Psychological tests, blech

I went into a game store today to talk to one of the managers about getting a job. He looked up my application data (I filled out an app online like three months ago, but they're only now starting to look for new hires), and told me that my app was still there, but to get called they required an 80 on the psych test, and apparently I only scored a 73. He told me I should go back and resubmit an application, which I have just now done. He told me the secret, to any such test really, was in choosing the strong answers rather than being middle of the road. In fact, he said that on some questions, it doesn't even matter which way we choose, just as long as it's a strong answer.

I hate, hate, hate the bloody psych tests. I was discussing it with my Dad and he said that what they're looking for likely is a decisive person, rather than someone wishy-washy. Except there's a deep, and I would think at times dangerous, flaw in such thinking. When you only go for people who are picking the "strongly agree/disagree" options, you may be getting someone decisive, but that tells you absolutely nothing about what kind of decisive you are getting. You are just as likely to get someone bull-headed who will always be decisively wrong. The reason that I always pick middle of the road answers is not because I can't be decisive (though that can be a problem sometimes), but often it's simply because I find blanket questions and answers to be rather dangerous. No two situations are ever exactly the same and the required solutions/responses likewise often need to be slightly different. I prefer to think that the better choice in any situation is to think, then to decide, rather than simply "be decisive" and pick a blanket solution. Perhaps I'm blowing things out of proportion, but that's the way it seems to me.

Granted, I'm peeved at having to redo my application, but more than that, I'm genuinely angry at the thought of how many people out there don't even get a chance for certain jobs, simply because their score was numerically low. Who cares if certain people don't fit the mold. Sometimes you need all sorts of people to account for every situation. Sometimes you need that guy in the back who says wait, maybe we should think this one through. Rashness, that's what you can get.

What does age have to do with anything?

I just read a small article about the things we watch, and it's gotten me to thinking. Particularly, one comment made on the article about how certain movies can be okay, just as long as one doesn't bring their kids. But here's the question. Why are we shielding our children so desperately and not ourselves? Why the double standards? To a certain, limited extent, I can understand some of it. For instance, many children have a harder time differentiating reality from story, and we don't want our children picking up bad habits. I ask though, what does being older have to do with what is inherently good or bad for us? We don't want our kids to watch stuff with language, because we don't want them to swear. So why don't we care about language? Why don't we care about swearing more because of what we watch (and don't tell me you don't swear a little more after listening to someone who does a lot)? Why don't we worry about how excessive gore, sexual situations, or moral corruption affects us? Why does whether or not it's entertaining matter?

We watch what we eat so very carefully anymore, careful to watch out for our health and well-being; why do we not care about the things we mentally and visually consume? When we grow up, we have to make our own decisions about our food choices, and they do matter. We can eat nothing but cake frosting and pixie sticks if we want, but sooner or later we pay for it. Is it foolish to assume that even though the results are less visually apparent they are any less dangerous to our health? Being an "adult" doesn't make poor eating habits any safer for our well-being and I don't see why our visual and aural media should be any different.