But prag...
Much of the reasons given for why one group performs differently from another don't apply here. We are not comparing college graduates with high school drop outs. We are not comparing affluent people to poor people. The sample is a much tighter one. All of these men are young, healthy, well fed and all had at least the opportunity to attend a college. All are athletes who had to contribute a significant amount of time to football.
Much of the reasons given for why one group performs differently from another don't apply here. We are not comparing college graduates with high school drop outs. We are not comparing affluent people to poor people. The sample is a much tighter one. All of these men are young, healthy, well fed and all had at least the opportunity to attend a college. All are athletes who had to contribute a significant amount of time to football.
RollTide said:
Excellant point. So my speculation may be completly off. But the fact those guys all scored just around one standard deviation lower is what sticks out to me.
But I dont think the sample is as small as you think. We are talking about pro or potential pro athletes. These guys did not have to get into college based on academics- though they may have. I dont know.
It fits if you think about it. Pro sports are some of the primary goals for many low SES kids. How many pro athletes came from low SES? So I think saying that that they went to college and that makes them completely different from those of the same group of individuals that didnt go to college may not be true. They used athletics to get out of that "culture" where others couldn't. (again this culture as I'm calling it, is not just low SES but also norms and values of particular groups)
So Vince is one of the smart ones from the Hood? or Cutler and Leinart are idiot jocks from the suburbs? Or Vince is just dumb as a rock, and Cutler and Leinart aren't?
On the list of "things that matter", the wonderlic is way down there. Again, teams will bring in the QB's and give them a "football" test to see if they recognize coverages, understand plays, etc.
VolnTitan said:
Exactly. Which is why I posted this first.
We keep wondering why its not moving- so we beat it harder.
)The #1 reason that anyone is making a big deal about it? The draft is still over a month away and nothing else to talk about it.
Some of the moves that staff has made the past couple years leaves that up for debate...:ha:VolnTitan said:
There is no debate. The staff knows how to evaluate talent better than all of us combined. Period.
Whoa, ease up Rocky Top. Didn't you see the laughing smiley face?
But obviously, DeRon Jenkins was better than us fans thought, eh?:suspect:
But obviously, DeRon Jenkins was better than us fans thought, eh?:suspect:
Prag...
You did read that steele report didn't you?
---------------------------------------------
Several culturally based explanations of the black/white IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of blacks and whites is presently available," the report said.
---------------------------------------
Now what?
Despite those findings from his own study he still concludes that the tests are unfair somehow and even proposes a political solution. His theory has not been "conclusively supported" but that doesn't stop him.
Maybe you should write to these acedemic heros of yours and tell them to stop making up and administering these racist tests. Tell them that since these tests are racially or cultually unfair that they have no value. If the tests only serve to further negative sterotypes then why do they keep administering them?
And maybe we can just look at a person like vince young as an individual since it is he that might be a tennessee titan and not the whole black community.
Bottom line, if a test is unfair then don't use it. Using racist tests is racist. Right?
You did read that steele report didn't you?
---------------------------------------------
Several culturally based explanations of the black/white IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of blacks and whites is presently available," the report said.
---------------------------------------
Now what?
Despite those findings from his own study he still concludes that the tests are unfair somehow and even proposes a political solution. His theory has not been "conclusively supported" but that doesn't stop him.
Maybe you should write to these acedemic heros of yours and tell them to stop making up and administering these racist tests. Tell them that since these tests are racially or cultually unfair that they have no value. If the tests only serve to further negative sterotypes then why do they keep administering them?
And maybe we can just look at a person like vince young as an individual since it is he that might be a tennessee titan and not the whole black community.
Bottom line, if a test is unfair then don't use it. Using racist tests is racist. Right?
Tide, then read this.
http://www.nasponline.org/publicatio...12beyondg.html
"Yes, certain minority groups score consistently lower on intelligence tests than European-Americans, but the cause, in our opinion, has to do with the concept of fairness. Most intelligence tests measure crystallized abilities, those abilities acquired through formal and informal experiences and education. By definition, these abilities are inseparable from prior learning or achievement, so they cannot be true measures of innate ability. Those who have enriched backgrounds and educational experiences typically score better on crystallized measures than those who come from impoverished or varied backgrounds. Does this mean the former children are smarter? We think not.
