It doesn't really have any information in it of substance

just common sense

"Let us give Terman the benefit of the doubt and post that all 2,000 scientific and technical publications were produced by the 70 who made it into American Men of Science. That implies that, on average, Terman's notable scientists produced about 29 publications by the time they had reached their mid-40s. In contrast, American Nobel laureates in the sciences averaged about 38 publications by the time they were 39 years old, and claimed about 59 publications by their mid-40s. THat amounts to a twofold disparity in output. Hence, Terman's intellectual elite was not of the same caliber as the true scientific elite of the same nation and era."

Another analysis shows that the accomplishments of the "Termites" could have been predicted on their socioeconomic status alone. These were mostly white, middle to upper middle class men with opportunities and resources for success. Some argue that it wasn't even necessary for Terman to analyze the IQ dimension--he could have stopped with SES and call it a day.

Yes,I linked you a neutral article

And you went to the author's note

to disprove my point

For the record, I've never even looked into this study, so I don't know if it's even reliable @SilverLining

and I will not use it as a source

But you did present it as evidence and, from what little time I just spent reading over it, it does not conclude with the same results you claimed it did

it does to a large degree

It kind of doesn't....

It just points out that IQ isn't the end all be all

which is true

Not that it's useless

eh, that IQ isn't the be all end all is what I'm really trying to get at

You said it was terrible and unreliable, but it's getting into semantics at this point

The point is, the study did not conclude IQ wasn't invalid, just that it was far from perfect

oh

that IQ is terrible and unreliable is another point

that there's a minimal, arguably negligible correlation between IQ and success is separated from that

it wasn't negligible as far as this study is concerned, but I've barely look into it so I will not use this as personal proof

it is a fairly old study, so *maybe* it's wrong

you're not... digging into the study, then

one that has been overseen by different people

the point isn't that some people who were termites achieved great things

but rather, that many of those overlooked reached greater heights

On average, they were better off than their peers

and that many of those with termites were...

That does not at all contradict what I just said

well, near average

iirc

On average, they were above average.

Outliers don't really disprove that

it mentioned like...

let me find it

@SilverLining The NYT did mention that C students who were "Termites" did see less success than those who made "As"

"He found that gifted children did not fit the existing stereotypes often associated with them: they were not weak and sickly social misfits, but in fact were generally taller, in better health, better developed physically, and better adapted socially than other children."

physically, yes

they probably were better off

Which actually kinda forwards the well-proven notion that IQ is correlated to nutrition and education

Alright

You're not staying within the boundaries of what is currently being argued