[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 31 KB, 268x265, 1345397377235.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

5345335

Anonymous Wed Dec 12 14:24:29 2012 No.5345335 [Reply] [Original]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_of_Mathematically_Precocious_Youth

>They and their colleagues tracked the educational and occupational accomplishments of more than 2,000 people who as part of a youth talent search scored in the top 1 percent on the SAT by the age of 13. (Scores on the SAT correlate so highly with I.Q. that the psychologist Howard Gardner described it as a “thinly disguised” intelligence test.)

The remarkable finding of their study is that, compared with the participants who were “only” in the 99.1 percentile for intellectual ability at age 12, those who were in the 99.9 percentile — the profoundly gifted — were between three and five times more likely to go on to earn a doctorate, secure a patent, publish an article in a scientific journal or publish a literary work. A high level of intellectual ability gives you an enormous real-world advantage.

>>	Crane Wed Dec 12 14:26:13 2012 No.5345343 File: 14 KB, 600x300, 2lntt2e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5345335 0/10

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 12 14:26:27 2012 No.5345344 I sincerely can't fathom how anyone can read these studies without feeling slightly depressed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 12 14:26:42 2012 No.5345347 File: 616 KB, 269x202, 1324861872858.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] No shit sherlock. Are there people who actually get paid to do these studies?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 12 14:28:12 2012 No.5345349 >>5345347 It's a landmark study, so if you think it's a "no shit" you probably don't understand it. How could there be such a distinction between the 1% and the .1% of the intelligent?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 12 14:29:58 2012 No.5345352 File: 346 KB, 477x396, cool story bro.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >if you're smarter you're more likely to be successful

>>	Crane Wed Dec 12 14:30:58 2012 No.5345357 File: 22 KB, 279x400, 35771_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5345349 >implying IQ tests can adequatly measure anything above 140

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 12 14:31:12 2012 No.5345360 >>5345357 But it seems that it has, which is depressing. The .1% of the most intelligent are 5 times more likely to publish, patent, or PhD.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 12 14:32:42 2012 No.5345364 >>5345349 because the .1% are MUCH more intelligent that the rest of the 1%? It seems obvious that it gets exponentially harder to be better than an increasing number of people. This is high-school logic, isn't it?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 12 14:34:12 2012 No.5345369 >>5345364 I wouldn't think that a discrepancy of 1-2 questions on the SAT would correlate so strongly with success in the future. We're talking about the SAT, not an perfect intelligence test.

>>

Crane Wed Dec 12 14:34:42 2012 No.5345375
File: 80 KB, 1022x420, Batman-Begins-Scarecrow-Screencaps-dr-jonathan-crane-scarecrow-13222043-1022-420.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5345360

Among his initial sample were people with an IQ just below 130 (the usual mark for "being gifted") which were excluded for having a too "low" IQ score.
2 of these children later on won the nobel prize.

If IQ is sufficiently high, the only difference in performance comes from other variables, like motivation, creativity, support, etc.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 12 14:36:13 2012 No.5345386 >>5345375 I don't know what you're getting at. The part of the study that I'm talking about is based solely on SAT results. The .1% smartest SAT-wise are incredibly better off than the 1% smartest SAT-wise. The IQ test was just a secondary screening.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 12 14:40:13 2012 No.5345400 >>5345375 OH. What you're saying is that two of the children that were SCREENED OUT won nobel prizes. Wow! That's interesting.

>>

Crane Wed Dec 12 14:40:42 2012 No.5345403
File: 99 KB, 1022x425, Batman-Begins-Scarecrow-Screencaps-dr-jonathan-crane-scarecrow-13222073-1022-425.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5345386

I see. I misread it as saying "Higher IQ -> Better performance". My point being that we cannot measure IQ above 140 accurately. But since the used SAT-scores my argument because irrelevant.

But might I add: Correlation =/= Causation. Maybe children who perform better at the age of 13 are also children that come from households that can support them in a way that facilitates academic success?
But nontheless an interesting result indeed.

>>	Crane Wed Dec 12 14:41:42 2012 No.5345408 >>5345403 my argument BECOMES irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 12 14:50:57 2012 No.5345437 >>5345347 >Things fall down because they're seeking their natural place. Isn't it obvious? What's there to study. Aristotle 9000 BC (also you)