By Lic. Romina Halbwirth — Psychologist (MN 26252) — Vocational guidance — Creator of Llamadón© — RRSS: @hrominaok
Online test, algorithms that suggest careers, professions that appear and disappear. In the midst of the technological revolution, choosing only by looking at the “list of titles” is an understatement. You need an internal compass, not just a list of options.
Until not so long ago, choosing a career was basically this:
look at a list of titles, ask someone you know and, with luck, go to a career guidance talk at school.
Today the panorama is different:
online vocational tests that give you a result in five minutes,
short videos where different professionals tell “a day at my job”,
algorithms that recommend occupations based on your interests,
new careers that no one knew existed ten years ago,
professions that mutate or become obsolete in record time.
Artificial intelligence entered the conversation fully: search engines, chatbots, educational platforms, CV simulators. Everything seems like a click.
Faced with this, there are two equally risky temptations:
idealize AI as if it has “the right answer,”
demonize it as if it were “the enemy” of authentic choice.
Neither one thing nor the other.
AI is a powerful tool. But the vocational decision remains deeply human.
What changed (and why just looking at the list of races is no longer enough)
The question “what are you going to study?” It was too small for the world we inhabit.
Today we have to add others:
What specific tasks does someone in that field do?
How much of that could be automated?
What parts of the work do require human presence?
What employment formats are open (freelance, remote, hybrid, projects)?
We live in a scenario where:
many jobs are automated or rely heavily on AI,
hybrid positions appear (mix of technology + another area),
long careers coexist with short training and permanent updates,
The idea of a “title for life” is weakened: what matters is the set of skills and experiences that you build.
In that context, choosing a career by looking only at a faculty brochure is like choosing a travel destination only by looking at the name of the country, without knowing anything else.
From “what are you going to study?” to “what problems would you like to help solve?”
Vocational guidance 3.0 proposes changing the focus of the question.
It’s not just about naming a career, but about locating yourself in relation to the world:
What topics are you interested in?
What problems outrage you, move you, or make you want to improve?
In what type of situations do you feel that you could add something valuable?
AI can help you investigate: look for what areas exist, what is being done in other countries, how disciplines are combined. But the central question remains very personal:
“Where do I see myself contributing something that makes sense for me and for others?”
There the game opens: perhaps it is not just “psychology” or “engineering”, but:
accompany human processes with mental health tools,
design technological solutions for social problems,
create content that informs and raises awareness about certain topics,
work with data to make better decisions in health, education, environment.
The race is a path. The compass is something else.
Llamadón©: internal compass in the midst of so much algorithm
When everything accelerates and becomes more technical, the temptation is to think that the decision can be outsourced: “let the test tell me”, “let the algorithm recommend me”.
The problem is that no program knows what it feels like to be you.
This is where a concept that I have been working on for years comes in: Llamadón©.
Flame: the little internal fire that drives, the genuine enthusiasm for certain ways of being and doing in the world.
Gift: the skills that come almost naturally, skills that appear without too much effort (analyze, accompany, design, explain, coordinate, solve problems, create).
The Llamadón© is the conjunction of that flame and that gift put at the concrete service, in the here and now, of something that makes sense for your life project.
AI can help you expand the map: show you new careers, job opportunities, emerging fields.
But the question about your Llamadón cannot be answered by any machine.
What things turn you on?
In what activities do you feel “very you”?
What kinds of tasks tire you but don’t drain you, because they make sense?
That reading is deeply human, contextual, embodied.
Skills for a future with AI (and with humans)
In a world where many repetitive tasks will be automated, skills that AI cannot fully replicate gain value:
Critical thinking: question sources, interpret data, make ethical decisions.
Creativity: combine information in novel ways, find non-obvious solutions.
Communication: explain, listen, translate the complex into something understandable.
Emotional intelligence: register your own and others’ internal states, empathize, regulate yourself.
Collaborative work: coordinate with others, resolve conflicts, build as a team.
Vocational guidance 3.0 not only asks “what to study?”, but also:
“What skills do you already have?”
“Which ones can you develop?”
“In what contexts do these skills make the most sense?”
AI can help you detect trends, put together possible scenarios, and simulate trajectories.
But training critical thinking, creativity and emotional management requires experience, trial, error and connection.
IA: ally, yes. Autopilot, no
Using AI to choose a career is not a problem in itself. The problem appears when:
she is taken as an oracle,
reflection is replaced by an automatic result,
the question of personal history and context is lost.
AI can be an excellent ally to investigate, compare, explore and simulate paths.
What it can’t do is know your story, read your fears and desires, or support you emotionally while you decide. That’s where psychological work and support come in.
Overinformation and paralysis: when so much data doesn’t help
Another typical phenomenon of the 3.0 era is this: “The more I search, the less I know what to choose.”
The Internet, networks and AI tools multiply the options. What seems like freedom can become paralysis by analysis. Many times the task is not to add more information but to set limits, cut back, organize criteria and move on to concrete experiences.
Choosing involves cutting back, giving up and compromising. That dimension is human.
Top 5 mistakes when using the internet to choose a career
- Search “the perfect career” on Google. There is no infallible answer on a web page. There are possible paths that need to be contrasted with one’s own reality.
- Take an online test as absolute truth. It offers clues, not diagnoses. If a result mobilizes, it is material to work on in orientation, not a final verdict.
- Look only at salaries or decontextualized job opportunities. They are important variables, but they change depending on place, experience and type of work. Choosing only for money usually impacts mental well-being.
- Compare yourself with what others show on networks. Visible stories are partial: they do not include errors, underlying conditions or privileges.
- Postpone the decision “because I’ll Google later.” Clarity does not appear alone: it is built with time, questions and support.
Vocational guidance 3.0 integrates technology and artificial intelligence with clinical listening, a systemic view and personal history. AI can zoom the map. The internal compass—that intersection between flame and gift in dialogue with the context—remains human.
