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

Whether or not IQ is correlated with nutrition is irrelevant right now

I know, but you mentioned they were "better off"

Also

that's one of the ways

From the same wikipedia article you just quoted

literally

the primary way mentioned

the next line

"Additionally, those in the gifted group were generally successful in their careers: Many received awards recognizing their achievements. Though many of the children reached exceptional heights in adulthood, not all did. Terman explored the causes of obvious talent not being realized, exploring personal obstacles, education, and lack of opportunity as causes."

that was psychology today

not wikipedia

it was in wikipedia, too, but it doesn't matter

I'm not attacking the use of wikipedia

I was going through the tabs holding control f

trying to find that

also

on wikipedia

"However, the majority of study participants' lives were more mundane. By the 4th volume of Genetic Studies of Genius, Terman had noted that as adults, his subjects pursued common occupations "as humble as those of policeman, seaman, typist and filing clerk""

also

"Moreover, Terman meddled in his subject's lives, giving them letters of recommendation for jobs and college and pulling strings at Stanford to help them get admitted."

So they did have innate advantages

and terman's writings, in which he admitted there wasn't a strong correlation, were still biased

Okay, again

as he desperately wanted this study to prove something

What is being argued is not that this study means anything

I already said it would be dumb on my part to cite a study I've never even looked in to

The point is that it does not reach the conclusions you claimed it did