For those who wonder about the Wonderlic

[Mij yllek]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25162012/why-daughter-of-wonderlic-test-creator-isnt-happy-with-the-nfl

 

Some famous Bills on the list.

[KD in CA]

That analysis would have scored about a 9. Has anyone ever said that test was a predictor of how good someone can play football?

 

And it's not very difficult to pick out a small selection of examples from a population of thousands to support your preordained conclusion.

[ToGoGo]

If they're going to give a personality test to predict future success, intelligence should only be 1 of many different testing variables.

 

They need to test for persistence, determination, positive or negative attitudes, expectations of success or failure, confidence, decision making in stressful situations, desire to succeed, ambition, concentration, etc.

 

No wonder there are so many busts. They could cut that number in half just by testing for the things I listed above. For example, will power is far more important than intelligence. Persistance and faith in your ability is nearly equally important to skill and intelligence.

[Nick the Greek]

Fitzy.. good at Wonderlic.. Also good at throwing interceptions.

[zonabb]

First off, I didn't read the entire article but did check out the score. The intent of the Wonderlic is like every other measure or variable used by teams and more importantly was not nor should be consider alone. Great Wonderlics with poor athletic skills won't mean hall of famers. Poor Wonderlics with great skills don't mean super bowl winners. The intent is to measure cognition and the arguments that is biased against education is true, it measures how, in a simplistic manner, "smart" you are. Is that biased because the dumb ones underperform? Oh, you don't like that you don't do well when we test what you know or your ability to think?

Here's where I think it matters and I am glad one player was shown on the QB list. I think it matters for QB for one reason. The job of a QB is purely one of cognition. A test that can measure that is a great assessment of a QB. I've made this point probably 5 times in threads on this forum. If you look at SB winning QBs, I believe Bradshaw is the only one who scored less than I think 22. Lost the file I had the data in. Bradshaw apparently was/is dyslexic or had a learning disability so he may have great cognition but poor reading skills, not the same thing. So here's my point about the Wonderlic... it's a good measure to add into the assessment but it's very interesting for QBs. You're about 99.9% assured of never winning a Super Bowl with a QB who scores less than 22. You are by no means guaranteed of winning one with a QB scoring above 22 or we'd have one already with Fitxpatrick. But if I am a GM, I would never, ever hitch my wagon to a QB who did poorly on this. Again, I'll be clear it's simply probability, which is basically you're 99% guaranteed (Bradshaw being the only reported exception) of never winning one with a moron under center.

 

And testing for persistence (how?). determination (how?), or the other suggestions above are worse ideas than the Wonderlic. What do you mean by will power? How are will power, determination, and persistence different? Sounds like three synonyms. I'm determined in a lot of things, but not always. Give me a test on physics and I won't care, does that mean I'm not determined? Or persistent? Or have will power?

Edited April 25, 2015 by zonabb

[K-9]

Bradshaw outscored Kelly?

 

Does that mean we'd have to spot Kelly the C, A, and the T?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Lurker]

My take on the Wonderlic detractors is that they start from a straw man position--that it doesn't correlate with on-the-field performance.

 

What they should be studying is how strongly it correlates with the ability to process written information--as in, how a player absorbs the playbook and weekly gameplans. This is a big part of being an NFL player.

 

Can some guys overcome their cognative limitations and have HOF careers? Of course. There are tons of examples, beyond those in the article.

 

But all things being equal, I think a team would prefer a player that has the ability to quickly absorb and comprehend information so that they don't have to have rep after rep after rep to get the "light bulb to go on."

 

 

Imo

 

 

[K-9]

My take on the Wonderlic detractors is that they start from a straw man position--that it doesn't correlate with on-the-field performance.

 

What they should be studying is how strongly it correlates with the ability to process written information--as in, how a player absorbs the playbook and weekly gameplans. This is a big part of being an NFL player.

 

Can some guys overcome their cognative limitations and have HOF careers? Of course. There are tons of examples, beyond those in the article.

 

But all things being equal, I think a team would prefer a player that has the ability to quickly absorb and comprehend information so that they don't have to have rep after rep after rep to get the "light bulb to go on."

