++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Talent is a force,
not a tool. Talent does things
to you.
A
"natural" in any job shows unlearned
abilities: knacks, talents and
aptitudes.
Aptitudes are important
behavioral vectors. They
are key factors in long term career, work and job success, productivity,
longevity......and happiness.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This site describes various aspects and
applications of a concept of knacks, talents and aptitudes that
originated in Industrial Engineering in the early 20th
century. It began as productivity research at
General Electric, and was used to improve hiring processes.
Because it began with productivity as the goal, the model is
far more practical and grounded than many psychological approaches to
human behavior and performance. There is plenty of
statistical data gathered over 80 years to support the basic
ideas and concepts. Culturally, we all accept the idea that
some people are mechanical, and some people are not.
This
isn't a bible and I'm not a guru. This
interpretation of aptitudes is a work of judgment. My
judgment. The
material here is my hyper-condensed description of some invisible, intangible
realities. It is partial information about what aptitudes
are and do to people. This is an attempt to share knowledge and
understanding rather than advocate rote application of this concept
in
your life or at your job.
Invisible intangibilities are hard
to pin down and easy to
misunderstand. Seeking
meaning very quickly leads
away from what 'has been proved' to what 'can be proved' to what
'probably is' to what 'might be' - opinion and
speculation.
What I can say with a high degree
of certainty is these things work in
roughly the manner described for most people most of the
time. I am certain everyone has high and low
aptitudes, that these ‘behavioral vectors’ have a major impact on
people, and both high and low aptitudes can be useful or dysfunctional
depending on the context. I
am certain this knowledge can
be used to increase productivity and improve quality of life for
individuals and organizations.
I can find an exception to almost
any generalization about human beings
- including the ones I make. We can assume that
blind people will not have observation aptitudes. For
clarity of communication I have chosen not to qualify things too much.
Hank Pfeffer
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If
I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of
giants. (Isaac Newton )
This work did not spring in full
bloom from my mind. It is
based on interpretation of generations of work by some very sharp
people. Johnson O'Connor, starting in 1922, developed
the conceptual model and established the statistical basis for my work
on the meaning of aptitudes. He assembled a group of
brilliant people who added to his efforts. I wish I had known him, and
them. The Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation carries on
his work.
Hank
Pfeffer
knackman@yahoo.com
knackman@lycos.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Menu:
Aptitudes,
general concept (read this first, or it won't make much sense)
The Tortoise and the Hare, an aptitude perspective
List of
Independent Aptitudes
Animals and Aptitudes, Nature/Nurture, Children
and Aptitudes
High
Rate of Idea Production, self evaluation & article
The Too
Many Aptitude Problem, TMA trait list,
Being Right About Being Wrong, conclusion to "Danger, High Voltage."
Am I In
the Wrong Career?
Aptitudes and Mental Illness.
Aptitudes
and Organizations.
Aptitudes of the Great
Programmer.
Aptitudes
and Juror Selection.
On the
Nature of Knowing (an interesting spinoff).
Comments
on IQ and Reasoning.
Basis of
this Knowledge.
Services
for Individuals and Organizations.
Material for
sale
Contact:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Aptitudes: General concept
We all know,
understand things and operate on more levels than just the
conscious. Even given the same information, there is a difference
in how people know and understand things. A big part of that is
due to unlearned abilities - gut level and non-conscious ways of
operating - knacks, talents and aptitudes.
These
genetically determined traits have a major impact on default
behavior - what is going on that we’re not paying attention
to. This is pre-conscious behavior - neither
fully
conscious nor sub-conscious. Example: what type size is
most comfortable for someone to read.
You
can't create talent - these things are genetic in
origin. Everyone has experienced talent - and lack of
talent. Most people know if they are mechanical, have a
sense of direction, pick up languages easily, enjoy puzzles or are good
with their hands. These aptitudes are stable in
adults - if you are musical at age thirty, you will be so at 50.
Talent
is a force, not a tool. You don't just pick it up
and put it down at will - it does things to you in an ongoing
way. A musical talent makes a
person
sensitive to and aware of sound under all conditions, 24 hours a
day. A crying baby and a squeaky door are more annoying to
a person who is musical than to someone who isn't.
Aptitudes
are not consciously controlled. They can be
consciously directed towards performing certain tasks. The
musical talent is there, whether the music is being played or
not. Aptitudes are always operating and cannot
be turned off - part of our interface with the world. This is
very important under heavy stress, when people revert to gut level
functioning.
Aptitudes
are invisible and intangible. They show up through
their impact on behavior. Performance on aptitude tests is
only a
specific type of behavior. (The SAT is not an aptitude test in my
terms because the SAT score is not a useful predictor of college
success..) Each
individual aptitude has its own
impact, like each ingredient adding it's own flavor to a very
complex
stew.
In a way, each aptitude is a behavioral vector
causing certain kinds of
things to happen. Sometimes the impact of
aptitude on behavior is direct - a mechanical person once told
me he
didn't feel comfortable unless he understood how the machines he used
worked. His talent directly motivated him to learn about
machines.
Sometimes
the behavioral impact of talent is
indirect. Example: a person with musical
aptitudes
will be more annoyed than most by a squeaky door. Therefore that person
is more likely to do something about it. To some extent, a
musical ear can cause a door to be oiled.
Aptitudes impact on behavior in
ways both subtle and
obvious. At some level we perceive these things
even if we don't consciously recognize them as
aptitudes. People
with similar aptitudes find it
easier to get along and cooperate. It is easier to get in
sync with someone if there is a real - though invisible -
similarity. Wildly different aptitudes
make
communication and cooperation more difficult. Many
personality and operational conflicts are due to aptitude
dissimilarities - different ways of experiencing the universe.
About two dozen different and independent
unlearned abilities are
pretty well known. They are simple things: types of
memory,
ways of processing information, levels of perception. They
are building blocks for more complex ways of operating.
Everyone seems to have each talent to
some degree - high, mid range or
low. No humans have a talent for flying or breathing
underwater.
The predictable impact (behavioral
vector) of talent and lack of talent
remain much the same at age 40 as at age 20. What you get
by understanding someone's aptitudes is a certain rough predictability
and insight into cost effectiveness of using these talents under
different conditions (different jobs, mostly).
A strong or high aptitude is the
equivalent of a head start in certain
types of learning and working - a head start over others that can be
maintained given equivalent effort. A low aptitude
means starting out behind most people. This remains stable over time -
a talent doesn't go away. It is predictable over time.
This is a key point. It is
the long sought after unchangeable
part of the human being. This
predictability is what makes the concept so useful. If you
are mechanical you will be all your life. You can be
expected to do best in situations where mechanical aptitude is used and
prized. If you don't use it, you will miss it. Conversely,
knowing that you are non-mechanical means you can predict always being
slow in areas using mechanical learning and improvisation.
How valuable can information like
that be? How expensive is a
wasted year in college, or giving up a career after a decade?
If
you can predict that something will happen in a particular way, you
can work with it. Prevent it, avoid it, exacerbate
it, divert it -
whatever fits your goals. The key is in knowing what
to
expect - using limited predictability well. It is possible
to use experience, planning and training to gain some control over the
behaviors and results associated with an aptitude.
That is
why this concept is also a very useful tool for managers and human
resources staff.
Most of the research into
aptitudes has been career
oriented. Specific
combinations of aptitudes are best
suited for specific jobs. The right knacks and
talents are
a head start and ongoing advantage in that area.
Understanding what aptitudes are
relevant to a particular job is easy
once you understand the aptitudes involved. There is
no
mystery about why a mechanical knack is useful in medicine, or finger
dexterity useful for a guitarist.
Aptitude
does not equal success. The right aptitudes might
make a person seven feet tall but reality often presents us with 1000
foot cliffs. Talent is not a substitute for hard
work. The winner of any race comes in covered in sweat and
hurting. It is best to choose the right race to compete in
- then work hard.
High aptitude does mean that if
other factors are roughly equal, he/she
will outperform others and most especially so over a large number of
cases and over a period of time. It also seems to mean that
this person will enjoy it more.
Low
aptitude is important. It can be an
advantage. High aptitudes beyond job
requirements cause problems. A talent is also a
need. In order to achieve
concentration on a task that doesn't use that aptitude, that unused
aptitude must be ignored or stifled. Not only does that take
energy, it doesn't feel good. This takes its toll in the long
run. Motivational energy seems to be finite -
the extra effort needed to stifle a part of yourself is an important
factor in burnout. Lack of
mechanical aptitude is actually an
advantage for someone like an accountant.
Consider what it would feel like
to be healthy and confined to
bed. How good would it feel to move around? Is it
valid to compare physical processes to mental ones? In this case,
yes. If either physical or mental natural processes are thwarted,
it feels bad. (Is this the first theory of mental
constipation on record?)
A recipe is a good analogy for how
aptitudes impact on the
job. To make a good chocolate cake (or good customer
service person) , you must use the ingredients in the recipe and no
others. Of course, some variation in the base
recipe
still works, but there is no place in that recipe for lobster.
Talent works the same in job
settings. Just one high
aptitude can make a job wrong for a person - like lobster in a
chocolate cake. Whether a high or low aptitude is good or
bad depends on the context. Anything can be an advantage or
disadvantage depending on the situation. Talent is no
exception. Consider what life is like if you are very tall
- or very short.
Aptitudes have an important impact on motivation.
It feels
good to use a high aptitude, thus reinforcing operating that
way. This is almost certainly related to the production of
endorphins.
Not only pain killers, endorphins
are also known to be mood regulators.
There are
many kinds of endorphin - the good feelings associated with
making music are not the same as those that come with writing a good
computer program or balancing a budget.
Most of the time, if you have a low aptitude you know
it.
Painful experience has taught you. Even if you have learned
to do the job, working in a low aptitude area can feel like swimming
upstream through a river of sludge. Almost anyone can
learn to do a job or pass a class by rote, but if the gut level
knowing is lacking, performance is inferior to those who have the
knack (other factors being equal). It
doesn't
feel good. This leads to burnout, accidents and stress
related illness.
Without that deep level of knowing
or understanding, self confidence is
lower. If people don't
have a gut level feel for a
situation, they are never really comfortable there.
Without
the inherent rewards associated with high aptitude, motivation is
lower. It isn't impossible to get motivated - just harder.
