Strong in numbers

Next up on the big list of self-assessments: the Strong Interest Inventory. I remember helping to administer these tests at the university career center during my undergraduate years. The current version of the assessment hasn't changed since then. It's a series of questions of different categories relating to occupations and the kinds of activities one might do in the context of those jobs. The test is beginning to show some rust in a few areas with respect to what kinds of jobs still exist (i.e., it asks for your feelings about the job of Word Processor).

Anyway, no results yet. Will post them when I get them.

UPDATE: Results!

The Strong inventory assigns scores in six categories: Realistic (R), Investigative (I), Artistic (A), Social (S), Enterprising (E), and Conventional (C). My highest-scoring areas were I, A, and C, though R was a very close runner-up. I took this assessment a few times during the time I was administering it and always seemed to fluctuate between IAC and IAR.

So, according to the assessment, these would be my ideal jobs, plus the categories they fulfull:
1. Librarian (A)
2. Musician (A)
3. Technical Writer (AI)
4. Translator (AI)
5. Sociologist (AI)
6. Biologist (IA)
7. Computer Systems Analyst (RCI)
8. Photographer (ARE)
9. Physicist (IRA)
10. Geographer (IA)

I'm glad that Biologist is on there. Several of these jobs seem rather dull, however: I don't think I'd like the repetition inherent to being a librarian or a technical writer. Several of these occupations would be fun to do on an amateur basis (especially music, photography, or even translation) but I don't think I'd want to do them as a job. That might just take all the fun out of it.

A POSTSCRIPT-TYPE UPDATE: Talked to someone in class today (Feb 3) who essentially scored highly in every single category of the assessment. The results suggested that she'd make a good chiropractor or maybe an urban planner, but she didn't find those occupations appropriate. She mentioned that, having taken the Strong before with similar results, career advisors had informed her that her broad range of occupational interests may become a hindrance as she would be unlikely to find one job which sustained all six categories.
I was looking for some kind of utility to search for similar but not identical images in a collection today. The most helpful result was digiKam. It's pretty standard image management software, and though the GUI has a bit of that undirected feel characteristic of many open source software projects, it has a pretty decent image similarity tool. It even allows for a fine-grained control over the threshold of similarity. Very useful and very free.

Mold is vegan for some reason

It was nice to get into the flow of things today. The lab is finally looking a bit more like normal after getting flooded last week (the building is flimsy and the equipment on the roof can't handle much Winter, but at least the maintenance folks can get things under control eventually). Some of our equipment is still a little, um, musty. Hopefully that will resolve itself lest my fume hood convert itself into a mold incubator. One of the air duct vent motors also seems to have shorted out as well so I'm sure there will be something else to complain about once the warmer months arrive.

Anyway, flow. I finally got R to make me a nice heatmap today, complete with neat annotation sidebars. If you're interested (and I know you may not be, but I am, and this kind of thing is seriously more difficult than it needs to be so I intend to remember it), the smoothest implementation is a combination of heatplus.2 and the vegan package. Vegan has all kinds of useful tools in it for clustering and such. Most importantly, it's useful for dealing with dendrograms, which are kind of essential to understanding data if they're all being hierarchically clustered. Messing around with the order of leaves in dendrograms can be time consuming; vegan has tools to get that taken care of in no time. It's pretty meaty.

I've also been enjoying listening to the tasty synths of Steve Hauschildt, as below:




A pen-and-paper evaluation, now with results!

Today's psychological evaluation is the NEO-PI-3. This is a paper-based test (that is, a set of questions and a Scantron-type sheet of bubbles to fill in) which must be interpreted by someone who knows what they're doing. The questions themselves are similar in format to other personality assessments in that there are 240 statements which may be answered with strong disagreement, disagreement, neutral, agreement, or strong agreement.

I will place some results here once they're available.

UPDATE:
These results get into more psychometric material than some of the other assessments I've posted about. If you are, say, a decade in the future and reading this, please don't use the results as any kind of criterion for insurance eligibility, promotion, security clearance, marketing, poetry and/or dirty joke, drone targeting, etc. etc. Just don't do it. I'm just as paranoid about living in a Gattaca-esque social hellscape as the next reasonably educated guy.

Someone from the Dept. of Psychology at VCU came into class and went over the scoring for this test with us. I was glad to hear that she had a very low opinion of the MBTI (it's really not scientific at all and relies on the whole extrovert/introvert dichotomy too much, but some of the other assessments I've taken have been guilt of that as well). The results of the NEO-PI take the form of five category-based scores, or Domains, with six subscores, or Facets, in each domain. The primary domains are referred to as NEOAC and correspond to the following categories:
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness

I'm not going to describe every domain in any detail - check out that wikipedia link at the top for such things. I'll just provide my domain scores:
N: 108 (High)
E: 92 (Low)
O: 158 (Very High)
A: 139 (High)
C: 109 (Low)

So what does this tell me? That high Neuroticism  - which sounds worse than it is - mostly appears to be driven by a high degree of self-consciousness. That couples with the low Extraversion score. Yes, it's true: I'm not terribly outgoing. That being said, I really do like small groups of people. It's having to deal with large groups of people who I really should know better that tends to be stressful. The high Openness and Agreeableness scores correlate with how I like to stay open to new ideas and how I try to be a good person to everybody. Nothing terribly exciting there, really.
The low Conscientiousness score is actually the result of high variability across the facets. I'm actually quite organized and confident in my abilities but I'm not really motivated by achievements for their own sake. Some of this is a result of having low self-discipline (this shows up in the results, too) but the rest is a conscious effort to avoid carrot-and-stick situations. What is the point in pursuing achievements if you don't get anything out of the process?

My overall verdict is that this test may be too limited and general for its intended purposes as a psychometric. I'm not just saying that because it seems to think I'm hopelessly self-conscious. With 40 questions per domain and 8 questions per facet, it appears all too easy for a single score to fluctuate on the basis of a single question's response. It may just come down to the limits of categorization, especially when those categories are dependent upon self-reported characteristics.