 

 

Imo

 

 

This is a fair assessment. Teams don't use it as the be all, end all indicator, but it does provide a glimpse into a player's ability to process information quickly. Teams ascribe more importance to higher scores depending on position groups. They would prefer QBs and OLmen, especially, to have better scores, while they place less importance on higher scores for CBs.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[ToGoGo]

And testing for persistence (how?). determination (how?), or the other suggestions above are worse ideas than the Wonderlic. What do you mean by will power? How are will power, determination, and persistence different? Sounds like three synonyms. I'm determined in a lot of things, but not always. Give me a test on physics and I won't care, does that mean I'm not determined? Or persistent? Or have will power?

 

Just be creative. Give them difficult computer games and see how long they keep trying compared to the average person. It's really not that difficult to come up with ideas. They have computer tests for ADD, so concentration tests would be easy to do. What's the pain in trying? The NBA is open-minded, why do we have to be stubborn about changing the tiniest things?

 

You are arguing semantics. Of course, they are all related. I didn't exactly write out a thesis on this before writing my post, simply threw out important characteristics off the top of my head.

 

Nobody is determined at everything, but an NFL football player needs to be determined to be a successful player in order to be successful, do you agree or disagree with that? If you were a physics major and were not determined to do well on a test, then I'm going to pass on you during the physics draft. You are also beginning to grasp that if you are not interested in something, you won't be determined. Testing their actual interest in having a successful career would be another solid characteristic to test. See we're getting somewhere. However, even if you did want to pass the physics test, but you were prone to play video games while you studied and make other poor choices, I would want a way to test that.

 

To make it simpler, if you wanted to do something, I'd like a way to test how likely you are to achieve it, and how much adversity you are willing to go through to achieve it. I believe that's what separates the success stories in the NFL, from the busts. Just like it separates the success stories in every other field on Earth, to the other guys. How could we create a combine test to sniff out a Justin Blackmon type who screws up a bunch of times, gets repeatedly suspended, and then decides to just quit the NFL rather than work hard and try again? Does that sound like the kind of guy who quits after a lot of adversity? It does to me. What about a Derrick Rose type who keeps coming back from injury and not giving up mentally and still playing at a high level? Are these "worse ideas than the Wonderlic"?

 

I really really really really really disagree with you on this being a bad idea. I just don't think you understand how important these characteristics are to a professional athlete. FAR more important than some tricky multiple choice logic puzzles. Not that the Wonderlic is useless, I just think the flaw is having that be the only mental test they give them (besides interview questions).

 

When the NFL bust rate is as high as it is, it means there is something fundamentally missing in professional scouting. They have absolutely mastered watching film and physical measurements, but are absolutely clueless when deciding who will make it and who won't. What other industry has a bigger strike out rate than professional sports during the draft? Especially with the time and effort they put into it. There are major discoveries to be made here, and frankly we're arguing about some 50 question IQ test that is proven to tell us nothing but who's book smart and who's a little dumb at school. Why not test for everything we possibly can and then look back on the correlations? Add an extra day to the combine where they do nothing but different mental aptitude tests. One day we'll look back and start seeing patterns.

Edited April 26, 2015 by musichunch

[enlightener]

Fitzy.. good at Wonderlic.. Also good at throwing interceptions.

fitzy.. multi millionare, harvard graduate, 10 year pro, still starting for teams and winning games, while bills debate keeping manual or cassel after getting beat by fitz last year after an ej manual interception.

[/dev/null]

fitzy.. multi millionare, harvard graduate, 10 year pro, still starting for teams and winning games, while bills debate keeping manual or cassel after getting beat by fitz last year after an ej manual interception.

leave him be. haters gonna hate

[Rocky Landing]

Probably a better test than the Wonderlic would be to build a giant maze, and put some cheese at the end of it.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

My take on the Wonderlic detractors is that they start from a straw man position--that it doesn't correlate with on-the-field performance.

 

What they should be studying is how strongly it correlates with the ability to process written information--as in, how a player absorbs the playbook and weekly gameplans. This is a big part of being an NFL player. . . .

 

 

 

Well, if the Wonderlic correlates with "the ability to process written information," but "it doesn't correlate with on-the-field performance," how big a part of being a [good] NFL player can the ability to process written information really be?

 

Why should we care whether a player is good at absorbing the playbook and weekly game plans, if that ability doesn't translate to actually getting results on the field?

 

I'm not at all convinced that there is no correlation between Wonderlic scores and on-the-field performance (at least for some positions), but I've never really looked at the data in anything close to a comprehensive way.

[NoSaint]

This is a fair assessment. Teams don't use it as the be all, end all indicator, but it does provide a glimpse into a player's ability to process information quickly. Teams ascribe more importance to higher scores depending on position groups. They would prefer QBs and OLmen, especially, to have better scores, while they place less importance on higher scores for CBs.