Low
aptitude people make more errors and achieve less in that area - or
work a lot harder to achieve the same results. This
can
lead to burnout, accidents and a higher risk of stress related
illness. It is possible to learn to be better at
almost anything, whatever the level of aptitude.
However, with the same effort, people with the right talents for that
activity stay ahead - and enjoy what they're doing. For the
talented, operating in a particular way is cost effective on many
levels.
The
satisfactions associated with use of aptitudes, and the stresses
associated with working in the wrong aptitude areas, seem to be why
aptitudes are related to longevity on the job.
People with
the wrong aptitudes often leave the field - or they pay a personal
price for staying. The price is feeling bad and the
ways that people learn to cope with that unhappiness.
Depending on which studies you
believe, 40% to 90% of Americans dislike
their work. Many of them hate their
jobs. They don't want to be there.
They cling to their jobs because they need the money and don't see
viable work alternatives. They pay the bills but they also pay a
price: physically, psychologically and spiritually. Often
they go home and kick the dog, or kick the kids or kick themselves.
Though part of the reason for this
is the Dilbert reality, another part
of it is people not understanding themselves well enough to find the
right work - that is, work that fits them. It is understandable - our
society asks “What do you want?” Instead of
“Who are you?” This
implies that you can be anything you want. That is
false.
Most
people incorrectly assume that others experience life the same way
they do. We really are all different and have no choice
about
it. The impact of that difference pervades our lives.
We
have no choice about dealing with our aptitudes (and those of
others), because we have no choice about dealing with
ourselves. Who you are doesn't change when you
leave
work, whatever image you choose to project there. One way
or another, consciously or not, everyone and every organization deals
with the powerful forces of aptitudes.
Menu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Tortoise
and the Hare: An Aptitude Perspective.
Obviously the tortoise is low in
reasoning aptitudes and self
knowledge. What sort of idiot turtle enters a foot race
with a hare? Who are you gonna bet on? A
high reasonings tortoise will talk the hare into a swimming endurance
contest, or weight hauling contest. Then who do you bet on?
If a tortoise must run a foot race with a hare,
and MUST win, it might
be useful to examine the predictable behaviors of rabbits, with an eye
to taking advantage of them. Arranging for a series of
attractive lady bunnies to show up along the track would be
useful. Along the way, some piles of gourmet carrots, a
few rabbit traps and a TV interviewer could help.
Better to avoid going to those
lengths. A smart tortoise chooses
his or her races well.
So does a smart person.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
List
of independent aptitudes.
These
do not define a human being. Everyone is an infinity.
However, these are an important part of that infinity.
A.
Reasoning/processing
1. Systems reasoning:
An information organizing aptitude
that takes data and puts it into a
system, or takes data and organizes it into a system. Strong
awareness of context as well as content. Often the basis of
an interest in history. Analysis, contingency
planning. Useful for programmers, editors, process
planners.
2. Flash reasoning:
The condition of (mostly)
accurately jumping to conclusions, quickly
seeing discrepancies and errors, with a need to answer questions.
Natural debaters, they
take strong partisan
positions. Therapists, troubleshooter,
detectives, lawyers.
3. Cause/effect reasoning:
Ability to see extended parallel
cause and effect sequences, something
like what will happen if I do this? This
awareness of the long term makes it easier to conceptualize and achieve
long term goals in diverse areas and reduces the need for immediate
gratification.
4. Numerical reasoning:
A feel for the patterns and
rhythms in numbers. Arithmetical type
activities.
5. Logical reasoning:
Naturally processing
data in the form of syllogisms. Programmers, logicians.
B.
States of being.
1. Mechanical/spatial: An aptitude
for things and 3D space.
Mostly found together, the mechanical and spatial can exist separately.
High: engineers, air controllers, doctors, truckers. Low:
politicians, poets, lawyers.
2. Semantic
equivalence: Aptitude/need for group
functioning, including people politics and the ability / need to
identify with others, read vibes well. High:
sales, management. Low: specialists, artists, independent
decision makers, leaders (not managers).
3. Idea production:
Rate at which ideas are produced
(independent of idea quality.) Folks high in this generate lots
of ideas but are distractible. High: communicators of various
types, such as in teaching or sales. Low: high
concentration areas like surgery.
4. Sensory
discrimination: The condition of making
fine sensory discriminations. Often perceived as fussy,
people like this are very quality aware. Winemakers, coffee
buyers.
C.
Memory/perceptual sensitivity
1. Observation: aptitude
for looking at things, recognizing and
remembering them.
2. Number (visual):
remembering, noticing numbers.
3. Design: sensitivity to
and memory for designs.
4. Word (visual): memory
for and sensitivity to written words.
5. Color: memory for and
sensitivity to color.
6. Tone: memory for and
sensitivity to tones.
7. Rhythm: memory for and
sensitivity to rhythm and timing.
8. Number (audible): memory
and sensitivity to spoken numbers.
9. Word (audible): memory
and sensitivity to spoken words.
D.
Miscellaneous.
1. Near Point Visual
Efficiency: close in visual scanning as in
paperwork, CRT screens, formal schooling. A crucial
aptitude in an information society.
2. Finger dexterity: good
hands.
3. Small tool dexterity:
tweezers, eyebrow pencils.
Possible
aptitudes:
hands on task organizing ability,
spatial orientation, sensory
threshold/overload point, body memory, common sense, green thumb,
competitiveness, auditory identification, day/night alertness,
intuition, synesthesia, healing, affinity for animals, seeing auras,
parenting, the Ronald Reagan Teflon trait, the ability to get
meaningful data from a noisy background....the list of possibles goes
on and on..
The key question in looking at
these possible aptitudes is
predictibility. How much can you trust it? If
you have an unlearned ability that can be counted on and makes you feel
good, it is quite possible it could be an aptitude. However, a
‘natural’ at any real life task is usually using a set of aptitudes,
rather than just one.
Menu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Animals and
Aptitudes.
My search for unknown aptitudes
led to an interest in instinct
and animal behavior. We are, after all, animals. It is an
immense field - my knowledge is superficial.
I
am not really able to distinguish between an aptitude for remembering
designs and an instinct for remembering designs (shown by both
humans
and bees, with obviously different mechanisms). A
sense of direction is found in many animals. Insects,
beavers and birds build things, so do humans.
Experiments with teaching gorillas
and dolphins to communicate have had
amazing results and provide us with tantalizing hints and insights.
Evidence of aptitudes and
different levels of unlearned ability is
clear among domesticated animals. Even within specialized
breeds there are differences- some Labrador retrievers don’t swim
well.
I encountered a very smart dog
once, penned up and so painfully bored that I couldn’t
help making the comparison between him and a smart, bored human.
I pitied him. I began asking knowledgeable people how smart
they thought a dog could be. Many people answered that the
smartest dogs were equivalent to a four year old human.
In 18th century debates over
treatment of animals, including issues of
animal rights, the unanswerable point was made: “They
feel.” Since I believe aptitude has an integral
emotional component, I am left pondering.
I think reasoning is almost
impossible to distinguish from
rationalization. In a talk with a high IQ expert, a cat person, I
brought up a common cat behavior. Cats occasionally do clumsy,
undignified things. If aware of being observed, a cat will gather
up its dignity and (apparently) pretend it didn’t happen. This is
high order functioning, rationalization as good as found in the higher
realms of politics. The IQ expert agreed with the
point. We are both still pondering it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nature, nurture
and a startling question.
Though the genetic component of
aptitude seems clear, it is certain
that nurture also has an impact. A comparison to
physical traits makes the point well. Someone might have a
genetic propensity to be six feet tall, but will never reach that
height without the right nutrition.
At birth, babies have the
capability of learning to make all sounds
found in any language. It is my understanding that
within a couple years, with some sounds and behaviors reinforced and
others ignored, they lose that ability.
In “Frames of Mind”,
Howard Gardner describes a study of
kittens raised in an artificial environment with no vertical
lines. When these kittens were released into a normal
environment as adults, they were unable to see vertical
lines. They would run into table legs.
They never learned, as far as I know. Kittens are not
babies, but..........
It
seems probable that, without reinforcement, natural abilities in
children can be stunted and perhaps even worse - lost
permanently.
The startling
question:
What natural abilities are we
losing in children by not knowing to
nurture and reinforce them? Healing, ESP, and who
knows what?
Are we all
‘failure to thrive’ infants, in some ways?
Confused? So am
I. But this is all theoretical
and very speculative.
The practical
response: by adulthood, the aptitudes are stable and
embedded in all behavior. You can trust them to be there - or not
be there. That is enough to work with.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Children and aptitudes.
The Johnson O’Connor Research
Foundation does not test
children. The reason is simple - the value of testing
is the predictability obtained. With an adult, if you
have or don’t have
it now, you can trust that to be true 20 years from
now. That isn't as true with kids. Some
of the reasoning aptitudes don’t seem to
stabilize before puberty is over.
However, high and low aptitudes
are clear in children, both in pure, theoretical
form (the building blocks) or in the more common sense of talent and
natural ability. There is plenty of obvious evidence of
different levels of mechanical aptitude, athletic ability, language
talent.
Extremely high aptitudes show up
starting in the toddler
stage. I’ve seen three year olds who can ride a two
wheeler, read or play a musical instrument. One man with
extremely high sense of direction described an incident when he was
two and lost at a zoo and was able to retrace his path to the entrance.
The existence of aptitudes means
age grouping is a bad way to do
education. Is it abusive to force a child without any
talent for algebra or foreign language to learn it?
Do we expect blind
children to read? Everyone is blind in some
ways.
Menu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
HIGH
RATE of IDEA PRODUCTION (hereafter called HRIP) is an extremely
powerful aptitude that has a major impact on a person, both in
career
and personal terms. It is a simple
thing. A stimulus causes lots of
ideas in a short period of time.
Everybody
is always being bombarded by stimuli, both internal and
external. In response to these constant stimuli the
HRIP
person reacts by constantly producing a high volume of ideas. The
quality of ideas is not the point - simply the rate of their production.
People like this are always gushing with ideas.
Some folks
manifest it as the gift of gab. They can't turn the ideas
off. It is possible for them to put a lid on it, but only
with an effort. The HRIP almost always has something
to say, and usually says it. People like this grin
knowingly if I jokingly mention that they might have once or twice
considered lobotomy or putting tranquilizers in their oatmeal.
