>>10925182>Way to completely mischaracterize the Terman gifted children study. The children in general were far more successful than average, with many becoming professors etc.You're implying that they becoming professors or anything else is impressive or predicated on having a high IQ. Have you ever been to college? Maost professors I've seem are competent at their fields, but don't show any kind of exceptionality outside of it.
I'm talking REAL achievement here, not becoming a manager of something or a PhD. Those titles, even if they are above average, are shared by many people and don't require exceptional smarts to be attained.
I don't see how they having high IQs has any meaninful relation to their achievements, because I've seen plenty of people not really far from average get to the same positions without having an extraordinary delta of effort in comparisoj with high IQ individuals.
>Complaining that none became nobelists is retarded, as that ignores the base rate of winning a Nobel (what, a dozen winners a year out of billions, you would not expect a sample size of a couple thousand to contain a nobel winner.So why of all of those gifted people, none of them got, and the ones who got were rejected?
Note that I'm not talking about people who have high IQs that just didn't happen to try and be part of the study, but people who tried and didn't make the cut.
>William Shockley, one of the Nobel winners you refer to, supported the Repository for Germinal Choice (and donated to it).Not related to the argument. Darwin is said to have denied natural selection on his deathbed. Doesn't make it less true.
Also, it sellected for Nobel laureates, not for high IQ. By that metric, none of the gifted children of the Terman study would qualify. Doesn't change the idea that IQ is an incomplete measure of intelligence and life achievements.