 

GO BILLS!!!

And with it being such basic stuff- there's an element of "does a guy prep and take seriously things we ask him to do" potentially. The number is just a starting point. If you see something way out of the ordinary it's an indicator that you may need to look a little deeper.

[Lurker]

 

 

Why should we care whether a player is good at absorbing the playbook and weekly game plans, if that ability doesn't translate to actually getting results on the field?

 

Who says it doesn't?

 

Why do some players struggle to learn their assignments and some have no problem with it? A guy with the ability to quickly understand what the coaching staff wants put it into practice can often beat out a "better athlete" who needs muliple reps or a lot of coaching. This seems particularly true of O-linemen, where many guys are able to overcome physical limitations with savvy and smarts.

[Formerly Allan in MD]

Wonder what Terry Bradshaw scored.

[Just Jack]

Wonder what Terry Bradshaw scored.

It's mentioned in the article.

[KD in CA]

Probably a better test than the Wonderlic would be to build a giant maze, and put some cheese at the end of it.

 

Guy would probably have to step over Vince Young's corpse to get out.

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

Little known fact: Ryan Fitzpatrick actually went to Harvard.

[metzelaars_lives]

First off, I didn't read the entire article but did check out the score. The intent of the Wonderlic is like every other measure or variable used by teams and more importantly was not nor should be consider alone. Great Wonderlics with poor athletic skills won't mean hall of famers. Poor Wonderlics with great skills don't mean super bowl winners. The intent is to measure cognition and the arguments that is biased against education is true, it measures how, in a simplistic manner, "smart" you are. Is that biased because the dumb ones underperform? Oh, you don't like that you don't do well when we test what you know or your ability to think?

Here's where I think it matters and I am glad one player was shown on the QB list. I think it matters for QB for one reason. The job of a QB is purely one of cognition. A test that can measure that is a great assessment of a QB. I've made this point probably 5 times in threads on this forum. If you look at SB winning QBs, I believe Bradshaw is the only one who scored less than I think 22. Lost the file I had the data in. Bradshaw apparently was/is dyslexic or had a learning disability so he may have great cognition but poor reading skills, not the same thing. So here's my point about the Wonderlic... it's a good measure to add into the assessment but it's very interesting for QBs. You're about 99.9% assured of never winning a Super Bowl with a QB who scores less than 22. You are by no means guaranteed of winning one with a QB scoring above 22 or we'd have one already with Fitxpatrick. But if I am a GM, I would never, ever hitch my wagon to a QB who did poorly on this. Again, I'll be clear it's simply probability, which is basically you're 99% guaranteed (Bradshaw being the only reported exception) of never winning one with a moron under center.

 

And testing for persistence (how?). determination (how?), or the other suggestions above are worse ideas than the Wonderlic. What do you mean by will power? How are will power, determination, and persistence different? Sounds like three synonyms. I'm determined in a lot of things, but not always. Give me a test on physics and I won't care, does that mean I'm not determined? Or persistent? Or have will power?

Really? If Norwood's kick is a few feet to he left, Kelly has one. If that dude on the Rams doesn't make that tackle, McNair has one. And that's just the guys whose scores we actually know of. I have a hard time believing that Ben freaking Roethlisberger scored higher than 22.

Edited April 27, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

That analysis would have scored about a 9. Has anyone ever said that test was a predictor of how good someone can play football?

 

And it's not very difficult to pick out a small selection of examples from a population of thousands to support your preordained conclusion.

Yeah it was poor. Lamenting the NFL for using the wonderlic in an implied way which they don't.

 

There is no "correlation" between any draft day measurables and success. The are some thresholds that separate the higher probability group from the lower probability group.

 

It there a correlation between 40 time and wr success? no. is it more likely a guy running a 4.4 40 will succeed than a guy running a 4.8 40. Yes. Does every guy running a 4.4 succeed and is every guy running a 4.3 more successful? Of course not.

Edited April 27, 2015 by over 20 years of fanhood

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

It there a correlation between 40 time and we success? no. is it more likely a guy running a 4.4 40 will succeed than a guy running a 4.8 40. Yes. . . .

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

 

No problem. I'll be on the Barnes and noble lecture curcuit in July.

 

Follow me on Twitter

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Follow me on Twitter

 

"Follow me - - Follow me to freedom !!!"

