sherman smarter then andrew?

[Superman]

What victim? Your posts have been attacking in nature and unfounded.

 

That victim.

 

My posts haven't attacked anything but your assertion that GPA is an indicator of intelligence.

 

Show me where I ever said Luck was smarter than Sherman or vice versa?

 

Show me where I said you did.

 

I don't know how many times I have to say that I brought up GPA in my response to NCF because he said that Luck was way smarter than Sherman and had no reason why except to say that people who know both would say Luck is way smarter and yet Sherman also went to Stanford same as Luck.

 

 

And again, GPA is not an indicator of intelligence. Luck can be smarter than Sherman, despite Sherman having a higher GPA.

 

This is really not that difficult.

[Qwiz]

AM is. Or was, and will now deny it.

But really, what's ironic about NCF's statement? Is it hard to believe that one person who went to Stanford is smarter than another person who went to Stanford? It's a really good school, and anyone who graduated with a high GPA is likely very intelligent. But some guys are genius level scholars, and others are students who worked really hard to get good grades. Some are smarter than others.

It would be really, really difficult for me to care any less than I do about who is "smarter" between Luck and Sherman (or any one person vs any other person, to be honest). I think it's entirely irrelevant, and has no bearing on how they play football in the NFL. But there's some glitchy logic in this thread, and most of it circles around GPA and test scores as indicators of intelligence.

What is ironic is that he builds the guys up and then elevated his favorite to a "rare" intelligence level. Like others have said in this thread the guy is perceived by some around here to be a super genius. I couldn't care less either, I just found that post amusing. Both guys are good players and I don't think their intelligence needs to be debated anyway.

[jvan1973]

Nah, I've taken an I.Q. test before. I doubt that the one for players going to the NFL is anything like a standard test for I.Q. though.

Well you can doubt it all you want. But the fact is, it isn't. There are tons of places online to take a sample test

[Qwiz]

Well you can doubt it all you want. But the fact is, it isn't. There are tons of places online to take a sample test

Nah. Majority rules. But think what you will, we can agree to disagree here.

[amfootball]

That victim.

 

My posts haven't attacked anything but your assertion that GPA is an indicator of intelligence.

 

 

Show me where I said you did.

 

 

And again, GPA is not an indicator of intelligence. Luck can be smarter than Sherman, despite Sherman having a higher GPA.

 

This is really not that difficult.

Oh man my head hurts. I keep telling you that the only reason why I pointed out GPA is because NCF went on and on about how Stanford athletes are super smart and a cut above other students from other schools and then said that Luck was way smarter than Sherman. Did you miss that sentence? He said Luck was way smarter and had nothing to back it up but hearsay. So I took his Stanford points and turned it back on him to say how can Luck be way smarter if Sherman also went to Stanford and had a higher GPA.

 

I do not believe GPA is an indicator of smarts. The only thing I have defended on this thread is that a COM major is a difficult degree given I have personal experience. That's it.

[Superman]

What is ironic is that he builds the guys up and then elevated his favorite to a "rare" intelligence level. Like others have said in this thread the guy is perceived by some around here to be a super genius. I couldn't care less either, I just found that post amusing. Both guys are good players and I don't think their intelligence needs to be debated anyway.

 

It's not hard to find similar statements from people who think Luck is highly intelligent, near genius level. He's been praised for his intelligence since before he finished school. It's not just NCF playing favorites, although he's obviously a huge Luck fan.

 

Regardless, when someone says "Luck is smarter than Sherman," and other people respond with "but Sherman had a higher GPA!", something is missing.

[jvan1973]

Nah. Majority rules. But think what you will, we can agree to disagree here.

That doesn't make any sense. Majority of what?

[amfootball]

It's not hard to find similar statements from people who think Luck is highly intelligent, near genius level. He's been praised for his intelligence since before he finished school. It's not just NCF playing favorites, although he's obviously a huge Luck fan.

 

Regardless, when someone says "Luck is smarter than Sherman," and other people respond with "but Sherman had a higher GPA!", something is missing.

NFCs whole case was how Stanford athletes are a cut above though. That was his case for Luck. Saying Luck is smarter makes no sense if your main point is that he went to Stanford and did well. Sherman did the same thing.

[Qwiz]

It's not hard to find similar statements from people who think Luck is highly intelligent, near genius level. He's been praised for his intelligence since before he finished school. It's not just NCF playing favorites, although he's obviously a huge Luck fan.

