Losman's dramatic improvement

[Lurker]

Of course, the mean IQ nationwide is 100 (by definition; the dead center of the normal distribution is defined as 100).  So if the mean score for the Wonderlic is 22, but the mean IQ corresponds to a 17 on the Wonderlic...well, then something's wrong.  Either the IQ test or the Wonderlic ain't worth a hill of beans.  Or both.

602442[/snapback]

 

The Wonderlic has nothing to do with IQ. It's a test designed to see how fast a player can process information / make decisions.

[Orton's Arm]

How do YOU score? Go to ESPN 2's Wonderlic Test

 

I got 13 of 15, in 5 mins.

602480[/snapback]

A good link. Unfortunately, many of the questions on this Wonderlic don't seem to be geared towards finding general aptitude. Question 4, for example, asks you to look closely at paired words to see if they're spelled differently or the same. Questions 9 and 12 are based on factual knowledge of months of the year. Question 11 is designed to chew up a lot of time for the unwary, and is easily an order of magnitude more difficult than some of the other questions on that test.

 

Assuming the questions posted on ESPN's website are representative of Wonderlic questions in general, the test is poorly designed.

[Orton's Arm]

Because...? 

 

You just introduced a hypothesis.  Now support it.

602504[/snapback]

I felt Zonabb's post did a pretty good job of that.

[Risin]

I think this makes it an official crusade.

[Lurker]

Question 11 is designed to chew up a lot of time for the unwary, and is easily an order of magnitude more difficult than some of the other questions on that test.

 

Assuming the questions posted on ESPN's website are representative of Wonderlic questions in general, the test is poorly designed.

602510[/snapback]

 

Making a decision to skip the time chewer in favor of other questions is probably part of the test design. I think the Wonderlic's ultimate objective is to see how a player can process complex problems in a limited time frame (ie, as a proxy for how they can absorb game plans, react to in-game adjustments, etc. ).

[Orton's Arm]

Making a decision to skip the time chewer in favor of other questions is probably part of the test design.  I think the Wonderlic's ultimate objective is to see how a player can process complex problems in a limited time frame (ie, as a proxy for how they can absorb game plans, react to in-game adjustments, etc. ).

602517[/snapback]

If that's its objective, it leaves a lot to be desired; at least based on the problems I saw. They were either too easy (especially if you had some general knowledge, like how to work decimals, etc.) or too long (like the time-chewer). What you want are questions that take some degree of intelligence to solve, and don't rely on general knowledge. Questions like 1, 2, and 14 require a little intelligence to figure out, but not very much. But if you're going up against a Belichick defense, you'll need more than just a little intelligence to figure out what to do.

[EC-Bills]

BINGO!

 

Edit:

Actually, not "worth a hill of beans" may be too strong.  They are what they are.  If used cautiously, as a guideline, by someone who understands their limited usefullness then they're...well...OK, I guess.

 

People who put a premium on these scores (without other information necessary to properly interpret them) really don't have a clue.

602457[/snapback]

 

Oh shutup, no one wants to hear logic in this thread!

[sfladave]

Come on HA I'm still looking for an answer from the previous post.

 

"You've heard the explainations of how someone can easily increase their score from a 14 to a 31. Are you ready to admit that JP does in fact have the high wonderlic score that, on average, allows a QB to be better able to read a defense than a guy with a lower score?"

[Orton's Arm]

Come on HA I'm still looking for an answer from the previous post.

 

"You've heard the explainations of how someone can easily increase their score from a 14 to a 31. Are you ready to admit that JP does in fact have the high wonderlic score that, on average, allows a QB to be better able to read a defense than a guy with a lower score?"

602526[/snapback]

All right all right. I'll give you an answer, though maybe not one you'll like. First, let's start with the assumption JP's improvement was due to excessive studying as opposed to cheating. Let's say he learned that September is the ninth month of the year, that .33 is less than .88, and that September has about as much daylight as March. Clearly this new knowledge didn't improve his underlying intelligence. But the fact he didn't know these things the first time around is not a good sign. Granted, there are smart people who aren't that familiar with months and hours of daylight and things like that. There are less intelligent people who do know these things. That's why the Wonderlic doesn't do that good a job of measuring aptitude. However, a smart person is likely to know more about months and decimals and so forth than a rather dim person would; which is why JP's first score is a better guide than his second. But quite frankly, I'd feel much more comfortable with giving him (or any player) a more standard IQ test.