You don't just have these ideas
and that's the end of it. The
HRIP person wants and needs to express them, try them out, act on
them. That is one reason HRIP individuals find
limits hard
to deal with. Set limits and the HRIP person often can't
help thinking over, under, around and beyond them.
An inherently narrow job situation - an assembly
line task in either
physical or mental terms - tends to be extremely
frustrating for a HRIP
person. The expression or use of ideas is of little
value
and possibly dysfunctional. So people like this get bored
or distracted easily, a source of on the job injuries and
errors. In those situations, the HRIP person has to
spend energy stifling part of himself just in order to
function. It doesn't feel good to stifle yourself. That
energy can be used more productively.
In general, the larger the
organization the narrower the job
description. Greater satisfaction of HRIP might be found
with a smaller company where a wide variety of tasks is more
likely. Doing ten things in ten different places is likely
to be more pleasant for this kind of person than staying in one place
all day doing just one task.
HRIP might be a factor in
extroversion. Generally,
HRIP people are highly communicative. I expect
an
aptitude evaluation session with a HRIP person to last longer than the
average. Usually there is more feedback and more questions
are asked than with a person with a lower rate of idea
production.
People with a low rate of idea
production tend to be the silent
type. This even seems to extend to body language.
HRIP people have difficulty being
passive listeners.
As each concept is received it generates a burst of ideas.
This person might interrupt others in order to express
them. On the other hand, HRIP tends to be more open
and receptive to new ideas. This is the kind of person who
does something different for the sake of variety.
This kind of person might tend to be persuadable - a side effect
of openness to and enjoyment of ideas.
One
of the clearest effects of HRIP is
distractibility. Since stimuli produce
(or
cause) lots of ideas it is difficult to concentrate in situations where
there are a lot of external sources of distraction. This kind of
person often wants/needs to be alone to think something through or is
the kind of person who has to wait for the office to clear out before
being able to effectively deal with that pile of
paperwork. The HRIP person might even find
taking notes at a lecture or business meeting distracting and could
benefit by using a tape recorder.
This
distractibility can mean lack of follow through and impatience
with detail work. Staying focused is harder
for this
sort of person. Stimuli keep generating new ideas and
HRIP individuals want to follow them up, only noticing later that
they are off track. Many people like this talk about
a life littered with unfinished projects.
The
HRIP person should be careful about deviating from a previously
established plan, especially if the deviation from the plan is a course
of action that was rejected previously. Best way to stay on
track? Loose written planning is useful.
HRIP won't tolerate rigid
planning. And keep that plan in front of you - filed
is forgotten. Daytimers, PDAs - whatever
works.
A HRIP person might have planned
to go to work, get a haircut and then
go grocery shopping. On the way to the barber shop the HRIP
person might see a supermarket and decide to go shopping immediately
since it is so convenient. It is too late when the HRIP person
remembers the reason for shopping last - the groceries have to be
refrigerated and this means an immediate trip home and quite possibly
no haircut that day.
HRIP people are
also self distracting. It is quite possible
that they will tend to be less decisive than others. Also,
they might change their mind more often than most. They
might have trouble getting started on a project- overwhelmed by
ideas. Attention span is shorter for this kind of
person.
The thoughts of a HRIP person
about to write a sales report might run
like this: Better write that report for the
boss. Boy he looks cranky this morning. I wonder if
we lost the James accounts? Well, better get
started.... Gotta get a new chair - this one is starting to get
shabby. Do I have enough data? Some coffee
would be nice while I write this. Whoops, almost forgot to call
Bill about tennis tonight. Better do that before he goes to
lunch, etc., etc., etc. In practical
terms it means that there is a tendency to produce ideas
rather than act on them. This points to work areas
where idea production is a primary activity.
Because
concentration is more difficult for HRIP people, they
might tend to resent interruptions more than most
people. And rightly so - it will take them
more
energy than most people have to exert to get back in the
groove. That concentration is precious.
Too many distractions and the interrupted project might simply not get
done.
The HRIP person gets used to
losing a lot of ideas. The
ideas
come and the ideas go and unless they are written down they are usually
lost. Many HRIP people will recognize the following
situation. You are in the shower and you get a great
idea. Do you get out and write it down? You'll
freeze and get the house all wet. Or do you wait until you finish
the shower, knowing full well that between now and then are eternities
of ideas and that you'll probably forget it? One person
told me he has learned to keep a grease pencil in his
shower. In non-bathing situations technology is helpful for
recording those ideas. And HRIP individuals should record
those ideas - as a first step towards implementation.
What
is an idea? Is it thought or is it
emotion? Or a combination of both? If HRIP is
or can
be manifested in emotional terms can we expect HRIP people to be
subject to more fluctuating emotions
than most people?
Quite possibly. Self distraction might be deliberately used
by a HRIP person to deal with anger or grief.
HRIP people tend to like other
HRIP people. Sometimes you
can watch a pair of HRIP people talk
themselves into a euphoric state
(endorphin related) by just playing with ideas. The
communication
of ideas is stimulating to them. One can find these kind of
people in HRIP environments such as the arts or
journalism. Organizations have different levels of
this aptitude in different departments - production is usually low
while a unit like public relations is usually high.
To a less receptive person the
HRIP individual can be perceived as
conversationally domineering or simply hard to follow - jumping around
too far, too fast. HRIP people can get carried
away
with ideas and enthusiasm for ideas, but not follow
through. They could get so
involved in a conversation or their thoughts that they might forget
other matters..
The person who builds a business
is not the best person to maintain
it. The goal of the organization builder is to set up a
self sustaining money machine - a stable structure. A
stable structure doesn't need ideas - if it is making money it needs to
be left alone except for maintenance tasks. The builder has built
herself/himself into a narrow job.
In
a start up operation HRIP is extremely
useful. All sorts of things are happening
and
ideas are needed. However, no sooner is the
structure in place than HRIP starts wanting to tinker, perhaps
dysfunctionally. One person described what sounded
like a process of building up a small business using HRIP in sales, and
overextending because of the very same characteristic.
Put a HRIP person in charge of an
established dairy and within a year
he/she is wondering what would happen if the milk were dyed
blue. Or making plans for diversification, or
new product lines or new anything.
The
tendency to use those ideas is always there whether it is
appropriate or not. The HRIP person can have
trouble
leaving well enough alone when things get boring. This kind of
person must learn when to let go.
Letting go might mean hiring a
manager and opening another branch, or
franchising. It could mean spending time mostly on the HRIP
aspects of the operation, such as promoting it or training
employees. It can mean getting serious about a HRIP
hobby, or going off and doing something else
entirely. If the business itself is HRIP, such as
advertising, the builder can get more involved with the creative end
and less involved with administration.
HRIP
is often useful in a fast paced, changing and/or developing
situation. This could be a project oriented
company;
a small, growing organization where new situations are constantly
coming up; or it could be a changing environment within a more stable
setting such as sales management. This kind of
setting needs HRIP.
The HRIP person can be very
effective in situations where a
brainstorming approach is necessary or
useful such as sales, teaching,
advertising or planning a project from scratch. It is useful in
public relations, some (not all) forms of writing, design work
and the arts. It can be a problem in artistic areas that require
repetitious practice such as classical musical performance.
Many people find it hard to live
with their HRIP. One
of the best ways is to use written tools to help stay in
focus. Make lists, set goals, write agendas - both short
and long term. An HRIP employee going into a meeting with the
boss might find it valuable to carry in a list of discussion
subjects. Without that to keep her/him on track, a HRIP
person might find the meeting over after an interesting conversation
and nothing important accomplished (I once forgot to ask for a
raise). At one speed reading school, students are
advised to build up their threshold of distractibility and practice
concentrating by reading with music playing.
Idea
production can take many forms, from the wildest fantasy to the
utmost in rationality. There are many paths to originality
and
creativity of which this is only one. Much of the content
of HRIP is trivial, reflecting our concerns with the minor mundane
things in life such as which laundry detergent to buy. The HRIP
is independent of the content and quality of the ideas. It
simply defines that there will be many ideas. Certainly
knowledge and reasoning would have a great effect on the quality of
idea production.
For
the person with too many aptitudes (TMA), HRIP makes the situation
vastly more difficult by exacerbating focus problems.
High
reasoning aptitudes tend to reinforce the effects described above.
People
Low in Idea Production rate seem to have an advantage in tasks
that require concentration. Less distractible, they
find it
easier to focus for longer periods of time. They tend to
tolerate solitude better -
apparently less of a need to
communicate. They seem to project less energy.
Less verbally quick than others, this kind of person seems to listen a
lot. Some Low Rate of Idea Production folks do amazing
artistic work, often at a level of detail impossible for someone
HRIP.
Surgeons apparently have a undeserved reputation as the dummies of the
medical world. Their work selects for the highest level of
concentration - and thus the lowest levels of idea
production. Just as smart, they tend to be less verbal.
LRIP individuals who feel a need
to generate more ideas might find it
useful to learn methods generating methods taught in various classes or
books about how to be more creative. Though many writers
have HRIP, not all do by any means. It depends on the kind of
writing.
Menu
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Self
Evaluation: Idea Production (Experimental
Prototype)
Instructions:
This works best with adults.
Skip any questions that are not applicable. If it takes you more than a
minute to
answer, consider the question not applicable. (Deep thought won’t help
- we are looking for the obvious.).
Method: Please answer with 1
for a very strong no; 2 for a strong
no; 3 for no, 4, 5 and 6 mean maybe or sometimes; 7 means mild yes, 8
for yes, 9 for a strong yes; 10 very strong yes. Put NA for those that are not
applicable.
Samples:
___ Are you a good cook?
If you burn eggs, scorch toast and
ruin steaks, write 1 in the space
before the question. If you are a gourmet chef, answer 10.
If
you've never tried, answer NA.
___ Are you a good bargainer?
If you always pay the price asked
or always get taken, answer
1. If you almost always try to get a deal and often
succeed, answer 10. If you don't buy things that have
a negotiable price, answer NA.
_____1. Do you enjoy brainstorming?
_____2. While others are talking do you often come
up with so many things to say that you forget many of them by the time
the others are done?
