Commenter caffeine withdrawals writes:
You should do a post on NFL Wonderlic test scores, PP. And also come up with a Wonderlic-IQ conversion. Curious to see what you think the ceiling is.
The first thing I found was this:
Apparently these IQs were largely derived from very old data. Dodrill (1981) writes:
By using the detailed information on Wonderlic’s (1973) sample of 251,253 job applicants, Wonderlic raw scores were first converted to IQ scores having a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 to conform to the distribution of WAIS Full Scale IQs. A preliminary IQ conversion table was set up… First of all, the Wonderlic IQ scores were low in comparison with the WAIS Full Scale IQ when the latter was about 90 or more. Corrections were therefore made in the IQ conversion table. Second, it was noted that there was no correction for age, so Wonderlic’s (1973) suggested corrections for various age groupings were followed. The result of these two types of corrections constituted the final IQ conversion table (Table 1).
Unfortunately, Dodril should not have corrected the Wonderlic scores because they were low compared to the WAIS. The WAIS was normed circa 1953 and the Wonderlic norms were from 1973, so people taking both tests in 1981 would be expected to score higher on the former than the latter, but no one knew about the Flynn effect in those days so it’s understandable.
However I found a paper by Arthur Jensen stating that in a nationally representative sample taking form IV of the Wonderlic Personnel Test (circa 1972?) whites had a mean of 23.32 with a standard deviation of 7.5. So using white norms (which were also used by the original WAIS):
IQ = [(wonderlic score – 23.32)/7.5] + 100
So assuming raw scores are normally distributed, the test’s ceiling should have been IQ 153 for a perfect 50/50 and the test’s floor should have been IQ 53 for 0/50. One might even add the age bonuses suggested in table 1 and say that a 60-year-old who scored 50/50 actually scored 55, so she would have an IQ of 163!
However my formula is based on circa 1972 norms and may not give valid IQs for people today. If this data can be trusted, the scores of Quarterbacks seem to be improving rapidly. A regression line predicting Wonderlic score as a function of year suggests that at least among QBs, raw scores have been increasing by 0.35 points per year. Either this test is extremely sensitive to the Flynn effect, or they’re recruiting from smarter demographics, or they’re using an easier version of the test, or cheating/test prep/lying/selective disclosure is increasing.
Thinking Mouse said:
Afraid of women.
Is very open about his feelings and disabilities.
Yet manages to get good women.
The Philosopher said:
He doesn’t have a light voice lol. Where do you live?
And he doesnt get good women. The documentary actually is him explaining how his disability means he can’t have relationships.
I would say being a good looking rugby player is about 70% of what most girls would like.
Thinking Mouse said:
Correct. My mistake.
Anyways i think sports doesnt matter controlling for looks and friend circle.
I view it as face+height+shoulder width+money+how many admire you+/social circle the security one can provide(most girls are pretty naive in this aspect)+voice. Muscles are good too but a little overrated. Just dont be fat or skinny, have enough muscle on the breast to where it potrudes from the stomach. Being too good can be intimidating for many women if thinking about an relationship.
the general rule of thumb for your score on the Wonderlic is multiplying your score by 2 and adding sixty. I’ve done a lot of commenting on my experiences with the Wonderlic and found it to be a satisfying and really interesting test. Definitely challenges your flexibility as a thinker.
Pumpkin, on power tests like Ravens, would people who can’t get the questions right away, but after thinking about it for a time (2 minutes to a couple days after)and then getting it (theoretically), if they got frustrated like after a minute, does that mean their IQ was slight underestimated (in a most likely scenario)?
It depends how many people in the norming sample also got frustrated and gave up. If more stuff went wrong when you were tested compared to the average person in the norming sample, your IQ was underestimated. If more stuff went right for you than the average person in the norming sample, your IQ was overestimated. That’s how I view it.
It’s like, on difficult problems, math patterns and Raven’s, when I don’t get it right away, I just give up, but then I try them later, and then I get them. I was taking this somewhat accurate online IQ test, and it was timed. I started a problem, gave up, finished the rest, and then it forced me to answer, so I gave it thought, and I eventually understood the pattern. It happens a lot in real life, for some things I have to think for a while before I get the answer.
Pumpkin, you should do an article on music taste relations to IQ.
Also, for the similarities subtest, would taking the test a third time (after the directions sank in the 2nd time) essentially get rid off all practice effects since you probably would understand all the instructions on how to solve the problems the 2nd, and the fact that your mood wouldn’t be much different from the second time you do it.
Also, what would be the average social IQ of rural dwellers vs city dwellers? I’d guess it’d be higher among city dwellers, but rural folks still have access to a lot of people, but I’d think people would be more homogenized in the rural areas as compared to the much more liberal cities.
Practice effects tend to have diminishing returns. The biggest effect is observed the first time you’re retested, but the effect gets smaller & smaller with each subsequent retest
How much would the diminishing returns be on the similarities subtest?
Pingback: Table of Pumpkin Person’s Wonderlic to IQ conversion formula | Aeoli Pera
Pingback: 10 wonderlic score to iq conversion Ideas - Khá Bảnh