Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children

Re:Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children by jsprogrammer on Wednesday September 07, 2016 @11:20AM (#12444105)

I believe that is only evidence of bias towards high score holders, which we already know exists.

Minor issue: why does that figures' caption lead with a quip about the top 1%, but only present data for quartiles?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children by trendia on Wednesday September 07, 2016 @11:27AM (#12444167)

IQ measured while young predicts income later as an entrepreneur.

http://imgur.com/a/huYKk

http://ftp.iza.org/dp3648.pdf

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children by hyperpape on Wednesday September 07, 2016 @11:25AM (#12444153)

I'm not sure what those Q1-Q4 numbers are, but I don't think they are quartiles. I went to a TIP ceremony for kids who'd scored well on the SATs in 7th grade. There were a few hundred kids there (I think something like 1000 got you there?), a few dozen with 1200 something, and one kid up on stage with a 1400.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children by jsprogrammer on Wednesday September 07, 2016 @12:02PM (#12444479)

The bottom right of the figure says, "[s]tudents were split into quartiles".

I don't get why there is a reference to the top 1% in the caption though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children by MagnumOpus on Wednesday September 07, 2016 @01:33PM (#12445367)

Step 1: Take highly able kids who score in the top 1% in entrance exams or can get SAT scores of 700 at age 13.

Step 2: Sort these highly able kids into quartiles by their test scores.

Result: Even within the top 1% of IQ, the relative ability still matters. I.e. there is no "cutoff" for becoming a great scientist or inventor; smarter is always better.

[ Parent | on HN ]