_____3. Do you often get so
involved in
conversation or your thoughts that you forget where you are?
_____4. Is taking notes at a
lecture or
meeting distracting because writing notes generates ideas that distract
from the speaker?
_____5. Do you get bored easily by
repetitive tasks?
_____6. Do you interrupt others?
_____7. Do you enjoy variety at
work?
_____8. Do interruptions get you
off track from what you were
doing?
_____9. Do you sometimes have to
remember to listen?
_____10.When you have to get
things done, do you
need to (or should you) make lists of things to do so you don't forget
any?
_____11. Do you enjoy playing with
ideas?
_____12. Do you prefer or need to
be alone to concentrate?
_____13. Do you start things and
not finish them?
_____14. Can you go from one room
to another and forget what you went
in there for?
_____15. Would working on an
assembly line drive you nuts
quickly?
_____16. Are you almost always
gushing with ideas?
_____17. Do you sometimes get
carried away by an idea?
_____18. Do you use self
distraction to deal with bad moods, sadness,
etc.?
_____19. Are you easily distracted?
_____20. Do you tend to go off on
conversational tangents?
_____21. Do you prefer doing a
number of work tasks to doing just one
thing all the time?
_____22. Do you have a lot of
unfinished projects?
_____23. Are you a talker?
_____24. Do you need to write down
good ideas and
thoughts you come up with, or risk losing them?
_____25. Do you almost always have
something to say?
_____26. Do you find it useful to
go into meetings
with a list of discussion items (so you won't forget anything)?
_____27. Do you sometimes do
things differently just for a change?
_____28. Do you have a lot of
ideas and need to use them?
_____29. Do you identify with most
of the
description of someone who has a high rate of idea production?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scoring:
Add the scores and divide by the
number of questions answered.
A score higher than 6.5
indicates High in the rate of idea
production.
A score lower than 3.5
indicates Low in idea production
rate.
3.5 to 6.5 indicates average, and
that it probably isn't an important vector for you..
Evaluation:
Should you trust this score?
NO WAY.
I don't trust any paperwork format to adequately describe much about a
person. This includes my best efforts. At
best, this self evaluation provides a rough rule of thumb, a
guideline.
The results are only as accurate
as the
information you
provide. If you provided accurate information, this
still does not provide data about the degree or strength of
aptitude, only about the existence or non-existence of behaviors I
associate with the aptitude..
There is absolutely no need
to jam
you into categories that you don’t
fit. You know yourself better than I ever
will. You make the call.
Ask yourself: “Does
this accurately describe part of what I am and have been?”
If the answer is yes, then you can
expect to be so for the rest of your
life.
If the answer is 'no' please send me an email. I'd be interested
in learning why it didn't accurately describe your rate of idea
production.
If you can't decide, ask others who know you well to rate you.
Though Rate of Idea
Production is an important aptitude, getting a read
on just one talent is equivalent to a doctor just taking a blood
pressure. It is useful as far as it goes, but it is not enough
for decision making. The general comments about HRIP
situations are valid, but much depends on other factors such as whether
you are high or low in Mechanical/Spatial, Flash Reasoning, etc.
Menu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Too
Many Aptitude Problem
Most
people have about four or five strong talents out of the roughly
two dozen independent aptitudes known to exist.
Most jobs require about four or five. As many
as 10% of the population has over double that number of aptitudes - and
that is a problem for them and employers.
The Johnson O'Connor Research
Foundation, the oldest aptitude testing
organization in the country, has statistical evidence that people with
too many aptitudes (TMAs) are less likely to obtain advanced education
and/or succeed in career than those with an average number of talents.
Being a TMA is a very mixed
blessing. Strong talents
are
extremely powerful internal forces. One of the most
important implications of my aptitude research is the strong
possibility that emotional intensity is directly correlated with the
intensity of a talent. Someone operating at a high
intensity level of talent (including reasoning) will also be operating
at a high intensity level of emotion. Every thought, memory
or perception is directly connected to emotion - a wholistic
phenomenon.
It is quite possible that TMAs are
continually operating in a
hypersensitive manner. People hypersensitive to
external and internal data in many forms and operating at a high
emotional intensity level might very well become overstimulated.
Ongoing
overstimulation could explain the paralysis felt by some
TMAs. They are so overwhelmed by perceptions,
memories, thoughts and feelings that they can't commit themselves to
anything. Many of them need a lot of time alone to
regenerate. Yet, this
same turbulence can also lead to
great insight and creativity.
The
existence of a powerful force implies difficulty in learning to
harness that force. Having a lot of strong talents
is a bit
like dealing with high voltage. You can do a lot of
things with high voltage. However, it can also fry
you. It takes a lot more knowledge and more safety
precautions to work with high voltage rather than low. A lot of
that voltage for TMAs is emotional. Few people know
how to handle normal emotion, let alone powerful, ongoing emotion.
Among the clearest psychological
effects of having many talents are
problems of focus.
TMAs are drawn in many different
and conflicting directions. It is like being an
engineer, a lawyer, a cook, a teacher and a musician - all at once and
all demanding their share of time and energy. Self
structuring thus becomes a major problem for TMAs. Unable to use
themselves well, they usually end up as employees - and resent
it.
TMAs often become job hoppers,
instinctively trying to satisfy their
diverse needs. Job hopping rarely leads to financial
success. It also doesn't lead to the consistent building of
knowledge, expertise and reputation that is necessary for significant
success in any area.
TMAs often don't fit in well with
organizations or
groups. They are
rarely willing to give up their
perceptual and decision making independence for the sake of group
membership. Basically, they are saying
'I will
join only on my own terms,' which is unacceptable to most groups.
Pecking orders exist in any human
activity. TMAs often
cause problems to the hierarchy. Most TMAs aren't
really
motivated (or all that impressed) by money or power.
They feel that they are anyone's equal and want to be treated as such -
a state of mind that is often seen as a direct challenge to authority
and the authority structure. Hyper-critical
and often irreverent, TMAs cannot act as if the boss
were always right. They notice the Naked Emperor and
comment, or
expend a lot of energy stifling themselves. Consistently
commenting on imperial nudity is seen by others - especially bosses -
as aggressive.
TMAs usually have high reasoning
aptitudes.
Folks like this don't like applying
pat answers to routine problems -
it doesn't use their reasoning ability. They need to
work things out by themselves, need to solve real problems.
This can be a strength or a weakness (ever wonder why some people won't
read instructions?). At work they often feel they are
operating in low gear and tend to gravitate to fringe or trouble
areas. Without problems, TMAs will often find or make some.
TMAs
are powerful people. They are competent in many
ways. They are often either domineering or overwhelming in
relationships with others - only strong people aren't threatened
or influenced by them. TMAs often develop considerable
informal power at
work or in groups. At work a strong manager is thus likely
to require more submission gestures from a TMA than from
others. That invites covert (or overt) retaliation
and TMAs often find themselves in conflict with authority.
Rarely
identifying with group norms, and sometimes challenging the
basic assumptions of the group, TMAs are often resented and feared by
peers and subordinates as much as by authority.
Clearly perceived by others as powerful, they are also viscerally seen
as dangerous and unpredictable and therefore untrustworthy.
Thus, TMAs
often don't receive the rewards and protection offered by
the group. They recognize this. Their alienation
leads directly to the idea that "the system and the rules don't
work for me, so I've got to do something else." This
can mean crime or creativity, or both. It also seems
to mean internal conflict, self esteem problems and confusion.
These problems are usually not
apparent at first glance. At
any given time the TMA appears to be functioning very well.
Often, the TMA will be brilliant in many aspects of work and
life. It is only over time
that the pattern of difficulties
begins to emerge. It often leads to destructive self
criticism or self hatred - TMAs seem to have a rather high suicide
rate.
The
worst off TMAs seem to be the ones who try to be
normal. This includes using normal definitions of
success.
TMAs often find it personally destructive to try to fit into normal
molds. They aren't
normal. Not better, not
worse. Different, and with different needs.
TMA
is not something that can be ignored or cured. It
is something that has to be worked with. For most
multi-talented people, it is likely to cause problems at one stage of
life or another. Many TMAs never learn to use themselves
well. Usually their worst problems are associated with lack of
financial or professional success. Though there are
no easy answers, there are better or worse ways to work with TMA.
Not all TMAs are
unsuccessful. TMAs
seem to
function best at frontiers - intellectual, social or
physical. These are the places where learning
and
doing are the same thing. They can
operate well at interfaces between different parts of society - liaison
and translation. They often do well as
troubleshooters, innovators or problem solvers, in research or
investigation and in product or method development. Many teach
and practice in the arts.
TMAs can be thought of as
risk takers and, in some ways, as
warriors. They seem to do quite well in
situations like the Alamo, fighting long odds
and staving off the inevitable.
Sometimes they do the impossible. But real challenge
involves real risk. Frontiers and battlefields have
something unpleasant in common: high error and casualty
rates.
TMAs are most likely to be happiest with work that provides a lot of
variety and opportunity for use of diverse talents - usually
multi-disciplinary areas. Even
then, many TMAs feel that they are
underachieving, that they could do great things. And they
are usually right. The only thing that can motivate
the TMA
to focus enough for really high achievement is a value judgment.
TMAs are usually hypercritical, a side effect of
high reasoning
aptitudes. They notice flaws and loopholes, errors and
inconsistencies. They notice that 90% of almost anything is
bullshit. They are usually good
arguers and can tear just about
anything to shreds - including themselves.
TMAs will
sometimes set goals, prove to themselves that these goals are
worthless, and then repeat the entire cycle. Each decision
can be challenged, each goal can be laughed at - and thus nothing is
worth doing. This destroys personal motivation and
energy.
Money, power and self
aggrandizement don't really motivate TMAs.
Only finding something worth doing -
by their own high standards - can
motivate TMAs to focus enough for sustained very high
achievement. Then and only then can the powerful forces of
the diverse aptitudes be channeled.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trait
list: Too Many Aptitudes
Being gifted or multi-talented is
a very mixed blessing. Many people
like this are caught in the maelstrom of their own strengths and never
achieve anything close to career success and satisfaction.
Below are some of the traits connected to being
multi-talented. All of these traits seem to be different
manifestations of the same phenomenon and, though there are no easy
answers, there are better or worse ways to work with it.
1---You've worked in many
different positions and ways.
2---Once you know how to do a job
you are soon bored with it.
3---Rate buster - sometimes
overproducing just from sheer boredom.
4---Perpetual identity questions
(you might wonder if you are a
Martian).
5---Lack of firm career choice,
especially by age 30.
6---Lack of advanced education,
due to unwillingness to specialize.
7---Problems of focus and self
discipline.
8---Good arguer- at times you win
arguments you know you shouldn't.
9---Threatening to bosses
(sometimes scornful of them).
10---High test scores, but mostly
mediocre grades and achievements.
11---Quickly achieve informal
power in groups.
12---Good grades, often with
little study, and mediocre achievements.
13---Prefer figuring things out
yourself to taking orders.
14---Don't particularly fear the
unknown - less xenophobic than most.
15---Confident about handling
almost anything - except maybe yourself.
16---Sometimes described as too
smart for your own good.
17---Show a strong sense of irony.
18---Easily bored in most normal
jobs and routine tasks.
19---Critical - you think 90% of
everything is BS.
20---Enjoy problems and trouble -
without them will often find some.
21---Described as a dilettante,
underachiever or jack of all trades.
22---Not willing to give up
perceptual and decision making autonomy for
the sake of group membership.
23---Quick learner, with
intermittent flashes of brilliance.
24---Ornery - love to prove you
can spit into the wind and not get wet.
25---At work, you gravitate to
fringe and unsolved problem areas.
26---Inherently creative but will
sometimes reinvent the wheel.
27---Strong emotions/ high
intensity.
28---Want to be perceived and
treated as an exception in groups.
29---Have a broad span of
interests.
30---Tend to react to the
environment rather than act upon it.
31---Think art is important
32---Not greatly motivated by
money or power.
33---Spiritual but not formally
religious.
34---Tend to be destabilizing to
pecking orders, at times by not
playing the game.
35---Often show a life pattern of
just getting by.
36---Do not especially fear death
37---Not so much domineering as
overwhelming to others in personal
relationships.
38---Find pomposity and pretension
irritating.
39---Occasionally broke and job
hunting
40---Trying to be normal doesn’t
work.
This list is not to be taken too
seriously. I've seen somewhat
similar lists associated with traits of children of alcoholic parents
and folks with attention deficit disorder (alienation?).
However
this is useful as a rough indicator of whether you might be a
TMA. If you are, you can expect to be one for the rest of your
life, with all that implies. And, since aptitudes seem to be
genetically determined, it might very well be a set of traits your
children have or will have.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The
US
Constitution: A TMA Influence?
As a student of history, it was clear to me that many of the
people who shaped early America were TMAS. People like
Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson are among the most well
known. It seemed obvious why. Frontiers
draw pioneer types.
However,
it was a bit of a shock
to notice what seemed to be TMA fears
of the individual being dominated by the group reflected in the US
Constitution. Then I thought about who the writers of the
Constitution were. Folks like Jefferson and Franklin.
Menu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Being
Right About Being Wrong
Being
wrong is worse than being bad. Being
bad is often a conscious decision. No
one
ever
makes a conscious choice to be wrong unless it is a deliberate - and
correct –
tactic in achieving a more important goal.
Many
people show a dysfunctional response to being wrong. The message
that so many
people
seem to have internalized as children is "being wrong makes me less
worthwhile."
To
err is confused at gut level with "being" wrong or bad. A
false connection is made
between
being wrong, doing wrong, being bad and doing bad.
Among
the consequences of this attitude are denial of error, burying or
hiding
mistakes,
blaming
and rationalization. Some people spend
a lot of time turning small errors into
big
ones because they can't accept being wrong.
Fear of failure is also connected to fear
of
being wrong.
Being
wrong is especially difficult to deal with when it is pointed out by
others. The
person
- adult or child - who is wrong loses group power and status, aside
from the
direct
negative
results of error. The direct
consequences are usually lost time, effort or money.
Pointing
out error in others is a common power game.
Many people react as if they are
being
personally attacked if an error is pointed out to them - and often they
are
right. They
feel the need to act defensively. But
this can cause them to defend the error, rather
than
protect themselves. It's an important
distinction.
Defending
or denying 'wrong' requires ignoring 'right.'
And while this is going on, no
progress
is being made in dealing with reality.
Being
wrong is inevitable. It is easy to
operate well and efficiently with a lot of
knowledge. You can predict the problems and needs,
know the right questions, have a
map
of the territory and can bring the right tools. It is
entirely different going out
beyond
that, where what will happen and be needed next is
unclear.
Any
exploration of a new area involves making lots of errors and
mistakes.
Whether
exploring
in territories ( physical, social, or mental) that are new to you
personally or
going
"where no man has gone before", as the number of unknowns rises the
greater
chance
of error. Life itself is an exploration
and requires us to come up with our own
particular
answers to the changes and problems in our lives. Often we make
mistakes.
Even
if someone is 99% correct in all aspects of life, he or she can still
be
expected to
make
a multitude of mistakes and errors, both large and small. The
number of decisions
we
make in a lifetime (or a day, for that
matter) is incredibly large. Many of
these
decisions
are based upon little thought, study or preparation. We are
forced to make predictions in areas with lots of unknown
factors - estimates of what other drivers will do, what school is best
for a
child, or whether to buy property at today's prices.
Decision-making
usually leads to some form of action.
Action requires decisions on
another
level. Even if someone makes the
correct strategic decisions, there are an infinite
number
of ways to do something wrong, and only a finite number of ways to do
it right.
The odds are against us.
Being
wrong is not an end. It is part of a
bigger picture. If recognized and
worked with
appropriately,
being wrong is a step towards being right.
Given that error is inevitable,
what
is the appropriate way to handle it?
I'm not talking about error prevention - I'm
talking
about error commission. Well, the
first thing is you gotta do is evaluate error
realistically.
Why
is this especially important for TMAs?
Because TMAs feel wrong a lot.
Part
of the reason is that they don't meet expectations of
others.
They are dancing to
different
drummers. Lack of conventional
achievement (AKA "If you're so smart, why
ain't
you rich?" and "You're not living up to your potential." etc.)
turns out to be an
ongoing
source of self esteem problems for many TMAs.
They haven't done it right.
Partly,
TMAs feel wrong because of a high error rate.
This is associated with operating
in
areas where they don't know what they are doing - the frontiers
of their knowledge
and
understanding and at personal edges.
A
frontier is anywhere you don't really know the answers. You
often don't even know
the
right questions. It is anything you
don't know how to do or where you can't (or
won't)
look it up in a book or on the
internet. A frontier is somewhere you
- often
empirically
- figure things out and make decisions about how to
proceed.
TMAs,
more than most folks, need to figure things out. They
are pioneers, innovators,
experimenters
and explorers. They enjoy taking a
shot at it - partly because they get endorphin rushes from figuring
things out
and also have a visceral confidence in their
ability
to cope.
TMAs
prefer learning by doing, rather than by following
instructions.
This is not learning in an academic
sense. It is often task oriented
problem solving, experimentation and innovation -
developing knowledge that
allows effective real life action. It
means using sensory input, assessing information in many forms and ways
simultaneously,
developing understanding and the capability of doing something with it.
Empirical
learners understand that error comes in many degree. On
frontiers, things are
not
as simple as right and wrong.
Learning what doesn't work aids in figuring out what does.
Eliminating non-viable options is an
important part of empiricism. The relevant
questions are likely to take the form "What are the lowest risk (best)
ways to proceed?"
The
meaning and value of error is important on frontiers. There
is a world of difference
between
grand folly, taking a calculated risk that turns out wrong and making a
minor
mistake
with insignificant consequences. There
are errors of commission and errors of
omission. A negligent error is different from an
mistaken judgment call. As known
risks
increase, a lot of empiricism is deliberately structured to err on the
side of
safety.
One
side effect of this trial and error learning style in TMAs is a strong
awareness of
their
lack of knowledge and resulting error rate.
They often perceive themselves as
faking
their way through, rather than solving problems under difficult
conditions. They
focus
on the errors, not the successes.
Being
wrong is not an end. It is part of a
bigger picture. If recognized and
worked with appropriately, being wrong is a step
towards being
right.
Menu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Conclusion
to Danger: High Voltage. Written in
1988.
When
I first began studying TMAs I had a strong impression of people looking
for
something. It was an impression that
persisted as I learned more and more.
I think that many TMAs are searching for someone to use them
well. I can empathize with that.
For
many years I knew that I was looking for something or someone to help
me use
the ability I knew I had. Unable to
use myself, I was looking for someone to use me.
It was much later that I realized that I couldn't let that
happen. I am not a tool and
ultimately
cannot let myself be used. If
no one
else can use me, then I have to learn to use myself.
No one else can take this responsibility - nor should they.
I
think TMAs are natural builders and explorers - more so than other
people. They
build and explore for two simple reasons: it
feels good if they do and bad if they don't.
They are explorers and builders of ideas,
art, perspectives, organizations, or machines.
They are creative, whether they want to be or not.
I
think a TMA is best off in areas where there are no answers, the places
where
doing and learning are the same thing.
These are the places where chaos and confusion exist, the
frontiers of
organized reality. Start with
nothing
and build a something. If you can't
buy other peoples answers - fine. Go
to places where there are no answers and build some.
Don't waste your time in conflict with yourself or with
established systems. Proving 90% of
everything is bullshit is fruitless - it’s been done many times.
There
really are choices that can make you feel good.
You can live a life of stimulation and challenge or you can stew
in your own powerful juices. It is
an
infinite universe and there is no lack of opportunity.
The physical and mental frontiers are
further out than they used to be, but still exist.
Out there where there are no answers and it's sink or swim, you
can't slick the system or just slide by.
It won't work.
Ask
good questions - your own methods of problem solving and standards of
excellence should provide you with paths and directions.
Out of nothing, you have the ability to
build something. It takes aptitudes
and determination and knowledge and courage and common sense and a
little luck. But mostly it takes the
gut level knowing
that you can. You don't need
permission
or a job description to think, to build and to create.
If
you don't commit yourself to something, you have
committed yourself to nothing. There's
a Renaissance going on. Why don't
you
get out there and grab a piece of it?
