RealGM

So does this mean if he's lazy and doesn't have a great work ethic, he's not going to care even when everyone points it out to him?

lobosloboslobos wrote:It's easy to dis these kind of personality profile tests as empty psycho-babble. I certainly used to do it myself. Until I had a fascinating experience with one about 10 years ago that really made me change my opinion. I won't go into details here, but it seriously transformed a group of 10-15 people who took it by revealing previously unknown tensions and alignments in values and personalities. I was shocked at how accurate and useful it was.

I've only had to take one of these tests once, when I applied for a job working at a movie store when I was 18. They refused to tell me what it 'revealed', but apparently it was enough to prevent me from getting the job.

On that basis, I can only conclude that personality profiles are legitimate, given that my first thought upon entering the store was "hmmm, this looks like a great place...for arson."

Thanks for the share OP. I remember watching something on neuroscience & martial artists/athletes and they were saying the exceptional ones had this alpha wave "zone" that they would enter where they would lock in on what they had to do and nothing else. Basically they'd just let their muscles do the job. Whereas weaker athletes had very short periods of this type of brain activity and could never get focused enough to just do what they had to do. Always thought Caliper was after something more like this in their sports evaluation.

Does any of that hold true with what you know?


Separately...I think Bargs has the brain & demeanour of a robot. It's up to the coaches to condition him to react properly in order for us to see one of the 8-10 greatest C's of all time. A good wakeup call would be for him to do Ayahuasca (or maybe some purple drank) with Kareem and get that leather jacket he wears as a constant reminder to never stray far from the path of righteousness...

Maybe this is relevant to this thread. Bargs' clutch performance this year was actually better than his regular performance. Maybe this has something do with him being "oblivious" to his surroundings:

82games.com

Regular Time VS Clutch Time

Team Net Pts -155 vs +49
efg% - .523 vs .559
pts 17.2 vs 24.7

mr.ra+mr.re wrote:Thanks for the share OP. I remember watching something on neuroscience & martial artists/athletes and they were saying the exceptional ones had this alpha wave "zone" that they would enter where they would lock in on what they had to do and nothing else. Basically they'd just let their muscles do the job. Whereas weaker athletes had very short periods of this type of brain activity and could never get focused enough to just do what they had to do. Always thought Caliper was after something more like this in their sports evaluation.

Does any of that hold true with what you know?


Separately...I think Bargs has the brain & demeanour of a robot. It's up to the coaches to condition him to react properly in order for us to see one of the 8-10 greatest C's of all time. A good wakeup call would be for him to do Ayahuasca (or maybe some purple drank) with Kareem and get that leather jacket he wears as a constant reminder to never stray far from the path of righteousness...

Are you talking about the hallucinogenic the natives in South America use to see visions?

I remember watching something on neuroscience & martial artists/athletes and they were saying the exceptional ones had this alpha wave "zone" that they would enter where they would lock in on what they had to do and nothing else.Basically they'd just let their muscles do the job. Whereas weaker athletes had very short periods of this type of brain activity and could never get focused enough to just do what they had to do.

It sounds like a flow state offhand, but I think there's more to it than that. It's totally plausible. I could go into a lot of detail why, but the basic gist of it is that we have two types of information processing - computational (like, abstract, proposition and symbol reasoning) and procedural (a little more involved, but let's just go with that).

Basically, things like tying your shoes involve a lot of very complicated cognitive stuff, but none of it is the typical things people think count as processing information. Being an athlete is learning coordinated stuff like that.

IMO my opinion is that a lot of talented athletes are in a sense geniuses - they're just great at a different type of learning & thinking compared to what we generally recognize as genius. Kind of like musical prodigies.

Always thought Caliper was after something more like this in their sports evaluation.

Psych profiles are basically questionnaires with fancy statistics behind them. They could be very reliable if your questions measure legitimate physical things. Like general intelligence (which is continuously being refined; there are lots of problems with current IQ methodology).

I think in general one thing that people underrate in athletes are cognitive abilities like attention scaling. Basically that one has to do with how well you can distribute attention and how many things you can pay attention to simultaneously. Stuff like that IMO has a huge role in general awareness.

darth_federer wrote:Are you talking about the hallucinogenic the natives in South America use to see visions?

Ya I think it'll take him to higher levels of consciousness. He'll know what to do before it happens. All defence Bargs NBA commercials to follow.

Joking aside, I would like to see Bargs work out with Kareem. In time, I think he could rock the Sky Hook. And that leather jacket.

XxIronChainzxX wrote: IMO my opinion is that a lot of talented athletes are in a sense geniuses - they're just great at a different type of learning & thinking compared to what we generally recognize as genius. Kind of like musical prodigies.

Great point. Thanks for answering.