Regardless, when someone says "Luck is smarter than Sherman," and other people respond with "but Sherman had a higher GPA!", something is missing.

Yeah, but saying that it isn't close and that anyone who meets them both will agree is a bit out there. I get what AM is saying to, because Sherman had a high GPA and if it is that high and a genius had a lower one, it is a bit odd to declare the latter as intellectually superior while completelt discounting the former. Just my take on the topic.

[jvan1973]

NFCs whole case was how Stanford athletes are a cut above though. That was his case for Luck. Saying Luck is smarter makes no sense if your main point is that he went to Stanford and did well. Sherman did the same thing.

I think his point was a degree in architecture is more difficult than a degree in communication

[Qwiz]

That doesn't make any sense. Majority of what?

Three people have disagreed of your view on the test and pointed out it's flaws. 3-1 with the majority on one side. That's what I meant.

[Superman]

Oh man my head hurts. I keep telling you that the only reason why I pointed out GPA is because NCF went on and on about how Stanford athletes are super smart and a cut above other students from other schools and then said that Luck was way smarter than Sherman. Did you miss that sentence? He said Luck was way smarter and had nothing to back it up but hearsay. So I took his Stanford points and turned it back on him to say how can Luck be way smarter if Sherman also went to Stanford and had a higher GPA.

 

I do not believe GPA is an indicator of smarts. The only thing I have defended on this thread is that a COM major is a difficult degree given I have personal experience. That's it.

 

Seriously???

 

how can Luck be way smarter if Sherman also went to Stanford and had a higher GPA

 

It's right there. GPA isn't a measure of intelligence. Just because two people go to the same college doesn't mean that the person with the lower GPA can't be more intelligent than the person with the higher GPA. It's really simple. 

[amfootball]

I think his point was a degree in architecture is more difficult than a degree in communication

He never said that though. All he talked about was Stanford athletes being a cut above. The OP is the one that posed that question to start this thread which I thought was an interesting topic which is why I responded about being a COM major.

[Qwiz]

I think his point was a degree in architecture is more difficult than a degree in communication

I don't think that is the end all be all in deciding intelligence though.

[jvan1973]

Three people have disagreed of your view on the test and pointed out it's flaws. 3-1 with the majority on one side. That's what I meant.

LOL is that how you base and form your opinions? The majority with a sample size of four?

That makes sense actually. Now i understand why some of your viewpoints are what they are

[amfootball]

Seriously???

 

how can Luck be way smarter if Sherman also went to Stanford and had a higher GPA

 

It's right there. GPA isn't a measure of intelligence. Just because two people go to the same college doesn't mean that the person with the lower GPA can't be more intelligent than the person with the higher GPA. It's really simple. 

Sigh. I know you are smarter than this. My quote is ironic in nature. I am saying it because NCF talked about Stanford and the student athletes being smart and then says Luck is way smarter with nothing to back it up. I could see him saying this if Sherman went to a different school but he didn't and he had a higher GPA. How can you not understand this? It has nothing to do with intelligence or GPA but NCFs argument that Luck is smarter based on going to Stanford and doing well. All else was hearsay.

[jvan1973]

I don't think that is the end all be all in deciding intelligence though.

i agree, it wasn't my stance. NCF made that point

[Superman]

NFCs whole case was how Stanford athletes are a cut above though. That was his case for Luck. Saying Luck is smarter makes no sense if your main point is that he went to Stanford and did well. Sherman did the same thing.

 

His point about Stanford being a cut above applied to both Sherman and Luck. That's where this comes in:

 

Are some majors easier than others at Stanford.    Sure.   Yes.    No doubt.    But none are considered easy.    Stanford athletes takes all the same courses that the genius students take.

 

He followed that with a "by the way," and then went into praising Luck. He wasn't discounting anything about Sherman's experience. I read his post as a defense of Sherman, counter to some comments suggesting that Sherman's communications major was the easy way out for an athlete at a major university.

 

So yeah, you can say that one student at that school is smarter than another student, even though they're both smart. He didn't really back up his claim about Luck being smarter, but I didn't think that was the main point of his post. I'll let him expound on that further, if he wishes to do so. For me, I don't very much care who is smarter; I'm not even sure there's a legitimate way to test this claim either way. I just know that "Sherman got a higher GPA!" doesn't discredit a claim that Luck is smarter, because GPA doesn't measure intelligence.

