Advertisement
Advertisement
-
-
Re: Johnson O'Connor Foundation
Thu, July 10, 2008 - 6:26 AMBoston?
There's a Dunkin Donuts right inside the transit system.
Just so you know... -
-
Re: Johnson O'Connor Foundation
Sun, July 13, 2008 - 6:18 PMI found Dunkin' Donuts, thanks.
I don't want to fudge your test results by telling you things that might make you inappropriately prepared for the tests.
What I can tell you is that each test has been painstakingly engineered to quickly identify exactly when a specific part of your brain starts becoming fatigued.
One result is that, by then end of the day, every part of your brain has been quickly and systematically pushed to a point of fatigue, and beyond.
That is: if you take these tests the way I took them (as always, imagining someone is pointing a gun at my head), you probably won't feel like doing much of anything for the rest of the day. It felt good, though, to know that I had really found my limit in so many different ways. I get my results on 15 August in a 1-hour session at 9:00 AM.
A tip I would add for people going to take the test in Boston is not to do what I did afterward. I decided I wanted to take a shortcut back to the train station, and assumed I would be able to do this without a compass or a map. Probably, I shouldn't have asked for any help from the wicked retahded merchants around the eastern part of Beacon Hill. Since I have now seen most of Boston up close and on foot, I expect I'll have no problem finding my way around when I go back for results. Even so, I will be bringing a compass and a map NOT provided to me by the parks service or other parties with a possible interest in keeping me away from the train station. Also, I now know where the 'MBTA Access -->' signs really lead, and where the actual entrances to the actual MBTA system are actually hidden.
Summary: in a mental state consisting of meticulous and systematic fatigue of all parts of the mind, Boston is just another maze for the weary lab rat you'll feel like you're channeling. Locate the cheese BEFORE you are subject to the experimental stimuli. Trust me on this.
Boston issues aside, the Johnson O'Connor staff were courteous, but not inappropriately cheerful (as I got the feeling they thought I was).
When you go, be sure your employer hasn't bounced your last 2 paychecks, and that you can pay the foundation people up-front.
Please be sure to mention, specifically, that I told you to pay them in cash or with a money order if you can. Tell them 'Josh, the guy who takes way too long on the untimed tests and gives up too easily on the paper-folding thing told me to give you cash.'
If you really want to know what's on the tests, I suppose I can give you some idea, if you promise not to try to practice or otherwse mentally prepare. The tests are better-designed than I can possibly make them sound. They include a test of how quickly you would be able to acquire a Martian vocabulary, recognizing possible patterns in short strings of numbers, distinguishing which of 2 close pitches is higher or lower, color differentiation, simple 3-D puzzles (timed), putting tiny pegs into tiny holes (timed), recognizing pairs of 'rhythms'(what I would prefer to call 'sequences of inter-onset duration', since the metric implications were a distraction in my case) as being the same of different, abstract connect-the-dots from memory (this one really kicked my lame ass), recognizing changes in strings of 'musical' pitches (I think they were deliberately out of tune from 'normal' pitch structures, which is a GREAT idea), word association and a substantial amount of other stuff.
I think most people who find themselves on a tribe like this one would probably really enjoy the tests (I did!), provided that the tests are all basically intended to see how badly you fail. The 'right answers' on the tests are the answers that reflect how easy or how hard related tasks are for you in possible work situations, and I think the tests were all pretty well thought-out in terms of sidestepping any training or experience that could strongly bias the score away from innate ability and toward acquired skills.
The proof is in the pudding, though, eh?
More on this matter in late August.
-
-
Re: Johnson O'Connor Foundation
Mon, November 3, 2008 - 8:21 AMThe data has been in for a while and I've been trying to find ways to apply it, but I haven't come up with much yet.
They said my most remarkable score is in the one aptitude that one can actually improve, and that this aptitude is the most reliable predictor of success in any field...
Apparently. my English vocabulary is comparable to that of a top CEO or a university president.
'Whatever'. I'm still working part-time in a rehab kitchen. They also said that my frustrations are partly related to the fact that I haven't managed to surround myself with people of similar intellectual interests or abilities. Again; 'whatever'.
Apparently the core of my problems is that a high aptitude is a bigger problem, socially, than a low aptitude, since it's like a tool you can't put down in order to leave your hand empty, and it will keep getting in the way until you find something appropriate to do with it.
