Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'NFL Draft' started by ChitownTitan, Feb 25, 2006.
Tide, then read this.
"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."
Holy Cow....this thread is proof that it is the offseason.
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)
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."
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!
Exactly what I've been saying. Thank you.
Umm wow... yeah...:stars: