my ideaphoria by becoming a CPA. JOCRF contends that most mid-life crisises and identity issues come from people not using their aptitudes.

It was to get the bulletin and recall my bizarreness. Here's a link to an article"On Aptitudes". Here's jocrf.org.