Menu
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Am
I In the Wrong Career?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A
warning. Dilbert accurately depicts a very real part of the
work scene. A horrible boss or a company going bankrupt can make
any job a pain. Non aptitude factors also play a big part
in job performance & satisfaction - knowledge, working conditions,
etc. etc..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If
your guts cramp up on the way to work, it doesn't matter how well
you are paid - that job probably won't work out for you.
If
going to work feels deforming, if you spend your time doing something
other than your job, there is something very wrong.
Having
the wrong aptitudes doesn't mean you can't do something and
success in a given job doesn't mean you have the right
aptitudes. I've worked on my car even though I
don't
have the mechanical aptitude. It once took me a week to
correctly diagnose a simple problem, and it took several errors and
some skinned knuckles replacing a part before I achieved my
success. I felt frustrated and dumb and inefficient
and I cussed a lot. But I did the job.
It
is entirely possible to achieve apparent success by working harder
and longer, by learning more, or by using other (known or unknown)
talents to cover for areas of low or inappropriate high
aptitude. Hard work will always get you somewhere,
especially if it is sustained.
If
you've done well, had a reasonably good time, and feel comfortable
doing it - you probably have the aptitudes (and other factors)
necessary for your career. If you have achieved success and
feel it cost you far too much, then you may very well have the wrong
aptitudes for your work. Do you feel successful? Was
your
success based on mostly grim determination? Was it blood,
toil, tears and sweat?
If you have failed over and over
again - maybe you don't have the
aptitude for the job, whatever your educational level is.
Do you have to find something totally
different? Not necessarily.
Training and experience are very valuable in themselves.
Sometimes people have significant time invested in a field and might
have professional and academic credentials. Usually people
need to make a trade off between practical considerations and aptitude
optimums. Often an immediate career change isn't possible due to
a need for training or preparation.
Even
if you can't fix the problem, you can work to make things
somewhat better. Sometimes it is possible to change
a job
description, get extra training or take other measures that will reduce
stress without sacrificing the results of years of effort.
A low aptitude electronics
engineer who got through engineering school
on hard work and long hours can choose to become a technical writer or
go into engineering management. Or he/she can decide to
throw several years of education away and become a
chef. It depends on the individual to apply aptitude
knowledge as he or she sees fit.
How about if you are mediocre at work? Many
people work in
jobs that aren't great fits but aren't great misfits either. They
have some of the aptitudes for their job, but not all. Again,
once the relevant strengths and weaknesses are defined, steps can be
taken to make the job fit better or to start preparing for a better
fitting job.
The aptitude concept offers a way
to better understand and work with
your own (and others') uniqueness. In my experience, the most
important single element in happiness is being allowed to be who you
are and having it work for you. When your work is a
legitimate part of your life and not an unwanted intruder, when it
affirms your being and doesn't diminish or restrict it, is when you
have some important elements in both success and happiness.
You have no choice about dealing
with your aptitudes (and those of
others), whether you recognize them as such or not. They
are operating all the time, within you and all around you.
For good or ill, consciously or not, everyone has to live and deal with
these powerful forces.
Menu
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Signs Of People In The Wrong Job
Many people are in somewhat
imperfect jobs for their
aptitudes. Others are, for one reason or another, in jobs
that are terrible for them. These are some of the signs of
people who should be doing something else. That
something else is not necessarily a demotion or a career
change. It can mean that, but sometimes it might mean a
small shift in work emphasis or a promotion into management.
Performance:
Distractible from main
tasks (ie: tinkering with
office machines when they break down, instead of doing job).
Low average or low
performance.
Occasionally brilliant but
erratic performance.
Attracted most to problem
and trouble areas within the job.
High error rate.
Eager to do other tasks.
Works harder or longer than
others to get equal results.
Often makes suggestions or
asks questions that cover areas beyond
job scope.
Makes comments about work or
the organization that go far beyond
job scope.
High rate of injuries,
accidents.
Overproduces to the point of
causing problems for others.
Interaction
with peers:
A lot of personality
conflicts with peers.
Achieves and exercises
informal power and opinion leadership.
Does or criticizes other
peoples jobs.
Steps into others space.
Miscommunicates too much.
Overly demanding of others.
Underdemanding of others.
Interaction
with supervision:
Personality conflicts with
boss.
Fear or avoidance of boss or
bosses.
Uses the rules and
regulations to get out of or away with things.
Burns boss out with
unsolicited suggestions and solutions.
Miscommunicates too much.
Overly demanding of time and
attention.
Interaction
with subordinates and/or customers:
Too many personality
conflicts with subordinates or customers.
Unable to delegate
adequately.
Interferes with
subordinates. Miscommunicates too much.
Overly demanding.
Underdemanding.
Attendance:
Disappears for long periods
while at work.
High rate of absenteeism,
especially one day illnesses.
Lots of Monday or Friday
absences, duration one day.
Long term illnesses,
especially stress related.
Other
Signs:
Clock watcher.
Overly ambitious.
Attitude problems, uncaring,
anxious, depressed, hostile,
irritable.
Won't give anything extra to
the job.
Has to be policed to ensure
tolerable work.
Drug abuser, alcoholic,
overeater (especially at work).
Doesn't fit.
Menu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Aptitudes
and Mental Illness.
For a while, I worked part time at
a residence for severely emotionally
disturbed adolescents. One day a young adolescent girl was
waiting to be picked for a Christmas visit to her home, a nasty
environment. But it was home.
As she waited, I could see her
anxiety level rising. She
was stressing out. I didn’t know her well, but had noticed she
had very nice handwriting - often a sign of High Small Tool
Dexterity. I took a (small) chance and suggested she sit
down and sketch something. She agreed and got lost in the
task until her ride arrived. Her mood seemed good when she
left.
Comments: Other distractions might
have worked, too. But
was this simple distraction, or was endorphin production
involved? Did she agree to sketch because she knew - at gut level
- it made her feel good?
Aptitudes exist during acute
mental illness. One day I found
myself in conversation with a Chronic Acute Schizophrenic, Paranoid
type. He was also a very talented actor (wow, could he work
a crowd.) He also showed many signs of High
Systems Reasoning. He was having a bad day.
Among other things, it showed up in disjointed
conversation. He also showed ongoing distorted facial
expressions and other psychotropic medication side effects.
I was able to engage him in a
conversation that hooked into his
reasoning and experience. We talked about whether voice
projection in acting is similar to the command voice taught to military
officers. As he thought things out and we talked about it,
he was fully there and appropriate. The side effect
symptoms also vanished. When the conversation ended, he lapsed
into the previous behaviors.
What happened while we were
talking? He was OK for a few minutes.
Endorphins?
Menu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Aptitudes and
Organizations
In
any organization you will find the human equivalent of a hammer
being paid to act like a laser printer. Ultimately, this
costs everyone too much to be tolerated.
It isn't your
fault that some of your employees chose the wrong
careers, applied for the
wrong jobs or accepted the wrong
promotion. It isn't
your fault that someone who looked good
turned out to be a bad bet. However, you still
have to deal
with the consequences. The cost of bad hires or promotions
isn't just money - the lost time cannot be replaced.
Of course, the really poor fits select out quickly - they
quit or
get fired. What is left is a spectrum of people who run
from the
barely tolerable to the very productive. It is those
merely tolerable employees who greatly reduce productivity.
Better
selection methods based on aptitude knowledge can reduce poor fits and
barely tolerable hires. Hiring is still going to be a
judgment call, but you've shaded the odds in your favor.
The aptitude concept is very
versatile. It can be adapted to your
goals. For example, termination isn't the only option for bad
aptitude fits. Transfer or job
redesign can turn a personnel
problem into a asset, or keep a crucial employee from
quitting.
You might even find productive use for the president's nephew.
And what a job you can do with job
design. By
understanding the aptitudes needed for a particular task, you can
better select for what you need. Job descriptions can
become more
realistic and employers more aware of the compromises involved in
hiring anyone ( no one is a perfect hire.)
There are some very sophisticated
ways to use aptitude ideas. For
example, by better defining his areas
of weakness, an executive could
develop staff to cover them. These ideas apply to office
politics. An executive could gain significant insight into the
weaknesses of rivals. One
CEO handled an opponent by taking advantage of a weakness
associated with a specific high aptitude.
The aptitude model can be applied
to low desirability tasks,
too. A task might be distasteful, but it will be less so to
some people than others - whether it is filling out forms or firing
someone. Better to give the job to the person whose aptitudes
make it least unpleasant.
The
aptitude concept can be applied incrementally in very low cost and
low risk ways to enhance the effectiveness of present human resources
methods. For example, 10% of your employees have
correctable
visual problems that lower their productivity and raise their stress
level. Just working on improving the visual effectiveness of
computer users will provide solid gains.
Another concrete area of interest
to managers is getting the most out
of multi-talented people. Any experienced manager
has seen
the organizational problems caused by people too smart for their own
good. They can be very productive. They can
also cause far more trouble than their productivity is worth.
There are better and worse ways to work with them.
Taken a bit further, the aptitude
concept shows a whole new way of
thinking about work and how to organize it. We can make a
virtue out of individualism. It is absolutely clear
that
some people do with pleasure what others do with
difficulty. Tapping that
energy offers a tremendous
potential for increased productivity.
For most organizations, it is
unrealistic to search for the optimum
employee. It is more realistic
to use the concept of
aptitudes to incrementally increase productivity by better using the
strengths and weaknesses of existing staff while upgrading selection
methods to reduce the percentage of bad or mediocre hires.
It's hard to estimate just
how much can be gained from using the
aptitude concept in organizational settings. My most pessimistic
estimates are 5 to 10% productivity improvement. A mere 5%
increase in productivity - an easy goal - saves as much money as you
pay out for staff vacations. What does that do to your
bottom line?
Menu
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Aptitudes,
Stress, Fatigue and Error.
I very quickly noticed all people
being aptitude tested were taken beyond their immediate
capabilities. High
aptitude people projected command of the
situation, even when taken beyond their limits - they did not seem
stressed. Challenged, perhaps, and interested,
but
not stressed. Low
aptitude people often projected
high anxiety and stress on specific tests or puzzles - and sometimes
showed something that looked close to panic.
