Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Musings On I.Q. [split]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bijanc
    replied
    Juice For Brains

    The spelling and grammar (or the lack thereof) in OJ's 1994 suicide note were a testament to his poor linguistic skills. Network t.v. work backed that up.

    The murderous rage speaks to a lack of emotional intelligence, and an inability to walk away from his second marriage.

    Leave a comment:


  • jhc68
    replied
    After 30 years of teaching, a couple of decades of education before that, and a stint as an employee at a mental hospital (EMPLOYEE! I had keys!) I don't believe that people can make any generalizations about IQ and athletic ability.

    The two best track athletes I ever coached, both milers, were very, very bright although one could have been designated as learning disabled due to dyslexia (his family always declined accomodations and he graduated from a major university with strong grades).

    Conversely, the best natural all-around athlete I ever dealt with in three decades of teaching was dumb as a bag of hammers.

    In team sports, however, overall team IQ does have an effect on team performance. Given the same level of physical abiility, football, basketball, baseball, even track teams, do better with more smart kids... it has to do with creating an intelligent group culture.

    Leave a comment:


  • cullman
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    Nice-nice-nice guy, but I was absolutely stunned at how... hmm.... "infantile" he was. A gee-whiz aw-shucks guy who seemed to me to relate to the world in a very junior-high way.
    Psychopathic killers come in all forms...it is independent of their IQ.

    cman

    Leave a comment:


  • bijanc
    replied
    Brain v. Brawn

    I know he passed the Navy's entrance requirements, but Bob Feller doesn't strike me as the sharpest knife in the drawer. Then there was "Shoeless" Joe Jackson.

    Jackie Robinson, Jackie Jensen, Gehrig, Koufax were the rare baseballers who attended college for a few years. In Feller's day, guys were signed out of h.s. for the most part. There are all kinds of intelligence though- Ted Williams was not a collegian, but did very well in the math-laden training classes fighter pilots take.

    Muhammad Ali knew how to use his reflexes (and footwork) to his advantage. When a large man is fighting in a style best suited to a welterweight, he is an original (part of the definition of innovative genius). The pyschological warfare he executed speaks f/ itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • cullman
    replied
    Originally posted by Track fan
    So it's possible to be as dull as Forrest Gump and to be a great sprinter or baseball player(a sport with a need for better motor skills)? I though that was a myth.
    Rube Waddell - Baseball HOF
    Curtis Dickey and Joe Louis also weren't known to perform well on standard IQ tests.

    Leave a comment:


  • bijanc
    replied
    The Champ

    There are, as you all know, kinesthetic learners, audial learners, et al. Computation and lingusitic skills are great f/ the classroom, but portend nothing re- negotiation, fashion design, coaching, cooking, or horticulture.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Re: Ali

    Originally posted by bijanc
    Not all learning skills are evident on standardized tests.
    Excellent point!

    Leave a comment:


  • bijanc
    replied
    Ali

    "...You must have a very low opinion of 'normal' intelligence..."

    On the contrary, I have a very high opinion of Muhammad Ali. Not all learning skills are evident on standardized tests.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Re: Ali

    Originally posted by bijanc
    He was clever enough to think of nicknames for his opponents, pysch most of them out, trade quips w/ Paar, Cavett and Cosell, market himself as what wrestling fans can "an opponent", and as a mere teen, go to a hotel in his hometown where Angie Dundee was staying for a Willie Pastrano fight, call their room from the house phone, get asked up, and question the veteran trainer as to:
    what his fighters ate
    how many hours they slept
    how much road work do they do?
    how many rounds do they spar?
    can I work out w/ Willie
    (then light heavy champ)
    Not many teenagers have that much initiative.
    You must have a very low opinion of 'normal' intelligence.

    Leave a comment:


  • bijanc
    replied
    Ali

    I never felt Muhammad Ali displayed a mundane intellect, despite his finishing 367th in a Louisville Central H.S. class of 391, and his Army IQ test scores of just 100 notwithstanding. He was clever enough to think of nicknames for his opponents, pysch most of them out, trade quips w/ Paar, Cavett and Cosell, market himself as what wrestling fans can "an opponent", and as a mere teen, go to a hotel in his hometown where Angie Dundee was staying for a Willie Pastrano fight, call their room from the house phone, get asked up, and question the veteran trainer as to:

    what his fighters ate

    how many hours they slept

    how much road work do they do?

    how many rounds do they spar?

    can I work out w/ Willie
    (then light heavy champ)

    Not many teenagers have that much initiative.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by dakota
    Just so this doesn't look like a thread hijack, the article linked to cites research that the Wonderlic test is 100% useless at predicting successful NFL quarterbacks.
    I've often thought that myself. AIQ (Athletic Intelligence Quotient) is a completely different animal than anything that would predict scholastic success. I always thought that Muhammed Ali showed a rather mundane intellect, but in the boxing ring, he was a freakin' Einstein - smartest fighter I've ever seen. He knew what to do and when to do it to win.

    Leave a comment:


  • bijanc
    replied
    Wunderlic

    Interesting that McNabb scored lowest of the big five in the '99 draft, given that he attended both Chicago Mt. Carmel, and Syracuse.

    Leave a comment:


  • dakota
    replied
    Just so this doesn't look like a thread hijack, the article linked to cites research that the Wonderlic test is 100% useless at predicting successful NFL quarterbacks.

    Leave a comment:


  • dakota
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow

    As an example of my prodigious talents in this field, I'll give you a free sample by telling you Bad Hammy's WQ (same scale as the IQ): 72 ! See how good I am?
    The way you do more than a year's worth of work in a school year is if the teacher stays the hell out of your way and lets you educate yourself.

    If the qualifications a teacher holds can't predict a good teacher why would the qualifications the pupils receive predict good teaching either... And if the best screening process of all is used by the financial services then it's good to know the economy is in safe hands. At least football has a clearly defined set of goals - score more points, concede less, win the game in a competitive scenario. This analogy would be like saying scoring more points doesn't necessarily predict a good quarterback because it acknowledges that classrooms are the equivalent of throwing footballs into dustbins. As usual Gladwell's logic is a total mess. His essay on Michael Ventris and Andrew Wiles is especially bad in this regard. But he always draws on interesting anecdotes and does well to popularise social science.

    There seems to be an element in this that it doesn't matter what kids are taught so long as whatever criteria we use to assert that they have been well taught confirms that they have been taught well. And if it doesn't, then we'll change it so that it does. This would be like the NFL changing the rules to encourage high scoring shoot outs. Then people have to write essays like Gladwell's questioning whether these new qualifications really reflect anything meaningful, as though somehow the answer to this isn't the bleeding obvious. It's a neat tautology he's constructed without noticing.

    Similarly, the question isn't whether corporations can select people with a talent to make money. It should be whether there is any "added value" to society in having corporations whose only goal is to make money for money's sake. Do we really want to go to the next logical step of Gladwell's argument and measure how successful a teacher is based on how successful his students are at making money as financial services advisors? Could we not somehow have a system of qualifications that assesses knowledge and skills because we believe they are worth having for their own sake? Or is the purpose of education just to service economic transactions?

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by dakota
    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/15/081215fa_fact_gladwell?printable=true
    Aha! I knew it!
    Effective teachers have a gift for noticing—what one researcher calls “withitness.”
    I may not be a great teacher, but I am crudely effective in my own way, so y'all better mind them P's and Q's or I'll tell everyone what your WQ (Withitness Quotient) is!

    As an example of my prodigious talents in this field, I'll give you a free sample by telling you Bad Hammy's WQ (same scale as the IQ): 72 ! See how good I am?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X