Those who use group differences to draw conclusions about racial group intelligence tend to ignore within-group variability and often collapse different abilities into a global IQ score for subsequent group comparisons (Suzuki & Valencia, 1997). For instance, we typically use language to measure crystallized abilities, so anyone whose primary language is not English, or those who use colloquial or nonstandard forms of English, will be less likely to do well on crystallized tasks or any other tasks requiring verbal facility. Intelligence test scores are intimately related to academic achievement in a reciprocal fashion (Ceci & Williams, 1997). If one has a good education and enriched environment, one will probably score better on intelligence tests. However, if one has a limited experience and education, one will not score as well. For these reasons, intelligence tests can be unfair for children of color or cultural difference, but the unfairness is not statistical, it's the result of the clinician's error in interpreting a low crystallized score as being the result of low intelligence. Ever since Binet and Simon developed the first "true" intelligence test, our intelligence tests have been unfair to some groups, individual people of cultural or linguistic difference from the overall normative population."
http://www.nasponline.org/publicatio...12beyondg.html
"Yes, certain minority groups score consistently lower on intelligence tests than European-Americans, but the cause, in our opinion, has to do with the concept of fairness. Most intelligence tests measure crystallized abilities, those abilities acquired through formal and informal experiences and education. By definition, these abilities are inseparable from prior learning or achievement, so they cannot be true measures of innate ability. Those who have enriched backgrounds and educational experiences typically score better on crystallized measures than those who come from impoverished or varied backgrounds. Does this mean the former children are smarter? We think not.
Those who use group differences to draw conclusions about racial group intelligence tend to ignore within-group variability and often collapse different abilities into a global IQ score for subsequent group comparisons (Suzuki & Valencia, 1997). For instance, we typically use language to measure crystallized abilities, so anyone whose primary language is not English, or those who use colloquial or nonstandard forms of English, will be less likely to do well on crystallized tasks or any other tasks requiring verbal facility. Intelligence test scores are intimately related to academic achievement in a reciprocal fashion (Ceci & Williams, 1997). If one has a good education and enriched environment, one will probably score better on intelligence tests. However, if one has a limited experience and education, one will not score as well. For these reasons, intelligence tests can be unfair for children of color or cultural difference, but the unfairness is not statistical, it's the result of the clinician's error in interpreting a low crystallized score as being the result of low intelligence. Ever since Binet and Simon developed the first "true" intelligence test, our intelligence tests have been unfair to some groups, individual people of cultural or linguistic difference from the overall normative population."
As for why do people still make these test? Well, one guess is because they are still useful even if they are not as accurate as we would like.
For example, if the wonderlic is used as an intial screening rather than as an accurate measure of intelligence it is still useful. I think Vol is right. Nfl teams will use that first score as an indicator that they need to do a battery of tests to see how VY responds to nfl related intelligence demands, tests that would more accurately and specifically give them an idea of his potential.
I would think the danger is reading too much into them- seeing them as being as accurate as a "hard science" tests or as accurate as a normal battery of iq tests. The more tests you use and the more aware one is of the bias in a tests- the more accurate it becomes.
As for the bias in these tests, I woudn't assume that because the test has some cultural bias that the one who made up the test is racist. I might conclude that they are culturaly biased. But that shouldn't surprise anyone. We are all biased by our own culture. We can only understand the culture of others from the outside looking in- unless we actually join that culture (which in many cases in not practical)
For example, if the wonderlic is used as an intial screening rather than as an accurate measure of intelligence it is still useful. I think Vol is right. Nfl teams will use that first score as an indicator that they need to do a battery of tests to see how VY responds to nfl related intelligence demands, tests that would more accurately and specifically give them an idea of his potential.
I would think the danger is reading too much into them- seeing them as being as accurate as a "hard science" tests or as accurate as a normal battery of iq tests. The more tests you use and the more aware one is of the bias in a tests- the more accurate it becomes.
As for the bias in these tests, I woudn't assume that because the test has some cultural bias that the one who made up the test is racist. I might conclude that they are culturaly biased. But that shouldn't surprise anyone. We are all biased by our own culture. We can only understand the culture of others from the outside looking in- unless we actually join that culture (which in many cases in not practical)
VolnTitan said:
YEah, I really want this thread to end. :stars:
But I feel like I need to keep explaining my position.
I say we keep it until the draft! Heck, whoever we pick, people will complain.
"With the 3rd pick of the draft, the Titans select...Jesus Christ, Son of God"
Fans..."Ugh...He only ran the 40 in 5.0. I know it was in sandels, but that along with his Wonderlic score of 3...Reese messed up on this. I don't want to hear about the fact he only reads arabic. No excuse. We should have taken Ra, the Sun God."
"With the 3rd pick of the draft, the Titans select...Jesus Christ, Son of God"
Fans..."Ugh...He only ran the 40 in 5.0. I know it was in sandels, but that along with his Wonderlic score of 3...Reese messed up on this. I don't want to hear about the fact he only reads arabic. No excuse. We should have taken Ra, the Sun God."
Prag...
In a basic iq test this would be 85 where the mean is 100. Several reasons have been thrown about- many inflamatory, many scientific- with no clear conclusions.
--------------------------
You just ruined your whole debate. There are no clear conclusions so why then do you attempt to pretend that there are?
Why do these so called compassionate intellectuals even record race when administering these tests? These scores are individual. If i take a test like that i'm taking it for me not on behalf of my race. Why not just say that john got a 100 and mary got a 112 score? Does it matter what race they belong to at all? For me it doesn't. When i see a player with a 6 score i don't care what race he is. You do and apparently these intellectual heros of yours are obsessed with race when they calculate these tests. It's almost like some nazi conspiracy where tests are given in which blacks don't do as well, the results are advertised to the world and to make it look good the nazi testers pay lip service to some possible cultural bias but admitting in the end there are no "clear conclusions."
I'm sure klansman and skinheads across america will say thank you.
The difference between me and you is that i look at people as individuals first and you look at them as part of some group. I think that is wrong. It is especially wrong when talking about nfl players because the nfl is based on individual acievement within a team setting. If steve mcnair stinks it up on the field he gets the boot. We don't cut him some slack because of his color and we wouldn't cut vince young slack either.
The nfl have done the best they can to measure and test these players to make the most educated decisions. We would'nt think of shaving a tenth of a second off the 40 times for white players to make it fair and i don't think we should look at the wonderlic that way.
In a basic iq test this would be 85 where the mean is 100. Several reasons have been thrown about- many inflamatory, many scientific- with no clear conclusions.
--------------------------
You just ruined your whole debate. There are no clear conclusions so why then do you attempt to pretend that there are?
Why do these so called compassionate intellectuals even record race when administering these tests? These scores are individual. If i take a test like that i'm taking it for me not on behalf of my race. Why not just say that john got a 100 and mary got a 112 score? Does it matter what race they belong to at all? For me it doesn't. When i see a player with a 6 score i don't care what race he is. You do and apparently these intellectual heros of yours are obsessed with race when they calculate these tests. It's almost like some nazi conspiracy where tests are given in which blacks don't do as well, the results are advertised to the world and to make it look good the nazi testers pay lip service to some possible cultural bias but admitting in the end there are no "clear conclusions."
I'm sure klansman and skinheads across america will say thank you.
The difference between me and you is that i look at people as individuals first and you look at them as part of some group. I think that is wrong. It is especially wrong when talking about nfl players because the nfl is based on individual acievement within a team setting. If steve mcnair stinks it up on the field he gets the boot. We don't cut him some slack because of his color and we wouldn't cut vince young slack either.
The nfl have done the best they can to measure and test these players to make the most educated decisions. We would'nt think of shaving a tenth of a second off the 40 times for white players to make it fair and i don't think we should look at the wonderlic that way.
I think you both have made good points. I have done some research on these standardized test and I agree that they are not fair to everyone. My main complain comes like this --
You have student A who was sent to suburbia private school where there is no limit on the money the school spends on their education.
Then you have Student B, who grew up in the projects and goes to a school where only 25% of the students graduate. Student B's school has outdated EVERYTHING, poorly paid teachers who dont care, and a violent atmosphere. Student B has a perfect 4.0 GPA as does student A.
They both go take the SAT/ACT and student A scores a high score ie 32 ACT and Student B scores a 19. Do you think that it is because one is smarter than the other? Or could it be that because of poor learning enviroment and lack of advantages that student B had compared to student A?
Race has to be brought into it because weather we like it or not, the urban areas are made up of minorities such as blacks, spanish, ect, where as the suburban areas are made up of mostly whites.
How can we give these two groups the same TEST and expect anything less that what happens now? They are not fair because not everyone is given the same oportunities in education.
With all that being said, we have to have some way to measure people and right now this is the best thing they have.
Just my .02!
You have student A who was sent to suburbia private school where there is no limit on the money the school spends on their education.
Then you have Student B, who grew up in the projects and goes to a school where only 25% of the students graduate. Student B's school has outdated EVERYTHING, poorly paid teachers who dont care, and a violent atmosphere. Student B has a perfect 4.0 GPA as does student A.
They both go take the SAT/ACT and student A scores a high score ie 32 ACT and Student B scores a 19. Do you think that it is because one is smarter than the other? Or could it be that because of poor learning enviroment and lack of advantages that student B had compared to student A?
Race has to be brought into it because weather we like it or not, the urban areas are made up of minorities such as blacks, spanish, ect, where as the suburban areas are made up of mostly whites.
How can we give these two groups the same TEST and expect anything less that what happens now? They are not fair because not everyone is given the same oportunities in education.
With all that being said, we have to have some way to measure people and right now this is the best thing they have.
Just my .02!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