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uASRgF2fwwY

Edited April 28, 2015 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[enlightener]

Little known fact: Ryan Fitzpatrick actually went to Harvard.

accept that I mentioned it three posts above...where are your stats on how well known this is?

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

accept that I mentioned it three posts above...where are your stats on how well known this is?

Every time I watch something on him, they always forget to mention it. But it's true. He went to Harvard.

[BillsCelticsAngelsBama]

Fitzy.. good at Wonderlic.. Also good at throwing interceptions.

Never a zero next to his name by golly !

[Fadingpain]

If they're going to give a personality test to predict future success, intelligence should only be 1 of many different testing variables.

 

They need to test for persistence, determination, positive or negative attitudes, expectations of success or failure, confidence, decision making in stressful situations, desire to succeed, ambition, concentration, etc.

 

No wonder there are so many busts. They could cut that number in half just by testing for the things I listed above. For example, will power is far more important than intelligence. Persistance and faith in your ability is nearly equally important to skill and intelligence.

Often in life the one who succeeds is the one who simply doesn't give up and keeps at it.

 

A lot of what you write here is spot on!

 

Not sure it matters with football, another skill is like ability/charm factor and that sort of thing. Those who can really get along well with people, easily, have an advantage in life. The world isn't run by trees or machines. It's run by people.

PS: Fitz scored a "48" on the test; Jim Kelly a "15".

[Chuck Wagon]

Fitz was so smart we can't even understand what he was really doing. He was borrowing the Ali "Rope a Dope". By throwing backbreaking game losing interceptions, he was really just boosting the confidence of the defensive players to the point they underestimated his ability, then he'd have them right where he wanted them. We just didn't keep him around long enough to show the fruits of his labor. Maybe the fans in New York will have more patience when he executes his brilliant master plan of throwing game losing interceptions.

[Fadingpain]

This link is a spoof done by Keith Olbermann but it does reference what I believe to be 5 or 6 real Wonderlic questions and answers.

 

Most normal people would score very highly on this test.

 

This test is not so much about figuring out how smart you are at the top end; it's more about weeding out brain dead ghouls masquerading as thinking adults.

 

Fitz should be embarrassed to have actually gotten 2 questions wrong out of 50, if they are all on par with what appears in this Olbermann piece.

 

 

Brief example:

 

Low is to High as Easy is to ______.

 

Successful

Pure

Tall

Interesting

Difficult

[LB3]

This link is a spoof done by Keith Olbermann but it does reference what I believe to be 5 or 6 real Wonderlic questions and answers.

 

Most normal people would score very highly on this test.

 

This test is not so much about figuring out how smart you are at the top end; it's more about weeding out brain dead ghouls masquerading as thinking adults.

 

Fitz should be embarrassed to have actually gotten 2 questions wrong out of 50, if they are all on par with what appears in this Olbermann piece.

 

 

Brief example:

 

Low is to High as Easy is to ______.

 

Successful

Pure

Tall

Interesting

Difficult

Fitzy didn't answer 1 of the questions and finished in 9 minutes. There are 12 minutes allotted and the questions vary. The one you provided is one of the easier tiered questions.

[jumbalaya]

Really? If Norwood's kick is a few feet to he left, Kelly has one. If that dude on the Rams doesn't make that tackle, McNair has one. And that's just the guys whose scores we actually know of. I have a hard time believing that Ben freaking Roethlisberger scored higher than 22.

If Flutie started vs Tennessee, Bills win as Music City miracle would not have happened. If Bills win, we'd crush Jax the following week and make the SB. Flutie wins the SB as our D shuts down the Rams. if, if, if....

[Fadingpain]

Fitzy didn't answer 1 of the questions and finished in 9 minutes. There are 12 minutes allotted and the questions vary. The one you provided is one of the easier tiered questions.

I would be embarrassed to get a single one wrong, though I can see where that would happen out of bad luck if you were nervous or distracted or whatever.

 

I had to pause for a few seconds for one of them involving overlapping colored grids with the correct overlap creating the correct colored pattern. Is that a hard one?

 

This is relevant to a LOT of discussions on this forum and elsewhere concerning professional athletes.

 

I think most people don't understand that your average elite pro athlete is usually shockingly stupid by normal standards.

 

Shockingly stupid.

 

That's the point of this. And it definitely often translates to performance on the field, pitch, ice, whatever.

 

Like a coach will tell a certain player "when this happens, do X" 10,000 times and the player never does it. After a while the coach realizes "I am effectively trying to teach my pencil how to read; that won't work."

