Started By
Message
Wonderlic a flawed test!
Posted on 4/18/20 at 6:34 pm
Posted on 4/18/20 at 6:34 pm
As a person who has a background in psychology and psychological analyses.
I can assure everyone that the wonderkind is a highly flawed and prejudicial test.
1. Some people have always been slow readers. Not due to some physical or mental defect..DRSMIII. The persons allow themselves to purposefully read and comprehend each word or sentence for a higher memorization.
2. Dyslexia.. many people deemed to be learning disabled are actually very smart with high IQ'S. These wonderlic tests provide "0" avenue to adjust for such disorders. No matter how slight or great these disorders can be. Once, a fair Accountability is assessed and assigned, then the IQ test will be valid.
3. Profiling... Ex. Tennis players and gardeners. How many inner-city kids grow up with the former terms as a life experience? The test is not reflective of a good sample of diverse cultures and demographics.
I could go on and on but you get the point!
Certain players, not to name, names could have actually scored higher than a larger percentage of the testers who took the wonderlic, If a fair and equitable grading system was in place.
So, people quit believing all the lower scores are dumb and by that admission, not all the middle to high scores will be entirely accurate of an account to that tester's brain power.
Can u dig it?
I knew that u could!
I can assure everyone that the wonderkind is a highly flawed and prejudicial test.
1. Some people have always been slow readers. Not due to some physical or mental defect..DRSMIII. The persons allow themselves to purposefully read and comprehend each word or sentence for a higher memorization.
2. Dyslexia.. many people deemed to be learning disabled are actually very smart with high IQ'S. These wonderlic tests provide "0" avenue to adjust for such disorders. No matter how slight or great these disorders can be. Once, a fair Accountability is assessed and assigned, then the IQ test will be valid.
3. Profiling... Ex. Tennis players and gardeners. How many inner-city kids grow up with the former terms as a life experience? The test is not reflective of a good sample of diverse cultures and demographics.
I could go on and on but you get the point!
Certain players, not to name, names could have actually scored higher than a larger percentage of the testers who took the wonderlic, If a fair and equitable grading system was in place.
So, people quit believing all the lower scores are dumb and by that admission, not all the middle to high scores will be entirely accurate of an account to that tester's brain power.
Can u dig it?
I knew that u could!
This post was edited on 4/21/20 at 4:21 am
43
Posted on 4/18/20 at 6:35 pm to Todd Greene
You seem defensive
Posted on 4/18/20 at 6:35 pm to Todd Greene
Curious time to be bringing this up, Todd. Is there any particular reason that you bring it up now?
Posted on 4/18/20 at 6:37 pm to Todd Greene
A1abana players would ace a WindowLick test.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 6:43 pm to TigerLunatik
quote:
Curious time to be bringing this up, Todd. Is there any particular reason that you bring it up now?
I know of a couple of really smart players that bombed on the time portion of the test. They're deliberate readers and a tiger can't change it's stripes in midstream.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 6:43 pm to Todd Greene
OP scored lower than Jeudy on the practice one
Posted on 4/18/20 at 6:43 pm to Todd Greene
If 3 former LSU players scored 13 or below, this post would look VERY different.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 6:44 pm to Todd Greene
quote:
know of a couple of really smart players that bombed on the time portion of the test.
So, they're actually not really smart. Got it.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 6:47 pm to SonzofSaban
quote:
know of a couple of really smart players that bombed on the time portion of the test.
So, they're actually not really smart. Got it.
Well, they graduated Magna cum laude and cum laude. So, there's that!
Posted on 4/18/20 at 6:49 pm to Todd Greene
quote:
Well, they graduated Magna cum laude and cum laude.
Where? Cowpie University in Bumfrick, Alabama?
Posted on 4/18/20 at 6:53 pm to Todd Greene
Would you want to hire a quarterback who is slow at reading defenses and takes his time?
Sounds like a fair test to me.
Sounds like a fair test to me.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 6:56 pm to Todd Greene
Yeah, normally those who flunk the fricking test say that it's flawed.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 6:58 pm to Todd Greene
Raw intelligence is not what is being measured.
It depends on your definition of smart but in terms of football it's how quickly you can assess a situation and make a logical effective decision. And really that definition applies to all smart people in all walks of life.
As such, the things you listed are deficiencies in making quick logical decisions and therefore people with those deficiencies by my definition aren't as smart as people who don't have such limitations.
And I should know because I am a slow reader and have some dyslexic tendencies; in other words I understand why I'm not as smart as people who don't have those limitations.
It depends on your definition of smart but in terms of football it's how quickly you can assess a situation and make a logical effective decision. And really that definition applies to all smart people in all walks of life.
As such, the things you listed are deficiencies in making quick logical decisions and therefore people with those deficiencies by my definition aren't as smart as people who don't have such limitations.
And I should know because I am a slow reader and have some dyslexic tendencies; in other words I understand why I'm not as smart as people who don't have those limitations.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 6:58 pm to Todd Greene
quote:
As a person who has a background in psychology and psychological analyses.
46-41
RT?FU
Posted on 4/18/20 at 7:02 pm to p0845330
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/18/20 at 7:05 pm
Posted on 4/18/20 at 7:03 pm to p0845330
quote:
Would you want to hire a quarterback who is slow at reading defenses and takes his time?
Sounds like a fair test to me.
Totally, not the same thing! This just proves my point. It's not a quantifiable test as to mental processing in a different and familiar environment. The NFL knows this to be true but hasn't come up with anything that does have a quantifiable
measure that's better and more readily available. I think they're wrong but it's what they've got for now.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 7:03 pm to GurleyGirl
quote:
As such, the things you listed are deficiencies in making quick logical decisions and therefore people with those deficiencies by my definition aren't as smart as people who don't have such limitations.
To put it in practical terms, by the time Tua realizes New England is actually not playing man-to-man but a Cover 3 shell- the DE is already burying his head in the turf.
This post was edited on 4/18/20 at 7:04 pm
Posted on 4/18/20 at 7:12 pm to GurleyGirl
quote:
And I should know because I am a slow reader and have some dyslexic tendencies; in other words I understand why I'm not as smart as people who don't have those limitations.
Dyslexia can be overcome. I've seen it happen to people I went to school with.
They're are tools that can help with your disorder. I'm sure your aware of this as am I. But, a slower reader does not always equivocate into a lower ability to learn and comprehend at a sufficiently high rate. P.S. good luck with your LD.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 7:15 pm to Todd Greene
quote:
. But, a slower reader does not always equivocate into a lower ability to learn and comprehend at a sufficiently high rate
But it absolutely inhibits your ability to process information quickly. Which is the relevant attribute tested for here.
You knew that already though, being the "expert" that you are.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 7:17 pm to Todd Greene
I guess as a white male without dyslexia who took tennis lessons for years, I was born to take the Wonderlic
This post was edited on 4/18/20 at 7:18 pm
Page 1 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News