Schadenfreude wrote:

lobosloboslobos wrote:It's easy to dis these kind of personality profile tests as empty psycho-babble. I certainly used to do it myself. Until I had a fascinating experience with one about 10 years ago that really made me change my opinion. I won't go into details here, but it seriously transformed a group of 10-15 people who took it by revealing previously unknown tensions and alignments in values and personalities. I was shocked at how accurate and useful it was.

I've only had to take one of these tests once, when I applied for a job working at a movie store when I was 18. They refused to tell me what it 'revealed', but apparently it was enough to prevent me from getting the job.

On that basis, I can only conclude that personality profiles are legitimate, given that my first thought upon entering the store was "hmmm, this looks like a great place...for arson."

haha
that reminds me of another one i took back in CEGEP
it showed i had 'problems'
the school psych called my folks to tell them so and they told him to f off
it was very satisfying

Schadenfreude wrote:

lobosloboslobos wrote:It's easy to dis these kind of personality profile tests as empty psycho-babble. I certainly used to do it myself. Until I had a fascinating experience with one about 10 years ago that really made me change my opinion. I won't go into details here, but it seriously transformed a group of 10-15 people who took it by revealing previously unknown tensions and alignments in values and personalities. I was shocked at how accurate and useful it was.

I've only had to take one of these tests once, when I applied for a job working at a movie store when I was 18. They refused to tell me what it 'revealed', but apparently it was enough to prevent me from getting the job.

On that basis, I can only conclude that personality profiles are legitimate, given that my first thought upon entering the store was "hmmm, this looks like a great place...for arson."

LOL, me too..

I'm blatantly honest, I know what the "right" answer is but I put the truth. If you're gonna go out, do it on your terms..and if they don't want you for who you are f/ck them, don't compromise yourself or your values. Things always work out..

Schadenfreude wrote:

lobosloboslobos wrote:It's easy to dis these kind of personality profile tests as empty psycho-babble. I certainly used to do it myself. Until I had a fascinating experience with one about 10 years ago that really made me change my opinion. I won't go into details here, but it seriously transformed a group of 10-15 people who took it by revealing previously unknown tensions and alignments in values and personalities. I was shocked at how accurate and useful it was.

I've only had to take one of these tests once, when I applied for a job working at a movie store when I was 18. They refused to tell me what it 'revealed', but apparently it was enough to prevent me from getting the job.

On that basis, I can only conclude that personality profiles are legitimate, given that my first thought upon entering the store was "hmmm, this looks like a great place...for arson."

What sh*tty kind of movie store would make you take a psych test? I always thought those were left to high profile executives and people entering the public workforce (e.g. cops).

He's like rain man!

OMG top 8-10 centers of all time. I want what he was smoking right now.

A thread from 14 years ago: Why?

Because we are heading into what some believe is the worst NBA draft ever. And Andrea Bargnani was drafted #1 in 2006.... also considered one of the worst drafts ever. Apparently Bargnani was drafted over Aldridge because of his "off the charts" Caliper Profile psychological test scores. Bargnani was literally oblivious to what people though about him and Colangelo thought that would be a huge advantage. This personality trait was indeed accurate and I don't think it really helped him in his career, the way they envisioned. Oblivious is kind of a perfect word to describe Bhim.

After 14 years, do we have any new tools that can predict the successful outcome of potential draftees? NBA front offices are still getting it wrong.

Jabroni Lames wrote:A thread from 14 years ago: Why?

Because we are heading into what some believe is the worst NBA draft ever. And Andrea Bargnani was drafted #1 in 2006.... also considered one of the worst drafts ever. Apparently Bargnani was drafted over Aldridge because of his "off the charts" Caliper Profile psychological test scores. Bargnani was literally oblivious to what people though about him and Colangelo thought that would be a huge advantage. This personality trait was indeed accurate and I don't think it really helped him in his career, the way they envisioned. Oblivious is kind of a perfect word to describe Bhim.

After 14 years, do we have any new tools that can predict the successful outcome of potential draftees? NBA front offices are still getting it wrong.

2006 was a bad draft but there were still some gems:

1) Aldridge was a perennial all-star for several years.
2) Roy was a superstar caliber player but his career was short-lived due to injuries.
3) Rondo was a big steal at 21 and became an all-star caliber PG
4) Our own very Lowry was a huge steal at 24
5) Millsap was another steal at 47.

Other than that there were some decent role players like Rudy Gay, Reddick, Sefolosha, and PJ Tucker (who left for a few years to Europe).

But yeah a bad draft. Basically less than 10 serviceable NBA players in that class.

Interestingly, after Rondo just retired, Lowry and PJ Tucker are the only remaining players from that draft class still playing today. Lowry is the only one still actually playing important minutes as a starter. A testament to a great career of longevity.

TheGeneral99 wrote:

Jabroni Lames wrote:A thread from 14 years ago: Why?