[Superman]

Sigh. I know you are smarter than this. My quote is ironic in nature. I am saying it because NCF talked about Stanford and the student athletes being smart and then says Luck is way smarter with nothing to back it up. I could see him saying this if Sherman went to a different school but he didn't and he had a higher GPA. How can you not understand this? It has nothing to do with intelligence or GPA but NCFs argument that Luck is smarter based on going to Stanford and doing well. All else was hearsay.

 

See my post above.

 

1) I didn't read his comment that way. 

 

2) Sherman having a higher GPA doesn't mean Luck isn't smarter. It's a poor rebuttal, at best.

[Qwiz]

LOL is that how you base and form your opinions? The majority with a sample size of four?

That makes sense actually. Now i understand why some of your viewpoints are what they are

I already have my reasons and quotes and as usual, you denied them. Wrong people don't like to admit their wrong, and you find yourself in that situation a lot my friend.

[jvan1973]

I already have my reasons and quotes and as usual, you denied them. Wrong people don't like to admit their wrong, and you find yourself in that situation a LOT my friend.

actually i provided you links that apparently you can't understand

[Superman]

Yeah, but saying that it isn't close and that anyone who meets them both will agree is a bit out there. I get what AM is saying to, because Sherman had a high GPA and if it is that high and a genius had a lower one, it is a bit odd to declare the latter as intellectually superior while completelt discounting the former. Just my take on the topic.

 

It's not necessarily "out there." I can see why it would attract attention, and he didn't support his claim, but the whole GPA argument is entirely off base. 

 

Unless, like I originally said, someone thinks that GPA is a measure of intelligence.

[amfootball]

His point about Stanford being a cut above applied to both Sherman and Luck. That's where this comes in:

 

Are some majors easier than others at Stanford.    Sure.   Yes.    No doubt.    But none are considered easy.    Stanford athletes takes all the same courses that the genius students take.

 

He followed that with a "by the way," and then went into praising Luck. He wasn't discounting anything about Sherman's experience. I read his post as a defense of Sherman, counter to some comments suggesting that Sherman's communications major was the easy way out for an athlete at a major university.

 

So yeah, you can say that one student at that school is smarter than another student, even though they're both smart. He didn't really back up his claim about Luck being smarter, but I didn't think that was the main point of his post. I'll let him expound on that further, if he wishes to do so. For me, I don't very much care who is smarter; I'm not even sure there's a legitimate way to test this claim either way. I just know that "Sherman got a higher GPA!" doesn't discredit a claim that Luck is smarter, because GPA doesn't measure intelligence.

I think we read the post differently then. His sentence which says "none are considered easy" in reference to the majors made me believe that he did not necessarily see Luck's degree as that much more difficult than Sherman's. My take was that he was really pumping Stanford as it relates specifically to student athletes and the fact that they take all the same courses as other students.

 

It was his last sentence about Luck being "way" smarter that threw me. Luck may in fact be smarter, whatever that means but as you say, I would not base that on going to Stanford or a GPA. But the fact is Sherman went to the same school and did extremely well. So his post seemed off to me which is why I responded the way I did.

 

I do hope he responds to clarify as we have spend quite a bit of time dissecting his post. lol.

[amfootball]

It's not necessarily "out there." I can see why it would attract attention, and he didn't support his claim, but the whole GPA argument is entirely off base. 

 

Unless, like I originally said, someone thinks that GPA is a measure of intelligence.

My GPA post was not an argument but intended to be outrageous and out there just like his assertion that Luck was waay smarter than Sherman with only his Stanford argument as his basis.

[Qwiz]

actually i provided you links that apparently you can't understand

I found things to support my stance in the first link. After that I have nothing else to say.

[Superman]

I think we read the post differently then. His sentence which says "none are considered easy" in reference to the majors made me believe that he did not necessarily see Luck's degree as that much more difficult than Sherman's. My take was that he was really pumping Stanford as it relates specifically to student athletes and the fact that they take all the same courses as other students.

 

That's incredibly speculative, IMO. Just because none are easy doesn't mean that one can't be more difficult than another.

 

He was pumping Stanford -- for good reason, I think -- because they don't have lesser curricula designed to attract athletes who don't want to take education seriously. But that applies to Sherman's major as much as it applies to Luck's.

