WR Wonderlic Scores

[Dibs]

I agree, I just don't believe that you can measure someone's intelligence with a number out of 50.

 

I agree. You'd need at least a number out of 64.

 

 

 

If it helps, here is a link of a mock Wonderlic test.

 

http://www.proprofs....lic-sample-quiz

 

Is that serious? Is that really what a Wonderlic test is like?

 

Apart from the concept that I'd expect the average pre-teen to be able to score reasonably well on that simple test(the rough average simply guessing the answers would be 13)....

 

....how does having an extremely basic understanding of math, and having a general understanding of the meaning of words, relate to ones ability to be able to play football(or even relate to any form of intelligence)?

Edited April 20, 2013 by Dibs

[Numark]

....how does having an extremely basic understanding of math, and having a general understanding of the meaning of words, relate to ones ability to be able to play football

 

No one has been able to show it does. Which is interesting because it would be easy to do statistically ...since it is a test and is measurable. However anyone saying that for certain positions (ex: QB) it matters and for some it doesn't, they have no proof or evidence. Anyone saying it matters, they haven't shown any proof or evidence etc. Opinions are fine for the most part, but since we are talking about something that is measurable, opinions are sorta silly. Either this does or doesn't matter, and there is no proof.

 

Someone making the claim that this test is similar to another test (the only way to make such a claim is with very specific test) is speaking on an uninformed opinion. And someone making the claim this matters at all is speaking on an uninformed opinion.

 

 

Sorry this test bothers me because people make such a big deal out of it when there is nothing of substance that means anything about it. ALL these scores tell is how good the individual is at taking the wonderlic test. Sorry, fact.

 

 

if anyone could provide raw wonderlic scores and we as a community came up with what we wanted to see with them, I'd be glad to run some stats on them and see if this test means anything at all

Edited April 20, 2013 by Numark

[Dibs]

ALL these scores tell is how good the individual is at taking the wonderlic test. Sorry, fact.

 

I'd say it also could tell us how knowledgeable an individual is on the definitions of basic English words......combined with how knowledgeable they are with basic mathematics.

 

I think what the Wonderlic really tells us is whether an individual paid attention in junior high or not.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Dibs

[NoSaint]

 

 

I'd say it also could tell us how knowledgeable an individual is on the definitions of basic English words......combined with how knowledgeable they are with basic mathematics.

 

I think what the Wonderlic really tells us is whether an individual paid attention in junior high or not.

 

And as these are college students for at minimum 3 years.... Even if it doesn't directly tell you anything it does raise red flags that a guy might either A) blow off things you ask him to do if he doesn't think they are important, or B) have IQ issues that COULD be something worth noting. It's a tool in the investigation, not an answer

[Lurker]

I think what the Wonderlic really tells us is whether an individual paid attention in junior high or not.

Aside from the score itself, one thing a low Wonderlic would tell a team is how committed the player is to doing what's expected and working at their craft.

 

Every draft eligible player knows they're going to be tested--so the ones that don't even spend an hour getting familiar with the format, thinking about how to take the test, and in essence--blowing it off--tell you something about their attitudinal makeup and (lack of) maturity...

[papazoid]

got a chuckle out of this....

 

Would you rather be thoughtless and successful or intelligent and frustrated?

 

A recent article in the New Scientist addressed the never-ending ignorance-as-bliss debate with the following question: If being intelligent was an evolutionary advantage, "why aren't we all uniformly intelligent?" The obvious, unscientific answer: Probably for the same reasons we aren't uniformly good-looking. But is being smart always to your benefit? Are there instances when stupid works better?

 

Stupidity can increase efficiency, claims Mats Alvesson, professor of organization studies at Lund University in Sweden. In a Journal of Management Studies article titled "A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organisations" Alvesson and colleague André Spicer explain how what they call "functional stupidity" generally helped get things done. "Critical reflection and shrewdness" were net positives, but when too many clever individuals in an organization raised their hands to suggest alternative courses of action or to ask "disquieting questions about decisions and structures," work slowed.

 

The study's authors found that stupidity, on the other hand, seemed to have a unifying effect. It boosted productivity. People content in an atmosphere of functional stupidity came to consensus more easily, and with that consensus came greater roll-up-our-sleeves enthusiasm for concentrating on the job.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-benefits-of-being-stupid-at-work-190339721.html

[C.Biscuit97]

Everyone is a genius on a message board!!! Everyone on this board would definitely get at least a 40+ on the wonderlic.

 

And honestly, there are different levels of intelligence. A lot of great musicians were not scholars in school but do things with an instrument that you couldn't believe. Terry Bradshaw was known as a moron and has 4 SB rings. Football intelligence is much different than standarized testing.

 

That said, I would put more stock in the wonderlic at certain positions (QB, C, and possibly MLB or FS).

[San Jose Bills Fan]

got a chuckle out of this....

 

Would you rather be thoughtless and successful or intelligent and frustrated?

 

A recent article in the New Scientist addressed the never-ending ignorance-as-bliss debate with the following question: If being intelligent was an evolutionary advantage, "why aren't we all uniformly intelligent?" The obvious, unscientific answer: Probably for the same reasons we aren't uniformly good-looking. But is being smart always to your benefit? Are there instances when stupid works better?

 

Stupidity can increase efficiency, claims Mats Alvesson, professor of organization studies at Lund University in Sweden. In a Journal of Management Studies article titled "A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organisations" Alvesson and colleague André Spicer explain how what they call "functional stupidity" generally helped get things done. "Critical reflection and shrewdness" were net positives, but when too many clever individuals in an organization raised their hands to suggest alternative courses of action or to ask "disquieting questions about decisions and structures," work slowed.

 

The study's authors found that stupidity, on the other hand, seemed to have a unifying effect. It boosted productivity. People content in an atmosphere of functional stupidity came to consensus more easily, and with that consensus came greater roll-up-our-sleeves enthusiasm for concentrating on the job.

 

http://finance.yahoo...-190339721.html

 

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Doesn't surprised me to see a decent score from Woods. He always seemed like a relatively bright guy to me in interviews.

More importantly, how thick is his superior temporal sulcus?

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/155421-mckelvin-may-have-a-thin-superior-temporal-sulcus/page__hl__sulcus