study titled:
From Terman to today: A century of findings on intellectual precocity/
"In 1916, the predominant view of the gifted child was “early to ripe, early to rot,” including the idea that gifted kids were physically weak and emotionally unstable. However, Terman’s findings by the 1930’s had already shown this to be incorrect. Findings from SMPY indicate that, broadly, gifted youth grow up to be highly accomplished adults, achieving doctorates, a higher income, patents, publications, university tenure and other creative achievements at very high rates relative to the general population. Gifted youth also grow up to be no different from their same age peers in terms of reported broad life satisfaction regarding personal and family life."
Thanks for providing a helpful summary! I think this is a good community norm for submitting links.
From the article:
even within the top 1% of ability, more ability matters. Therefore the idea that beyond a certain ability threshold, say an IQ of 120, more ability doesn’t matter has been shown to be false.
advanced educational stimulation matters for gifted individuals to fully develop their talent and actualize their intellectual potential
grade skipping is a highly effective intervention on later achievement
it may not necessarily be one specific intervention that matters for the development of gifted youth but rather the right mix and intensity of interventions—the appropriate educational dosage—to keep them intellectually stimulated and engaged.
willingness to work long hours varies greatly among the gifted population and thus is also likely connected to long-term development of expertise.
From the study linked in the article:
the top 1% contains over one-third the ability range (e.g., for IQ units, approximately 137 to over 200)
g, fluid reasoning ability, general intelligence, general mental ability, and IQ essentially denote the same overarching construct
for every 100 incoming college freshman chosen at random, the top five assimilate five times as much information as the bottom five and [...] these differences necessitate different opportunities for meeting their respective needs
about 10% of 12th-grade students younger than 18 years of age had more scientific knowledge than the average college senior. [...] And, if graduation from college were based on demonstrated knowledge rather than time in the educational system, a full 15% of the entering freshmen class would be deemed ready to graduate.
In many aspects of their adult lives those who had accelerated as a group did not differ from the roughly equated controls. Every nontrivial difference that did appear on a value-laden variable showed those who had been accelerated at an advantage.
within the top 1% of general intellectual ability, assessed at age 12 [...] more ability matters [...] a statistically significant difference between the top and bottom quartiles exists [in getting pattents] 13.2% versus 4.8%, respectively. A significant difference between the top and bottom quartiles in percent with incomes in the top 95th percentile also is observed (10.5% vs. 4.8%, respectively). [...] Overall, there does not seem to be an ability threshold within the top 1% beyond which more ability does not matter. Other personal attributes such as energy and commitment certainly matter [...] and opportunity clearly always matters. Nevertheless, age 12 ability differences within the top 1% still impart an advantage, even when controlling for terminal educational degree and university prestige.
Differences in ability level and pattern are detectable in early adolescence. Routinely, they go unnoticed because the vast majority of these participants earn close to top possible scores on conventional college entrance examinations well before they graduate from high school (a ceiling problem). At that point, for this population, such assessments are no longer capable of distinguishing the able from the exceptionally able. [...] Such considerations become particularly cogent when attention turns to profoundly gifted youth.
the 165- and 146-IQ groups were distinguished from one another on almost all assessments. The extent to which they differed was primarily a function of the complexity of the criterion on which they were evaluated.