The list of characteristics you are pulling out is different than the list the OP listed. Which are competitiveness, aggression, focus on the game, and fair play. (I score 1/4, I have a strong sense of fair play.) And my opinion about the OP is based on comparing the characteristics that mattered to him versus my professional knowledge of what matters in software development.

As for your opinions of me, you're projecting from rather limited data. Let me give you some more data points. 3 of my last 5 jobs were at small to medium startups. (I was only at the 4th for a few months before getting an offer from Google, which is the 5th.) Of those one sold for about $80 million, one sold for over $400 million, and one is getting by reasonably well. (Admittedly it won't sell for anything like the valuations of the others.) Now it is impossible to say what the contribution of any one person is to a gelled team, so there is no reasonable way of quantifying my individual contribution. But the two that sold sold for around $4 million/employee, and the founders of all three would be happy to write me a glowing recommendation any time I asked saying that they thought I was a key part of their teams.

Furthermore if I was unwilling to participate in something new, then I wouldn't have jumped at a job at Google, working with a whole mess of technologies that I've never worked with before.

I submit that a process for hiring developers that won't even consider people like me is somewhat flawed.