Because we are heading into what some believe is the worst NBA draft ever. And Andrea Bargnani was drafted #1 in 2006.... also considered one of the worst drafts ever. Apparently Bargnani was drafted over Aldridge because of his "off the charts" Caliper Profile psychological test scores. Bargnani was literally oblivious to what people though about him and Colangelo thought that would be a huge advantage. This personality trait was indeed accurate and I don't think it really helped him in his career, the way they envisioned. Oblivious is kind of a perfect word to describe Bhim.

After 14 years, do we have any new tools that can predict the successful outcome of potential draftees? NBA front offices are still getting it wrong.

2006 was a bad draft but there were still some gems:

1) Aldridge was a perennial all-star for several years.
2) Roy was a superstar caliber player but his career was short-lived due to injuries.
3) Rondo was a big steal at 21 and became an all-star caliber PG
4) Our own very Lowry was a huge steal at 24
5) Millsap was another steal at 47.

Other than that there were some decent role players like Rudy Gay, Reddick, and PJ Tucker (who left for a few years to Europe).

But yeah a bad draft. Basically less than 10 serviceable NBA players in that class.

Interestingly, after Rondo just retired, Lowry and PJ Tucker are the only remaining players from that draft class still playing today. Lowry is the only one still actually playing important minutes as a starter. A testament to a great career of longevity.

Ranked by career win shares:

1. Aldridge (2)
2. Lowry (24)
3. Millsap (47)
4. Redick (11)
5. Rondo (21)
6. Gay (8)
7. Tucker (35)
8. Sefolosha (13)
9. Roy (6)
10. Brewer (14)
11. Foye (7)
12. Bargnani (1)
13. Smith (36)
14. Gibson (42)
15. Novak (32)


Raptors legend Steve Novak had the 15th most win shares in the class.

Nobody stands out in a draft like this. That's the problem, everybody just looked average. Kind of like this year.

I think that the modern-day example of Caliper is probably IBM Watson. We are computing data to the minutia and comparing it over a long historical output. Also, Masai is an excellent judge of talent!

If your kid was born the year Bargnani was drafted, they'd now be old enough to go to university.

Jabroni Lames wrote:A thread from 14 years ago: Why?

Because we are heading into what some believe is the worst NBA draft ever. And Andrea Bargnani was drafted #1 in 2006.... also considered one of the worst drafts ever. Apparently Bargnani was drafted over Aldridge because of his "off the charts" Caliper Profile psychological test scores. Bargnani was literally oblivious to what people though about him and Colangelo thought that would be a huge advantage. This personality trait was indeed accurate and I don't think it really helped him in his career, the way they envisioned. Oblivious is kind of a perfect word to describe Bhim.

After 14 years, do we have any new tools that can predict the successful outcome of potential draftees? NBA front offices are still getting it wrong.

Has any GM had less rizz than Colangelo? Two of the worst #1 picks of all time were made by the same guy: Fultz and Bargnani. He arguably fumbled Simmons by coddling him the same way he coddled the other two.

OakleyDokely wrote:

TheGeneral99 wrote:

Jabroni Lames wrote:A thread from 14 years ago: Why?

Because we are heading into what some believe is the worst NBA draft ever. And Andrea Bargnani was drafted #1 in 2006.... also considered one of the worst drafts ever. Apparently Bargnani was drafted over Aldridge because of his "off the charts" Caliper Profile psychological test scores. Bargnani was literally oblivious to what people though about him and Colangelo thought that would be a huge advantage. This personality trait was indeed accurate and I don't think it really helped him in his career, the way they envisioned. Oblivious is kind of a perfect word to describe Bhim.

After 14 years, do we have any new tools that can predict the successful outcome of potential draftees? NBA front offices are still getting it wrong.

2006 was a bad draft but there were still some gems:

1) Aldridge was a perennial all-star for several years.
2) Roy was a superstar caliber player but his career was short-lived due to injuries.
3) Rondo was a big steal at 21 and became an all-star caliber PG
4) Our own very Lowry was a huge steal at 24
5) Millsap was another steal at 47.

Other than that there were some decent role players like Rudy Gay, Reddick, and PJ Tucker (who left for a few years to Europe).

But yeah a bad draft. Basically less than 10 serviceable NBA players in that class.

Interestingly, after Rondo just retired, Lowry and PJ Tucker are the only remaining players from that draft class still playing today. Lowry is the only one still actually playing important minutes as a starter. A testament to a great career of longevity.

Ranked by career win shares:

1. Aldridge (2)
2. Lowry (24)
3. Millsap (47)
4. Redick (11)
5. Rondo (21)
6. Gay (8)
7. Tucker (35)
8. Sefolosha (13)
9. Roy (6)
10. Brewer (14)
11. Foye (7)
12. Bargnani (1)
13. Smith (36)
14. Gibson (42)
15. Novak (32)


Raptors legend Steve Novak had the 15th most win shares in the class.

They gave up on Corey too early.