 

It was his last sentence about Luck being "way" smarter that threw me. Luck may in fact be smarter, whatever that means but as you say, I would not base that on going to Stanford or a GPA. But that fact is Sherman went to the same school and did extremely well. So his post seemed off to me which is why I responded the way I did.

 

I do hope he responses to clarify as we have spend quite a bit of time dissecting his post. lol. 

 

 

That's fine. Like I said, I think bringing up GPA in response to his post is missing the point entirely.

[jvan1973]

I found things to support my stance in the first link. After that I have nothing else to say.

I guess you missed this part

"A score of 20 is intended to indicate average intelligence (corresponding to an intelligence quotient of 100).[3] Wonderlic, Inc. claims a score of at least 10 points suggests a person is literate"

[amfootball]

That's incredibly speculative, IMO. Just because none are easy doesn't mean that one can't be more difficult than another.

 

He was pumping Stanford -- for good reason, I think -- because they don't have lesser curricula designed to attract athletes who don't want to take education seriously. But that applies to Sherman's major as much as it applies to Luck's.

 

 

That's fine. Like I said, I think bringing up GPA in response to his post is missing the point entirely.

I have no issue with him pumping Stanford, it is a great school, and like I said that seemed to me to be his big thrust not the majors. But if you are going to pump Stanford and its student athletes then you can't claim that Luck is waay smarter than Sherman when both went there and did extremely well. Does not jive. That is why I brought up GPA because Sherman's was higher. You can take issue with my response that is fine but I was intentionally being simple and obtuse in my response to make a point because NCF did not have anything to back his argument about Luck being smarter other than that he went to Stanford.

[Qwiz]

It's not necessarily "out there." I can see why it would attract attention, and he didn't support his claim, but the whole GPA argument is entirely off base.

Unless, like I originally said, someone thinks that GPA is a measure of intelligence.

It definitely attracts the wrong kind of attention, as does the misconception of the GPA comment. Oh well, it is the offseason lol.

[Qwiz]

I guess you missed this part

"A score of 20 is intended to indicate average intelligence (corresponding to an intelligence quotient of 100).[3] Wonderlic, Inc. claims a score of at least 10 points suggests a person is literate"

Intended to indicate isn't the same as straightforward indication. In any case the page itself is a little baffling and self-contradictory but from what I've seen discussed on this very forum, I've learned that it isn't an I.Q. test.

[jvan1973]

Intended to indicate isn't the same as straightforward indication. In any case the page itself is a little baffling and self-contradictory but from what I've seen discussed on this very forum, I've learned that it isn't an I.Q. test.

it is AN iq test. There are many

[Superman]

I have no issue with him pumping Stanford, it is a great school, and like I said that seemed to me to be his big thrust not the majors. But if you are going to pump Stanford and its student athletes then you can't claim that Luck is waay smarter than Sherman when both went there and did extremely well. Does not jive. 

 

Yes you can. 

 

That's a fundamental disagreement. Even if they had the same exact curriculum -- which they didn't; it's not hard to imagine that architectural engineering is a tougher major than communications -- your grades in school don't necessarily measure your level of intelligence.

 

That is why I brought up GPA because Sherman's was higher. You can take issue with my response that is fine but I was intentionally being simple and obtuse in my response to make a point because NCF did not have anything to back his argument about Luck being smarter other than that he went to Stanford.

 

 

So then you could have answered my question to begin with by saying that you were being simple and obtuse, and that you know GPA has nothing to do with who's smarter. That's all I wanted to know.

 

Even still, as far as smart alec rebuttals go, I think you could have done better than comparing GPAs. 

[Qwiz]

it is AN iq test. There are many

I'll choose to hear you out and go with this hypothetically. If it is some sort of I.Q. test, then that portion is secondary to it being an aptitude test, which it is, and which is part of its very definition.

[NewColtsFan]

Why would Sherman lie knowing one could easily find out his GPA?

 

I never said that I believed GPA was an indicator of intelligence just pointing out the discrepancy in the poster's claim that Luck was way smarter than Sherman based on his doing well at Stanford.

 

I don't know why Richard would puff-up his scores?

 

But his GPA coming out of HS was 3.9, at least that's what he reported.

 

And he didn't appear on several Pac-12 all academic teams and the ones he did, his GPA wasn't that high.

 

So, I don't know what to tell you....

 

There may be an innocent explanation for all this....   a misunderstanding of sorts...    I don't know....

 

But what is known doesn't add-up to a 4.2 HS gpa or a 3.9 at Stanford.