[billsfanmiami(oh)]

Because...? 

 

You just introduced a hypothesis.  Now support it.

602504[/snapback]

 

 

C'mon now. That could come dangerously close to being considered a logical argument, and obviously not possible.

[sfladave]

All right all right. I'll give you an answer, though maybe not one you'll like. First, let's start with the assumption JP's improvement was due to excessive studying as opposed to cheating. Let's say he learned that September is the ninth month of the year, that .33 is less than .88, and that September has about as much daylight as March. Clearly this new knowledge didn't improve his underlying intelligence. But the fact he didn't know these things the first time around is not a good sign. Granted, there are smart people who aren't that familiar with months and hours of daylight and things like that. There are less intelligent people who do know these things. That's why the Wonderlic doesn't do that good a job of measuring aptitude. However, a smart person is likely to know more about months and decimals and so forth than a rather dim person would; which is why JP's first score is a better guide than his second. But quite frankly, I'd feel much more comfortable with giving him (or any player) a more standard IQ test.

602530[/snapback]

Well I for one have always thought that the wonderlic was a poor determination of a players ability to do well in the NFL. The reason I pushed you on this point was that it was you who said that you think that someone who does score well on this test has a better chance of doing well in the NFL than someone who doesn't score as well.

 

The sample test that you keep referencing is a good indication of the wonderlic. Even if you think that it isn't ideal it still tests all individuals equally. So JPs 31 is still better than Bens 25. He still has a better grasp of the questions than Ben did.

 

BTW Holcomb scored an 18.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just messing with you, I don't know what he scored.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The Wonderlic has nothing to do with IQ.  It's a test designed to see how fast a player can process information / make decisions.

602508[/snapback]

 

IQ has to do with how fast someone can process information, though.

 

And I was going off someone else's quote of a Wonderlic description, which directly related Wonderlic scores to IQ numbers. Go back and read the post.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I felt Zonabb's post did a pretty good job of that.

602512[/snapback]

 

No, his post established a correlation between Wonderlic scores and Superbowl appearances, not between Wonderlic scores and reading defenses. At best, all you did was shift your hypothesis to a correlation between reading defenses and Superbowl appearances...so prove THAT. (And don't give me some "You have to be able to read defenses to appear in the Superbowl, therefore there is a correllation between Superbowl appearances and reading defenses" crap. You can't use a hypothesis to prove itself.)

 

At worst...you either haven't realized or ignored the fact that zonabb's post didn't establish ANY sort of statistical correllation between Wonderlic's and Superbowl appearances anyway. To do so, he would also have to consider all the QBs that DIDN'T get to the Superbowl and their scores, which he manifestly did not do. So if the proof of your hypothesis is "Zonabb told me so"...it's flawed.

 

Plus...it's YOUR statement. Don't pawn it off on Zonabb. Prove it yourself.

[Orton's Arm]

IQ has to do with how fast someone can process information, though.

602545[/snapback]

A valid point. In fact, they'd be better off just testing the speed of all the players' reactions. There's a very strong correlation between reaction speed and intelligence. Studying to make your reactions faster is all but impossible. Also impossible (or nearly so) is cultural bias in such a test. Also, there's an obvious connection between having a quick reaction speed, and doing well on the football field.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

How do YOU score? Go to ESPN 2's Wonderlic Test

 

I got 13 of 15, in 5 mins.

602480[/snapback]

 

15 of 15, 80 seconds.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

There's a very strong correlation between reaction speed and intelligence.

602551[/snapback]

 

I won't dispute your post...but I want a reference for this, because I've never heard it before, and given the fact that I'm ferociously smart with slug-like reflexes and dexterity, I tend to doubt it.

 

So I'm not taking your word on that one. I want to see a research paper...or even an article that references a research paper.