With both high and low aptitude people, beyond a certain point, fatigue
would set in, and both speed and accuracy would
suffer. That fatigue
point (on a specific task) came a lot quicker for low aptitude
people than
high. The connection between low aptitude, stress
and
effectiveness means the career implications are not just error rates
but stress related illness. (There are many forms of
stress. There is the performance stress of pushing yourself along
aptitude lines - with endorphin production - as opposed to the stress
of feeling clueless and swimming upstream through a river of sludge.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Aptitudes
of the Great Programmer
By
evaluating a job in terms of what aptitudes are needed to function
well there, it is possible to get a pretty good idea of what to look
for in an optimum employee. Lets take a look at what
I'd
expect to find in a great programmer.
This not just a person who can
program. I'm talking about a
person who wants to program, someone who would do it for free if she/or
he weren't paid to do so.
The only way a great programmer
can show that greatness is through
consistent, superior performance.
Performance is much more complex
than just aptitude. The optimum
programmer needs appropriate knowledge and clear instructions,
reasonable equipment and working conditions. It helps if
there are no ongoing, distracting life crises going on, he or she
likes the boss, is paid reasonably well, etc. Let's assume that
non-aptitude factors are all positive. What aptitudes would
we expect to see?
High
Systems Reasoning/Processing is very useful in efficiently
creating an integrated step by step process. It creates a
wholistic systems perspective, and allows someone to see the big
picture while looking at how the details fit together. It
is also useful in editing, planning, just in time
management, tool and die work, and logistics.
The programmers task demands
High Near Point Visual
Efficiency. The single most important factor in
programming
productivity is the visual effectiveness of that person.
Programmers have to spent hours looking at and working with letters,
symbols and numbers on a screen. This is equivalent to very
detailed paperwork. Minor paperwork errors are thoroughly
punished - the program doesn't work. The ability to not
omit that vital comma - or to find the error reasonably quickly - is an
important productivity factor. The high aptitude also doesn't
tire as quickly.
A computer programmer has to
operate pretty much alone and be content
with it. Low Semantic
Equivalence can be an important
advantage. Most of the actual work involves him or her sitting
alone and working on a computer.
High Semantic Equivalence folks -
roughly three out of four people -
need group interaction. This need to spend time with others
distracts from time spent at the computer. (A High
Semantic Equivalence person who has programming aptitudes would
probably make a better and happier systems analyst or project manager
than an optimum programmer would.)
A programmer will use High Numerical Reasoning.
This rough
feel for numerical relationships and ability to make good spitball
estimates is apparently a help in preventing and spotting error.
Visual
Word Memory and Visual Number
Memory are both useful aptitudes
to have. The Number Memory is for obvious reasons, and the Word
Memory for all the jargon. However, direct functional
reasons are not the only ones for these aptitudes being
appropriate. The mild but positive impact on motivation of
using these high aptitudes is also a plus factor.
Mundane or not, High Finger Dexterity is a real
advantage for someone
who has to use fingers for inputting data and manipulating a
mouse.
Lots of ideas are
distracting. Low or mid-range
rate of Idea
Production is most appropriate for the optimum
programmer.
A high rate of Idea Production actually detracts from many kinds of
detailed clerical type tasks, even if the Near Point Visual aptitude is
high. (This is an example of how aptitudes can conflict
within the same person.) High rate of idea production can be cost
effective in programming R&D, perhaps in systems analysis, but
mid-range or low idea production rate has an advantage in handling
detailed programming tasks.
Now we get to some
nuances. The specific type of
programming makes a difference. Almost any aptitude can be
useful depending on the nature of the programming project.
Mid-range Mechanical/Spatial seems to be generally useful for
programmers, but higher aptitude is necessary in some
applications. If someone is programming a tool to cut in three
dimensions or designing a car part, High Mechanical/Spatial is
needed. If the output or input is audible, Tonal
Memory/Sensitivity might be a help.
It is quite probable that another
type of reasoning, Logical Reasoning,
is helpful to programmers. It shows up as a knack for
thinking in syllogisms. It is useful in formal logic and
algebra. Very little is known about the behavioral signs
associated with this reasoning, and it is even possible that it is
learned rather than a knack (though I doubt it).
Now assume that
you have a great programmer working for you. This one
consistently stands out from the crowd. Does she/he have
all the right aptitudes? Not necessarily. In real
life it means that this person probably has most of the aptitudes for
operating there. This also means that any aptitude
lacks are not severe enough to be limiting factors - or they have been
compensated for well.
Menu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Aptitudes and
Juror Selection - A Competitive Edge
Looking for a chance of a hung
jury? Wouldn't it make sense
to select jurors who are less influenced than most by group
pressure? Or how about trying to select for folks likely to butt
heads within the jury? Or both?
Do you want the jury to understand
the issues, or prefer them to be
spacing out during technical testimony? If your side wants
understanding, go for high reasoning aptitudes. If spacing out
seems best, go for distractability.
Seems pretty obvious.
Yet how can you learn these things
about a prospective juror? Aptitudes have observable
associated behaviors and reasonable inferences can be made from that
knowledge.
How accurate is this
approach? That is unclear and
unquantifiable - but it is definitely a competitive edge.
Sometimes you need every edge you can
find.
If the case is important enough to
warrant going all out, it requires
hiring aptitude expertise. There is a lot to know - two dozen known but
poorly understood aptitudes, each with different associated
behaviors. Even the well known mechanical aptitude is not
well understood. There are details and nuances not just in
terms of the individual talents, but in aptitude
combinations.
It all depends on what you want
and need - context is
everything. Just like hiring someone, the first
step in jury selection is figuring out what you
require. This is based on an analysis of the
strengths and weaknesses of the case itself, the goals involved and the
strategy and tactics that will be used for achieving those
goals.
That is the (chief) attorney's
decision. Then, he or she must decide what kind of jurors will
advance those
purposes. If mock juries are used to test arguments, the
additional demographic framework provided by aptitudes will make it
easier to understand the results and use them to develop a model of
desirable and undesirable jurors.
Once you have a rough model of
what you want, it becomes a matter of
getting the best available data on each prospective juror.
Questionnaires are often used on the first cut, and analysis of answers
to well designed questions can provide useful data on several
levels. The result (like scanning resumes) is most
likely to be quick elimination of many unsuitable prospects, leaving
the rest as possibles. Knowing what you are looking for
makes screening a lot more efficient.
In the courtroom, observation of
prospective jurors can reveal crucial
traits, like level of Idea Production. It is a matter of
noticing what traits and behaviors exist, quickly drawing inferences
and comparing what you see to what you want. An in depth
understanding of aptitudes can help frame the questions that will
clarify key grey areas. Under these conditions, with
obviously incomplete data,
better judgment calls is the best one can hope for.
Juror selection is an entirely new
way to use the concept of
aptitudes. It is based on knowledge developed for career oriented
aptitude testing and the recognition that test performance and job
performance are simply specific kinds of observable
behaviors. You don't always need a test to determine
aptitude or its lack.
This is insight
- and the ability to use it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On the Nature
of Knowing.
There’s head level knowing and gut
level knowing. Head
level knowing comes from education and training.
Gut level knowing comes from both
inherited factors and environmental
influences.
Why is this important? Gut
level knowing is what drives us to
work when we aren’t really paying attention, or tells us that it’s time
to quit It is the basis of the default behaviors that
operate when we aren’t paying conscious attention to directing
them. These non-conscious behaviors have a major
impact on our lives.
Because how many people are paying
attention to all of their
functioning all of the time? An impossible task.
I got interested in the nature of
knowing as an aptitude tester.
Watching thousands of people deal with the same 3-D puzzle made it
clear that mechanical people had a knowing that non-mechanical people
didn’t. Their approach to the problem not only looked
different to me, it felt different. It wasn’t trained - it
was gut level. It seemed to be genetic in origin.
And I began to think about what it
meant to know something at gut
level, and wondered just how far to trust it.
In the process I stumbled on
something interesting. I
noticed that at gut level, I “knew” that heavy things fall faster than
light things. And that is false.
So I started asking
questions. I was especially interested
in highly mechanical people, the natural engineers and mechanics of
this world. I asked not for the head level answer, but for the
gut level answer. And they all said that at gut level,
heavy things fall faster than light things.
Now the reason this concerns me is
that gut level doesn’t just drive us
to work, and at work. In many ways it drives our lives and
especially our social relationships.
And it isn’t just unlearned
abilities and basic patterns.
It is childhood conditioning and trauma at any age. It is social
assumptions acquired through osmosis from the media (the way Doris Day
and Rock Hudson taught a generation what love really meant.)
These things shape our
expectations and desires, our ways of expressing
ourselves, and it is the gut level that tells us when we’ve been
attacked, who to hate, what our boundaries are, how to be happy and
what morality means.
And if the gut can level can
believe that heavy things fall faster than
light things, what other obviously false things is it telling us?
And am I talking about the gut
now? Or do I really mean the
heart?
Galileo dropped cannon balls off
the Leaning Tower of Pisa and proved
forever that what we 'know' can be false.
Perhaps we should drop more cannon
balls off the buildings in our
hearts.
Oh, my. This was going
to
be an article of the head.
Look at what it turned into. Thank you, heart.
Menu
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comments
on Reasoning and IQ:
Reasoning is a funny
thing. It's tough to pin
down. Most people think they do it, but no one has ever
been able to define reasoning or even accurately describe
it. Some people think that reasoning is one general
ability. Others think that it is actually a number of
different and independent systems. Somehow it seems
connected to intelligence, another poorly defined
concept. No two
texts or independent sources
agree.
Modern psychology is starting to
recognize that there are many
different forms of intelligence. Gardner's Frames of
Mind is a discussion of that very subject, though he seems to be
unaware of aptitudes as described here. The reasonings
described here seem to
be independent of each other and can exist in any combination of high
and low within any given individual.
Like
other aptitudes, reasonings are not consciously controlled tools
to be turned on and off at will. In fact, I have at times
stated
reasoning is a mindless reflex.
You get information and
pattern it without any real desire or will to do so - it just
happens. The output of the reasoning process varies
depending on a lot of other factors – other information, mood, needs,
etc.
A force unto themselves, the
reasonings can be consciously
directed. They are hard to control. Idle
minds breed mischief was written about high reasoning
people.
It is very important to put high
reasoning abilities in
perspective. High reasoning does not make a person
better. Some of the most unpleasant people I have
ever met showed high reasoning ability. High reasoning
aptitudes are not needed for success and satisfaction. In fact,
they seem to complicate life. Common sense is more
useful. (There is no statistical basis for this assertion.