That is usually when an organization moves on from a player with that type of problem.

 

In recent Buffalo sports history, ex-Sabre Luke Adam was said to be this sort of person.

 

Like so dumb he couldn't be coached and he didn't have enough pure talent to compensate for that or make it irrelevant.

PS: I suspect most scores are not as high as they could be, as the test taker does not take the test seriously, does not focus, and figures his elite athleticism will get him hired, not the silly score on the silly test.

 

Also, if you are at the NFL combine taking the Wonderlic, you have been an elite athlete your entire life at all age levels; such people typically don't take things involving thought or testing too seriously, so they have the wrong attitude before they start.

I.E., give everyone a $1 million check for hitting a certain score (create an incentive to give a damn) and you might see test scores rise across the board, a bit.

But dumb is dumb, and money doesn't fix that.

[NoSaint]

They say 20 is about average- with a roughly 100 iq

[LB3]

They say 20 is about average- with a roughly 100 iq

This is what the tester told me when I had to take it in 2008.

[NoSaint]

This is what the tester told me when I had to take it in 2008.

im going on memory here but i think the reeeeeally rough correlation from there is +/- 5 questions in the score is about 10 points on an IQ test (not totally linear or anything, and obviously subject to a guy actually caring what his score is). So a 25 is like 110ish, 30 is 120ish, 15 is 90ish.... like i said, just a really rough thumbnail for conversion to give an idea of what in the world a 22 represents in terms people are a little more familiar with.

[LB3]

I would be embarrassed to get a single one wrong, though I can see where that would happen out of bad luck if you were nervous or distracted or whatever.

 

 

Some are designed to trip you up when you get overconfident. For example, they'll give you what seem s like a math problem such as:

 

You have a $10 bill. You buy a sandwich that costs $6. You're in NY and NYS tax is 8%. How many dollars do you have left?

 

A. 4

B. 3.52

C. 3

D. None of the above.

 

The answer being 3.

 

Most people don't make it through even 40 of the questions.

im going on memory here but i think the reeeeeally rough correlation from there is +/- 5 questions in the score is about 10 points on an IQ test (not totally linear or anything, and obviously subject to a guy actually caring what his score is). So a 25 is like 110ish, 30 is 120ish, 15 is 90ish.... like i said, just a really rough thumbnail for conversion to give an idea of what in the world a 22 represents in terms people are a little more familiar with.

That sounds about right. Above 30 is generally a good sign. So your numbers would seem to fit that. Edited April 29, 2015 by KikoSeeBallKikoGetBall

[K-9]

Some are designed to trip you up when you get overconfident. For example, they'll give you what seem s like a math problem such as:

You have a $10 bill. You buy a sandwich that costs $6. You're in NY and NYS tax is 8%. How many dollars do you have left?

A. 4

B. 3.52

C. 3

D. None of the above.

The answer being 3.

Most people don't make it through even 40 of the questions.

That sounds about right. Above 30 is generally a good sign. So your numbers would seem to fit that.

I would quibble that the answer is 3 because .52 represents a fraction of a dollar so, as the question is phrased, 3.52 is the best answer. If they asked how many dollar "bills" do you have left, then 3 would be the better answer.

 

Abstract thinking if too often marginalized by test creators because they themselves can't think in that fashion. To them, "What color is the sky?", has only one answer.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[LB3]

I would quibble that the answer is 3 because .52 represents a fraction of a dollar so, as the question is phrased, 3.52 is the best answer. If they asked how many dollar "bills" do you have left, then 3 would be the better answer.

 

Abstract thinking if too often marginalized by test creators because they themselves can't think in that fashion. To them, "What color is the sky?", has only one answer.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Exactly

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

Some are designed to trip you up when you get overconfident. For example, they'll give you what seem s like a math problem such as:

 

You have a $10 bill. You buy a sandwich that costs $6. You're in NY and NYS tax is 8%. How many dollars do you have left?

 

A. 4

B. 3.52

C. 3

D. None of the above.

 

The answer being 3.

 

Most people don't make it through even 40 of the questions.

That sounds about right. Above 30 is generally a good sign. So your numbers would seem to fit that.

I had to take something similar to Wonderlic, think it might have been that, but I could be wrong. The first time I took it, the test was so easy that I bombed because I kept overthinking the questions and assuming that if that answer seemed so easy, it couldn't be right and it was some sort of trick question. The second time I took it I got like a 98% on it because I went with the most obvious answer.