[Orton's Arm]

At worst...you either haven't realized or ignored the fact that zonabb's post didn't establish ANY sort of statistical correllation between Wonderlic's and Superbowl appearances anyway.  To do so, he would also have to consider all the QBs that DIDN'T get to the Superbowl and their scores, which he manifestly did not do. 

602549[/snapback]

I agree that neither I nor zonabb established statistical correlation, and that neither of us attempted to do so. The right way to prove my statement would be as follows:

 

- First, randomly select some NFL quarterbacks. The more you select, the easier it will be to achieve statistically significant results. So let's say you select 50 QBs.

 

- Second, watch these 50 QBs for enough games to evaluate each one's ability to read defenses. Do this without knowing their Wonderlic scores.

 

- Third, establish whether the Wonderlic score is significantly correlated with the ability to read defenses. If so, determine the r-squared.

 

- Fourth, publish the results on a Bills message board, only to be derided by those who argue my biases prevented me from objectively determining quarterbacks' ability to read defenses. Expect to see plenty of emoticons when discussing alpha levels and standard deviations.

 

Anyone smart enough to do these tasks well should also be smart enough to know it would be a waste of time to do them.

[Matt in KC]

I won't dispute your post...but I want a reference for this, because I've never heard it before, and given the fact that I'm ferociously smart with slug-like reflexes and dexterity, I tend to doubt it. 

 

So I'm not taking your word on that one.  I want to see a research paper...or even an article that references a research paper.

602554[/snapback]

I have to agree this sounds like total BS. And the Wonderlic is a classic example of an intelligence test.

 

btw Wikipedia says 20 is the equivalent of a 100 IQ. 22 might be the NFL average, which I'd expect to be a bit higher than the national averge (most coming from college --> NFL).

[sfladave]

I agree that neither I nor zonabb established statistical correlation, and that neither of us attempted to do so. The right way to prove my statement would be as follows:

 

- First, randomly select some NFL quarterbacks. The more you select, the easier it will be to achieve statistically significant results. So let's say you select 50 QBs.

 

- Second, watch these 50 QBs for enough games to evaluate each one's ability to read defenses. Do this without knowing their Wonderlic scores.

 

- Third, establish whether the Wonderlic score is significantly correlated with the ability to read defenses. If so, determine the r-squared.

 

- Fourth, publish the results on a Bills message board, only to be derided by those who argue my biases prevented me from objectively determining quarterbacks' ability to read defenses. Expect to see plenty of emoticons when discussing alpha levels and standard deviations.

 

Anyone smart enough to do these tasks well should also be smart enough to know it would be a waste of time to do them.

602557[/snapback]

Anyone smart enough would also not look at any situation with tunnel vision. Your quest to run JP out of town is an excellent example of making assumptions without doing proper due diligence.

 

None of us can expertly say that JP does or doesn't have what it takes to make it in the NFL. None of us have proper experience or have done the proper research to make judgment on the situation.

 

Therein lies the problem that I have with the majority of your posts. You make unqualified assumptions and refuse to acknowledge the validity of opposing opinions.

 

I have said many times before that I do not know if JP will be able to to perform at the level of a top NFL QB. I think he has a good chance to if he is given a good OL and the play calling is not done with the help of a magic 8 ball. I also acknowledge the fact that he may never reach that level. That is the difference between you and I, I accept that I may be wrong and acknowledge it, you do not.

[Orton's Arm]

Anyone smart enough would also not look at any situation with tunnel vision. Your quest to run JP out of town is an excellent example of making assumptions without doing proper due diligence.

602565[/snapback]

I've written there's a chance JP will become the real deal, and a chance he will not. I've also written that the chance he'll succeed is smaller than we might like to think, so the Bills shouldn't be adverse to taking a QB early in the draft if a real winner is available. This isn't "running JP out of town" because I think JP should start, while the rookie QB learns on the bench. If JP takes advantage of this opportunity to prove himself, he'll do to the new guy what Brees did to Rivers. But the way I figure it, you're better off having one too many good QBs on the roster, than one too few.

 

Your remark about due diligence is a serious temptation to talk about the factors that have led me to conclude JP's chance of making it is slim. But at this point, I sense some people don't want to hear negative things about JP--especially not from me.