In his post, Hoel writes that, for example, the study "Who rises to the top?" is methodologically flawed because it didn't "merely [track] students without interference, impartially noting their future amazing accomplishments" but "an overwhelming majority of participants (95%) took advantage of various forms of academic acceleration in high school or earlier to tailor their education to create a better match with their needs".
What do you make of this, and how does it affect your view of the subject?
I first read your post on the top 1% and then stumbled upon Erik Hoel's post, which also uses the same graph but is really sceptical about it: https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/iq-discourse-is-increasingly-unhinged
In his post, Hoel writes that, for example, the study "Who rises to the top?" is methodologically flawed because it didn't "merely [track] students without interference, impartially noting their future amazing accomplishments" but "an overwhelming majority of participants (95%) took advantage of various forms of academic acceleration in high school or earlier to tailor their education to create a better match with their needs".
What do you make of this, and how does it affect your view of the subject?