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?
Hi ABC. Gifted education wouldn’t explain the IQ-achievement link within the 1%, as almost all of them received it. I don’t think it’s realistic to think SMPY participants were helped in exact proportion to their IQ scores. In any case, the no-threshold result has been found in other studies using other large samples (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620964122), corroborating the Lubinski finding.
What’s fascinating is that one never sees studies of extremely high performing people, at an early age, who were prevented from being allowed exceptional educational opportunities.
One of the fascinating features of “Young Sheldon” was that the character was encouraged and supported at every opportunity in his spectacular abilities.
I tend to believe that to a degree non-conforming intelligence can be actively suppressed.
One other interesting point in the study you mentioned is their call out of women and intelligence.
One would think that women evolved staggering intelligence owned the last few decades based on their achievement and educational performance compared with decades prior.
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?
Hi ABC. Gifted education wouldn’t explain the IQ-achievement link within the 1%, as almost all of them received it. I don’t think it’s realistic to think SMPY participants were helped in exact proportion to their IQ scores. In any case, the no-threshold result has been found in other studies using other large samples (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620964122), corroborating the Lubinski finding.
What’s fascinating is that one never sees studies of extremely high performing people, at an early age, who were prevented from being allowed exceptional educational opportunities.
One of the fascinating features of “Young Sheldon” was that the character was encouraged and supported at every opportunity in his spectacular abilities.
I tend to believe that to a degree non-conforming intelligence can be actively suppressed.
One other interesting point in the study you mentioned is their call out of women and intelligence.
One would think that women evolved staggering intelligence owned the last few decades based on their achievement and educational performance compared with decades prior.
I think the STEM debate is such a red herring…