 

Believe me, I'm not at all happy about this......  but sometimes Richard is his own worst enemy.

 

Hey, if I'm wrong here, then I'm wrong......     but I'm going by what's been out there publicly....

 

One last thought.....   I'm not looking down my nose at Richard Sherman's academics.

 

He had a 3.9 in HS.      I sure didn't.    Not even a 2.9. 

 

And he got into Stanford.     I got into Cal State Northridge.

 

And he graduated Stanford, and there are no easy majors at Stanford.    So, I have great respect for Richard.

 

But his professed scores appear to be puffed-up a bit and I don't know why?

[jvan1973]

I'll choose to hear you out and go with this hypothetically. If it is some sort of I.Q. test, then that portion is secondary to it being an aptitude test, which it is, and which is part of its very definition.

they aren't exclusive of one another

The Wonderlic Cognitive Ability Test (formerly known as the Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT)) is a popular group intelligence test used to assess the aptitude of prospective employees for learning and problem-solving in a range of occupations.

[amfootball]

Yes you can. 

 

That's a fundamental disagreement. Even if they had the same exact curriculum -- which they didn't; it's not hard to imagine that architectural engineering is a tougher major than communications -- your grades in school don't necessarily measure your level of intelligence.

 

 

So then you could have answered my question to begin with by saying that you were being simple and obtuse, and that you know GPA has nothing to do with who's smarter. That's all I wanted to know.

 

Even still, as far as smart alec rebuttals go, I think you could have done better than comparing GPAs. 

There is a fundamental disagreement because I don't believe the poster was saying Luck was smarter based on his major but more on hearsay and the fact that he thinks Sherman may be lying about his GPA. See his post above to me about this very thing.

 

My very first post to you said I didn't believe that GPA was an indicator of intelligence. And I have been telling you this all along.

 

The GPA comparison was spot on actually considering Sherman's was higher and they went to the same school. But then again you are better at smart alec rebuttals than me anyways ...

[BrentMc11]

I would think a Communications degree would be the most functional for an NFL bound player.  It would serve them well in interacting with the media and managing thier own brand. Also some of these guys cash in big time as sports media types.So, I think it's a solid choice for a college player all around.

 

Architechture is not such a neat fit.  To me it just says that Andrew has a strong interest in it and the will and ability to make it happen.

Maybe Luck wants to build his own stadium...

[Superman]

There is a fundamental disagreement because I don't believe the poster was saying Luck was smarter based on his major but more on hearsay and the fact that he thinks Sherman may be lying about his GPA. See his post above to me about this very thing.

 

No, you can separate NCF's comments from that part of the discussion. The disagreement is that one student can have a lower GPA than another -- even at Stanford -- and still be "smarter." 

 

His opinion of Luck, relative to Sherman, isn't about how they did at Stanford. It appears to be about what he's heard about the two from people who know them.

 

My very first post to you said I didn't believe that GPA was an indicator of intelligence. And I have been telling you this all along.

 

Your application of GPA to the argument missed the point, IMO.

 

The GPA comparison was spot on actually considering Sherman's was higher and they went to the same school. 

 

 

There you go again with GPA. That comparison necessarily ignores the fact that GPA doesn't measure intelligence. It's completely out of place.

 

But then again you are better at smart alec rebuttals than me anyways ...

 

 

Yes I am. Thanks.

[Qwiz]

they aren't exclusive of one another

The Wonderlic Cognitive Ability Test (formerly known as the Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT)) is a popular group intelligence test used to assess the aptitude of prospective employees for learning and problem-solving in a range of occupations.

Yeah that is basically what I was saying in my hypothetical post.

[amfootball]

No, you can separate NCF's comments from that part of the discussion. The disagreement is that one student can have a lower GPA than another -- even at Stanford -- and still be "smarter." 

 

His opinion of Luck, relative to Sherman, isn't about how they did at Stanford. It appears to be about what he's heard about the two from people who know them.

 

 

Your application of GPA to the argument missed the point, IMO.

 

 

There you go again with GPA. That comparison necessarily ignores the fact that GPA doesn't measure intelligence. It's completely out of place.

 

 

Yes I am. Thanks.

To the bolded - exactly, hearsay. That is what I was calling him out on.

 

And again he believes Sherman is lying about his GPA so he is putting stock in his major and GPA relative to Luck. Again him not me.

 

You are welcome. I was never really a challenger anyways to your throne.