In my case, this is a pretty serious challenge. I got percentile scores approaching 100 in several areas which add up perfectly to being a composer. Since I already tried that for about 20 years and found it to be financially counterproductive, I was hoping they would be able to tell me something different. There are a lot of things people might suggest that I do instead which I will be basically unable to do because of my low graphoria, ideaphoria and foresight scores. My eyes take in and save a lot more detail than most peoples, but they scan from place to place just a little slower. I tend to arrive at the right kinds of ideas more often than most people, but it takes me longer to arrive at them. I look at something and see a lot more things it 'could be' than do most people, but it takes me longer to see the first few.
Basically, I need a job where what I read, think, say and do needs to extremely accurate, rather than extremely fast. (I'm fast on jobs that are established procedure, and I'm good at improvising in emergencies, but that's different.) Basically, the tests have allowed me to rule out careers focused in journalism, teaching, marketing and anything musical that actually requires that I play the piano. (That composers need to play the piano in order to compose is a myth, although everyone expects it of us, and sees it, wrongly as a measure of our other pertinent abilities).
So the tests may or may not help me get better jobs. At least they will help me prioritize the sorts of work I should be looking for.
Activities I should pursue for my own mental health should utilize my propensities for things like 3 dimensional visualization, memory for structure, detail, numbers and words, and should focus on long analytical approaches to problem-solving.
Basically (other than composing) I would be happy working in landscape architecture, making costumes and stage sets (or models of them), and using secondary languages with people similarly engaged.
This is almost exactly what I was doing in Second Life. Too bad it doesn't pay me anything. -
-
Re: Johnson O'Connor Foundation
Sun, January 25, 2009 - 5:30 PMThank you for that detailed description of the test and results data. I am trying to decide if I should have my 16 year old son take the test. He is (of course) undecided on his career. The cost is double what I expected so I wanted to do more research.
How did you decide on Johnson O'Connor? Did you investigate other Aptitude testing programs?
-
-
Re: Johnson O'Connor Foundation
Mon, January 26, 2009 - 8:42 AMi was a tester at the JOCRF San Francisco lab in the 1980s. We considered 16 to be somewhat young. If he's having school problems, it might be worth it.
Hank -
-
Re: Johnson O'Connor Foundation
Sun, February 1, 2009 - 9:44 AMThey told me they can test at least down to 17.
I didn't ask, but I expect the results (other than vocabulary) would stabilize some time around age 26,
when the brain stops growing.
OTOH, the sooner you get a reasonably reliable test, the sooner you can start trying to apply what you find out.
JOCRF got me through the door partly because their literature is reasonably clear and unsensationalistic,
partly because of how long they have been continuing to refine their tests, and partly because of the $600 up front thing,
which I understand is may be counterintuitive.
By charging $600 once and telling you that there's probably no point to testing you again,
they're not playing the typical cult angle of giving you a free or inexpensive consultation
and then putting you on a service conveyer belt that lasts you the rest of your life and costs
more every year. They do sell some vocabulary development materials, but if you don't
need these, they do absolutely nothing to try to get you to look at or discuss them.
Given they way the explain the vocabulary part of the test and why they give it,
I'd almost think they'd look irresponsible not to have a vocabulary program ready
for people who do need it.
Charging $600 up front assures that you recognize their claim to value (if not yet the value, itself)
and will commit to taking the tests in as serious and directed a manner as possible.
It's the sign of an organization that prefers to serve people on a referral basis,
rather than sucking the same people back in again and again for more 'help'.
It suggests a very strong confidence that people will see the value of what is provided to them.
Are you allowed to talk about their marketing philosophy, hank? -
-
Re: Johnson O'Connor Foundation
Sun, February 1, 2009 - 1:11 PMmarketing philosophy? i'd say they don't have a marketing philosophy because they don't really market. they had no marketing department or expertise when i worked for them.
i don't think they really comprehended how good a process they had compared to other sources of self knowledge.
still, i would never choose my friends or trust someone on the basis of aptitudes. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Johnson O'Connor Foundation
Tue, February 3, 2009 - 1:53 PMWas there no outreach effort?
They do have a newsletter.
To me, though, it seems like the newsletter is somehow as far as they are willing to go in pushing people to come in;
keep your clients cognizant of the service and they'll bring someone eventually.
I understood that if 2 friends already trust each other, one will trust the recommendation to take the tests.
I did not understand that the point of the scores was about trusting anyone or choosing friends, and I don't know that anyone has suggested that to me before.
The tests don't show moral aptitude at all, as far as I can tell, or indicate social ability in any clear way.
Even the explanation of the vocabulary score includes the observation that many social partitions correspond
with partitions in vocabulary score.
This WOULD explain why fewer than 1% of anybody really seems to want to
be my friend, and why people using English as an auxiliary language act less intimidated or condescended-to
by the way I use it; why I had to marry a Colombian and play in a band consisting of Chinese, Korean and Turkish people,
led by a Russian.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-