Just experience.)
Most kinds of
functioning and problem solving do not require high
reasoning levels.
There is no high reasoning way to use a fork. Reading the
instructions can teach someone how to use a VCR.
High reasoning isn’t needed if one
operates within an established and
well documented body of knowledge. The trained civil
engineer doesn't need high reasoning ability to pave a 20 mile stretch
of road even if he/she comes up against an unexpected
problem. Not only does she/he have direct access to
knowledge through training but also indirect access to a lot more
information. Many engineering problems have
been solved hundreds of times and the information is available at any
engineering library.
Some psychologists believe we
think in terms of one, two, three and
many. The ability to process a
few extra factors is meaningful
only in a narrow frame of reference. This
difference
between the high and low reasoner is tiny when compared to the
difference between a person and a tree. Yet this tiny difference
has an enormous impact on behavior.
Most people think
reasoning is good.
Perhaps - but only in some limited ways. Most of what
people call reasoning could also be described as information
processing. This ability
to quickly process data doesn't
mean that a person with high reasoning aptitudes will always be
right. This kind of person is often wrong - maybe for
more complex reasons - but still wrong.
Error
rates for people high in reasoning ability don't seem to be
significantly lower than for others. Perhaps this is because able
reasoners persist in operating in areas where they don't know what they
are talking about (or where there are no answers).
Error is especially likely if this person is misinformed or uninformed
- just like a computer, 'garbage in and garbage out.’
Sometimes high reasonings people are
capable of grand folly and
stupidities. Some, in my opinion, don't have their
head on straight.
I've been told that one major
insurance company doesn't want to hire
anyone with an IQ over 100 (average). Same thing with
many police departments. Apparently, people above that level can
make
things too complicated for themselves and for others, or cause too much
trouble.
High reasoning aptitudes are as
much a burden as a gift.
They are ruthless to the people who have them and the people around
them. Both internally and externally, the reasonings
are critical. Hyperawareness of what is wrong – internally and
externally – has some severe internal and social consequences.
At times, I’ve referred to the reasonings as the aptitudes without
mercy. Hitler and Machiavelli show high reasoning
aptitudes. They were problem solvers. An
awareness of right and wrong, and any concern for them, comes from
somewhere else.
Einstein made the comment that intelligence is good enough to show us
how inadequate it is in coping with life. I agree.
Again, it is necessary to point
out that pure reasoning probably
doesn't exist. There is an integral connection with memory,
perception, sensation and emotion.
There is also absolutely no doubt
that there is more to
reasoning/processing than the different types I mention and know of..
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
General
Intelligence..IQ
When
questioning experts as to why they believe in g (general
intelligence, measured in IQ tests), the answer often seems to come
down to factor analysis of performance on intelligence
tests. They seem to show an underlying common
factor. OK - g describes something. What? Is it
worth describing?
One
way to evaluate descriptive systems is to look at their
utility. How well can you use that system to achieve your
purposes? How cost effective is it? Utility has a lot to do
with predictability. What
predictions can you make as a result of
knowing someone is very high IQ? Not very much.
What happens if you do the same
thing in physical terms?
If
you took the results of numerous tests of human physical performance,
crunched the numbers thoroughly, and applied factor analysis, would you
be able to deduce the existence of a general factor underlying physical
performance? Probably (If you number crunchers think I'm
wrong,
write in). Call this factor h - for health.
Would you be able to do much with
describing h as a single
number? About as much as you can from knowing someone some is
high in g or IQ.
It seems to me that if medical
research had focused on the nature of h,
medicine would not be as far along as it is. Instead of focusing
on h, medicine has found great utility in
looking at components of h -
things that vary from blood pressure to nutrition.
Limited predictions that are
useful in concrete decision making can be
based on data indicating high blood pressure or good nutrition.
However, a basic medical exam covers a lot more than just two
factors. With the data from a large number of measurements of
components of h, a doctor can then predict whether this person can play
professional football successfully or whether this person will have a
stroke without blood pressure meds. Appropriate action can then
be taken. This is a whole different level of understanding than
that provided by studying h.
There
is no reason to believe that mental functioning is any less
complex than physical functioning. In fact, there is plenty of
evidence to the contrary. The traits that show up in
mental
ability testing are the result of complex interactions within the mind
body system. You can have no
manifestation of g without
utilizing
separate but interactings systems of abilities - perception,
processing, memory and the systems involved in
communication.
Consider the problems involved in
testing Helen Keller.
It is hard to pin down invisible
intangibilities. No wonder
the mind sciences haven't gotten very far - equivalent to alchemy at
best. However, they are getting better. I expect that the IQ
concept will ultimately be discarded, replaced by far more
sophisticated and useful models - a whole different level of
understanding. Some of these models already exist in
protoforms. Aptitudes is one of the better ones, though
still quite incomplete and imperfect.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
.
Aptitude:
theoretical construct or a reality?
I’m not sure. The
answer to that varies with the aptitude - of the roughly two dozen I'd
say construct about some and reality about others.
Is an ‘inch’ a theoretical
construct or a reality?
Is Flash Reasoning a theoretical
construct or a reality?
Ultimately, I don’t care, as long
as the aptitude model works
reasonably well. That means it must provide useful predictive
information for most people most of the time. This
information must be directly applicable to and useful in certain kinds
of
long term decision making.
Whether Flash Reasoning is a
theoretical construct or not is
irrelevant to understanding that it is a useful trait in a
troubleshooter and not very useful in sales..
All that is needed is
predictability. One side effect
of my study of aptitudes has been a greater understanding of the
connection between decision making and predictability.
In applying this knowledge,
predictability can be extended to non
-aptitude factors. Someone with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
can predict the unreliability of his energy - and thus might decide
that free lance writing is better than a part time job.
Almost any stable trait can be
utilized - if you know you can trust
it. I advise people to use their self knowledge to look beyond
the known aptitudes to seek evidence of other abilities - stable over
time -within themselves.
I am always alert for exceptions.
Menu
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Basis of this knowledge
Over a seventy year period the
Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation
(JOCRF) has defined about twenty two different and independent
aptitudes and has done considerable research on what kind of aptitude
patterns (combinations) worked best in various fields. They have
extensively tested over half a million people. They use the data
generated in a test battery to give career oriented recommendations.
I'm a former JOCRF aptitude tester
who got interested in what was being
tested, rather than simple statistical correlations. JOCRF was
always a small organization, and examining the meaning of invisible
intangibilities would only take time away from the more practical
aspects of testing and research. As a trained observer of
behavior (psychiatric social work), with practical medical and
psychological knowledge, training and supervisory experience and major
knowledge of history, I found far more
meaning in the aptitude concept than JOCRF ever dreamed existed.
Eventually I left to follow up on my vision.
I've done a lot of work in this
area, expanding on and interpreting the
meaning of aptitudes and working on different applications of the
aptitude concept. Most important is linking aptitude and
behavior, and using this knowledge to determine aptitudes through
question and answer methods and observation. I have used
this knowledge in ways as diverse as employment screening, mental
health crisis intervention and career counseling for people with the
Too Many Aptitude problem.
I love this work. I hope it
shows.
Menu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Services for
Individuals
A) Aptitude / ability analysis for
people making career choices or
changes. One on one, long range perspective.
B) Aptitude / ability analysis for
multi- talented people (TMAs).
C) Aptitude / ability analysis and
job redesign for business owners or
professionals committed to their field.
D) Consultation and custom
services for specific needs.
E) Seminars and discussion groups
about aptitudes.
Services for
Organizations
A) Aptitude / ability analysis and
job redesign: working one on one
with individuals or groups. Productive but disruptive
workers; overstressed or marginal workers; groups with a high error,
illness, turnover or conflict rate. As a reward or to make
life easier for vital employees, Executive Committees or other
crucial decision makers.
B) Hiring and troubleshooting: job
definition and description, resume
screening, interviewing, testing, outplacement. Method
development and training.
C) Productivity enhancement and
consulting: developing job descriptions
and setting work rates, learning about and using untapped employee
abilities and resources, prevention of stress related illness, visual
productivity.
D) Debriefing departing employees
in order to reduce soft data loss and
training time. Tape given to the next person in that slot as a
training aid.
E) Seminars for managers,
sales,
marketing and Human Resources staff.
Basic aptitude concepts,
recognizing talent or it's lack, getting more
for labor dollars, handling bright mavericks, product development,
marketing implications.
F) Speeches and discussions on
aptitude related subjects.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Materials
and Writings for Sale. Contact me for details.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMA sendout.
Outline and notes for a seminar on
TMAs. Current thinking
as of summer 2002. Includes conclusion to “Danger High Voltage.”
Aptitudes - General
Description (circa 2001) What is
Aptitude?; Predictability,
Performance; Productivity and Motivation;
General Aptitude Concept; Origin of Aptitudes; Aptitudes, Human
Limits & Tools; Identifying And Evaluating Aptitudes;
Interpreting and Using
Test/Questionnaire Results
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual Aptitude Descriptions
(circa 2002).
-States of Being,
Reasoning/Processing, Memory/Perceptual Sensitivity,
Near Point Visual, Dexterity. Design or
Dirt? Combined Effects.
Looking At Jobs In Aptitude
Terms
Aptitudes of the Optimum
Programmer, Engineer, Doctor, Accountant,
Middle Manager,
Outside Salesperson, Advertising
Copywriter, Receptionist
Some Other Aptitude Patterns
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Many Aptitudes, circa
1989. Book length.
Introduction to TMA, The
Situation, Some Paths for Dealing With TMA,
TMA Education
TMA Conclusion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aptitudes and Organizations
circa 1995.
To Terminate or Not To Terminate?
Dealing With Extra Aptitudes
Working With Too Many Aptitude
People
Comments on Low Aptitudes,
Learning Problems and Physical Disabilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work in process:
Identifying TMA needs.
Adults/Children and
Male/Female;
Aptitudes and Mental Illness
Exceptions, oddballs and the need
to innovate.
Metabolism and Aptitudes.
Intensity issues and high
aptitudes.
Menu
Hank
Pfeffer
knackman@earthling.net
knackman@yahoo.com knackman@lycos.com