Talk is cheap, show me the code
Take a look what they suggest me for my career … That would be 180 degrees away from my path ..
Part I: PERSONALITY EVALUATION
Your Social Boldness: Introverted VS Extraverted
You are quite introverted. Socially, you prefer a more relaxed, low-key environment, rather than the hustle and bustle of a wild night in the city. You tend not to talk a lot, but when you do people listen, because when you say something it has meaning. You are not seeking the limelight, usually you prefer to let the attention-mongers do their thing while you observe. In an unfamiliar setting, you tend to be cautious and shy while you evaluate the circumstances. You prefer to avoid conflict, so you do not put yourself into a threatening situation. Your shyness may be perceived as unfriendly, but that could not be further from the truth. People need to be patient with you and take the time to get to know the complex, private you.
Your Agreeableness: Candid VS Considerate
You are slightly considerate. Social harmony is important to you, as is evidenced by your cooperative, generous, and helpful nature. If someone asks you what you want to do, you may reply, “whatever you want”. That is not because you are indecisive, rather you genuinely want the other person to be happy, and so whatever they want to do is fine with you. In general, you are straightforward and sincere with others, which makes you very likeable. People always know where you stand. You regard others positively - you trust people and feel they are honest, so you have no problem responding in kind. No one will accuse you of being arrogant. Your self-esteem is just fine, but you do not think you are better than anyone else. Your desire to help others is seen in your altruistic nature. You enjoy helping others and you do not expect anything in return.
Your Self-Control: Impulsive VS Cautious
You are moderately impulsive. At times you can be impulsive, but not to the point where you are jeopardizing work or relationships. You know when to follow rules, but you also know when to bend rules that are not set in stone. If your home or work space gets a little messy, you do not get upset or feel compelled to tidy up. You do not have to have perfect order in your life to feel good about yourself or your environment. You tend to be more on the fun side of spontaneity, and enjoy being flexible with your plans and your life. In general, you prefer to make short-term goals rather than long-term goals.
Your Anxiety Level: Excitable VS Relaxed
You are very excitable. You do not like stressful situations. You tend to react emotionally to stress, which can lead to bad moods, or even anxiety, anger, or depression. You like to be treated fairly, and may become upset if you sense that someone is trying to cheat you. You may find urges and cravings irresistible to the point that you are giving into them even if you know you will regret it or feel guilty later. Sometimes you may feel uncomfortable in social situations, even thinking that others are judging you. This self-consciousness may show through as shyness, because you do not want people to think poorly of you. You tend to worry and are apprehensive in unfamiliar circumstances.
Your Openness to Change: Practical VS Imaginative
You are moderately practical. You tend to be more comfortable when your daily activities are familiar and unchanging, rather than constantly in a state of flux. You prefer to deal with facts and not ideas. You prefer to be more practical and pragmatic, but you are able to be creative when the situation calls for it. You prefer the conversation or situation to be more straightforward. Emotionally, you are more conservative and tend not to express your feelings openly. You have a proper demeanor, which summons respect from those around you.
The way you Think/Reason: Concrete VS Abstract
You are very concrete in your thinking. You tend to prefer the plain, straightforward, and obvious to the complex, ambiguous, and subtle. You might even regard the arts and sciences with suspicion, regarding these endeavors as abstruse or of no practical use. You believe that intellect should not be equated with intelligence, as intellect is an intellectual style, not an intellectual ability.
PART 2: OCCUPATIONAL PREFERENCE EVALUATION
You appear to be suited for a Social career. Social (S) people seem to satisfy their needs in teaching or helping situations. They are drawn more to seek close interpersonal relationships and are less apt to engage in intellectual of extensive physical activity. The S type generally likes to help, teach, and counsel people more than engage in mechanical or technical activity. The S type usually likes to be around other people, working in groups and sharing responsibilities. They are good communicators and are interested in how people get along, and like to help other people with their problems. They like nursing, or giving first aid and providing information. They generally avoid using machines, tools, or animals to achieve a goal. They see themselves as helpful, friendly, and trustworthy.
Sphere: Related Content
This section gives me most headache. But experience told me that this blog mostly contains personal ramblings related to daily life, open source, and web 2.0. Recently, it turns out to be an idea-box where you can found ideas you can execute in your new startup ;). My ideas and opinions are not bullet proof and never intended to be one way stream. Kindly participate to improve your and my perspective regarding any particular post. Welcome aboard and enjoy your stay
Ralph
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:17 am
On November 15th of 2006, I took the Brainbench Java 2 test.
When I went into the test, I was expecting something that would test my general knowledge of the Java language and object oriented programming. The test that I took did not do that.
There were a large number of questions on special purpose API’s that I have never used. There were some questions on development tools that I have never used. And there were a large number of “brain teaser” questions on code snippets which I could have answered, if I would have had more time.
As a result, my test score was very low (2.60).
That score shows that I’m not good at guessing at API’s and tools that I’ve never used. And it shows that I’m not good at brain teasers with a three-minute time limit. However, it shows ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about my Java and object oriented programming skills.
In 2002, I studied a book on Java, and then I took a college course on it. I got an A in the course. According to my Brainbench score, I should not have been an “A” student.
For over a year, I was the sole designer and developer of web software that my employer believes is marketable. That software involves thousands of lines of Java code, a large number of API’s, and a large number of advanced object oriented constructs. According to my Brainbench score, I should not be able to accomplish what I have just accomplished.
When I was in college, I took secondary education courses. Later, while I was working for a former employer, I designed two computer courses which I taught for several years. As a trained and experienced trainer and tester, it is my opinion that the Brainbench Java 2 test has a number of very serious flaws.
It appears that there have been no sound scientific studies regarding the Brainbench claim that their tests predict employee success. And it appears that there are a large number of companies that are blindly accepting these unsubstantiated claims.
It seems to me that a sound scientific study for the Java 2 test would include the following elements: have thousands of working and successful Java programmers take various Java 2 tests; have thousands of inexperienced people with Java knowledge take the same tests; for individual test takers, have tests with a large number of questions on API’s and tools that they have never used; for individual test takers, have tests with a large number of questions on API’s and tools that they have used; for the latter, follow their careers as Java programmers for at least five years.
It appears to me that the creators of the Brainbench Java 2 test do not know what a typical Java programmer does, and they have no understanding of the art of testing.
I wonder how many careers have been derailed as a result of flawed Brainbench tests. I would like to see a scientific survey on that.