Tropophilia

Last week, Lisa Belkin wrote in the New York Times “Fashion & Style” section (impressed?) about her experience with assessment testing.  She underwent a battery of examinations that lots of employers give to job candidates to complement their standard interviewing process. 

Some tests measure your personality, others your suitability for certain types of jobs, and others your work style (team player v. individual worker, for example).  Though they certainly don’t replace the face-to-face interview, they do offer an interesting quantitative measurement of the candidate in question.

About a month ago, I underwent a similar experience of “human aptitude testing” with the Johnson O’Connor Research Foundation.  Rather than for a job interview, I did this more for personal enrichment and discovery.  For seven hours on a cold Saturday in March, I assembled blocks, memorized numbers, arranged tiles, analyzed tones, moved pins, wrote essays, and more.  Sounds absurd, and some of it seemed pretty stupid at the time for sure.  But at the end of the day, I was given a double-sided sheet of paper (along with mountains of background information) that claimed to quantify some of my aptitudes.

And you know what?  It was pretty accurate, and… enlightening.

Sure, you wouldn’t think I would need a test to tell me what I’m good at and what I’m not good at.  The results were not exactly surprising.  But it was very interesting to see the numbers behind my assumptions, to see charts that compared one aptitude to another.  Even beyond that, to have someone experienced with this sort of testing sit down with me and explain what types of careers my combinations of aptitudes might and might not fit into was something of a needed kick in the pants.

I scored fairly low in clerical abilities, as well as in finger dexterity, visual design, and tonal distinction.  However, I did very well in math, vocabulary, structuring, rhythm distinction, and what the Foundation calls “ideaphoria”: the ability to very quickly generate, arrange, and develop ideas.  Apparently the combination of the math, structure, and rhtyhm abilities shows an adeptness at picking up on and predicting patterns.  As a result, my evaluator said that I was well-suited to be a writer, editor, or journalist — anything where I can take the seed of an idea, plant it, nurture it, and help it grow.  My aptitudes are also good for being an attorney, so that’s still an option… but especially because of this test, I am considering looking into more editorial/writing career paths in the future.

What was perhaps more interesting than my specific aptitude results were the background information and advice the Foundation provided.  Aptitude is not knowledge or a learned skill; rather, it is natural ability that we’ve inherited or developed since a very early age.  There is no single aptitude or set of aptitudes that is better than another.  Rather, each person’s combination of aptitudes renders them naturally, well, apt to engage in certain tasks.

Aptitudes are not really interests, either.  I am interested in computers and programming — perhaps because of my aptitude for understanding systems and rules — but I would not really be a great programmer because I am wired for the ideas-based, abstract realm rather than the quantitative, concrete one.

The Foundation’s goals are to help people quantitatively understand their aptitudes and non-aptitudes, and to find a career that emphasizes the former while deemphasizing the latter.  You can’t really change your aptitudes, just like you can’t really change your personality.  You are who you are.  But you can change the outlets for those aptitudes.

TheFoundation warns that if you follow a career that, say, deemphasizes your aptitudes while requiring full-time use of your non-aptitudes, it can lead to severe frustration and job dissatisfaction.  My evaluator mentioned that one reason I may have started Tropophilia, and have since spent so much time on it, is because of a mismatch between my job and my aptitudes.  And I think she’s right.  I don’t really get to read, think, or write at work, and so I satisfy those needs through this blog.

They are careful to mention, though, that not every job has to be decided based on aptitudes.  For example, though I’m not particularly well-matched as a paralegal, it is offering me valuable insight into the legal profession, a career I am suited for.  And if I am able to balance that with my self-expression through the blog, then everything might be OK.  But in the long haul, they say, people are generally much happier when their careers and their aptitudes intersect.  People are happy not only when they love their jobs, but when they feel their aptitudes are harmonizing with that job.

So, food for thought.  It certainly doesn’t take a test to figure some of these things out — though seeing the numbers and charts matched to my premonitions was very useful it encouraging me to actively think about how my aptitudes and career choices should mesh.  Whether you’re loving your job or hating it, in a profession for the long-haul or looking to switch — it can’t hurt to take some time to think about your natural abilities and whether or not they’re being thoroughly exercised.

Image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of Flickr user krischall.  No, that’s not me.  And please note that aptitude testing does not involve any helmets, wires, or probes… that I can remember… oh God, the headaches…