Archive for May 8, 2007

Psychological Test Results

A head-mounted eye movement recording device was used for psychological tests (1962)Today I got the results of my psychological testing (part of my seminary application).  It involved a full battery of tests (2 full days of 7 types).  I was a bit excited to get the results, but not as excited as I know a few friends of mine are.  They’ve been waiting for empirical evidence of everything that’s wrong with me for years.  Well, he started by saying I did very well, so I think I passed.  — HA HA to all you haters!  🙂

The psychologist basically read my report out loud and answered questions about it.  I didn’t feel comfortable hearing him read back my interview responses (my blog must really sound bad to readers).  I forgot the names of most of the tests and can’t remember most of what he said, but I did manage to jot down 2 test results that I recognized.

My IQ test came out “above average” with 118.  Not to sound vane, but it sounded low.  I think it’s on a scale from 0 to 200 (with average being 100) and I have an engineering degree.  Well OK, getting a engineering degree and changing to pursue the priesthood sounds pretty dumb, but give me a break, I took the test at 8am and I’m not a morning person.  Then when he detailed my highs & lows I knew the test was flawed.  I was high in “vocabulary” and low was in “mental calculations & memory.”  That’s not right!  My memory may “blow,” but vocabulary is not my thing.  I was also high in “picture arrangement,” but low in “picture completion.”  What does that mean?  So, if the priesthood doesn’t work out, I can be a Feng shui designer that never finishes a job.  All in all, I guess I don’t have a learning disability and ADD, so if I flunk any classes, I’ve got nobody to blame but me.

The second test I remember was the Myers-Briggs personality test.  I came up as a ISFJ which is supposed to be the following:

ISFJ = Quiet, friendly, responsible, and conscientious. Work devotedly to meet their obligations. Lend stability to any project or group. Thorough and painstaking, accurate. Their interests are usually not technical. Can be patient with necessary details. Loyal, considerate, perceptive, concerned with how other people feel. Likely to put others needs above own and take responsibility seriously. Can be extremely uncomfortable with conflict or confrontation. 

It sounds like I’m a big “sucker” that everyone walks all over.  Then I found ISFJs, according to Keirsey, belong to the temperament of the Guardians and are called Protectors and that sounded a lot cooler. 

Guardians are observant and cooperative. Protectors, Inspectors, Supervisors, and Providers are the role variants contained within this category. Guardians seek membership or belonging and are concerned with responsibility and duty. Their greatest strength is logistical intelligence. They excel at organizing, facilitating, checking, and supporting. 

Some famous people who are “protectors” include Jimmy Stewart, Mother Teresa, J. P. Morgan, Tsar Nicholas II, & George H. W. Bush.

I guess knowing who myself better from a psychological view helps me to appreciate strengths and weaknesses to better balance everything.  As I write this blog, I wonder if I’m giving too much information about myself and being an even bigger “sucker.”  — Kermit?  Anyone?

Orthodoxy, part 2

One of my reservations about the seminary is the strong emphasis on Philosophy.  I’ve only had 1 intro class on it and it seems more confusingly “open-minded” that threatens a truly strict “orthodoxy” (genuinely Catholic).  I’ve spoken to a couple former seminarians who seemed very orthodox in their Catholic faith.  They dropped out because the philosophy made them question everything they believed, and I think that is my fear.  It’s been 20+ years since they were in seminary.  I’ve been told that seminaries have changed their philosophy programs in the early 90’s and it’s not so rough.  I hope so, but I’m still wondering what’s different. 

I’ve been told philosophy teaches you how to think, to dissect ideas, and be objective.  That sounds pretty good to me. But someone going into seminary with an uncompromising belief system (like neo-orthodoxy) may not be able to deal with it.  The Church wants to form men who can “think” and “obey the magisterium (Church teaching authority)” in order to make orthodoxy true, and not just blindly enforced.  Strict and blind adherence to an “orthodoxy” in anything questions it’s relevance and purpose in the first place.

Being a well-rounded seminarian is probably the ideal.  To freely accept and evangelize something by objective thinkers should magnify it’s truth and effectiveness.  I’d like to think I’m one of those guys.    Kermit?  anyone?