Talk:Genetic Studies of Genius

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Stanford University Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Stanford University on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Stanford UniversityWikipedia:WikiProject Stanford UniversityTemplate:WikiProject Stanford UniversityStanford University
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Genetic Studies of Genius appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 August 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Genetic Studies of Genius is the longest-running longitudinal study in the world?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/August.

Wikipedia

So, did they do better or not?

Reading this article, it feels like it is building up to a results section, the scene is set, the children have been chosen, followed for decades and then.... nothing. Please can some write a final paragraph? How did their lives turn out? How many went on to fame and fortune?

They didn't do any better. I've added an excerpt from Terman himself, plus Sorokin's criticism. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 04:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a perfect example of one that leaves the reader wanting. It doesn't mention the correlation (for ex., in terms of percentages) of genetics vs. intelligence that the doctor found. Even if the information is obsolete, you need to clearly and concisely leave that information for the reader to read. What's going on, man? Please, step it up. Lighthead ^þ 17:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Criticism section, I've added a mention of Pitirim Sorokin's critique of the study. However, I only have that form Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers, and Sorokin's book isn't available on Google Books, save for very brief excerpts. It does see like Sorokin's critique is at pages 70-76, and if you have access to his book, it would be great if you could update the Criticism section. This review of Outliers claims that Gladwell "flagrantly misrepresents Pitirim Sorokin's critique of Terman". Thanks, Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 03:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I returned the book to my friendly local academic library recently, but I can readily get it again. I'll see what's on those pages. P.S. The Shurkin book (cited in this article, but not nearly enough) is very good. That's definitely going to be helpful for further edits of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1991 follow up

In 1991 there was a follow up of living members of this group, around 1991 to 1993 Bruce Ariss was member of Mensa and the Steinbeck SIG, and mentioned his participation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Ariss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.134.100 (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary edits being blocked by childish editor

I saw that some very obviously sensible and necessary efforts had been undone for no clear reason so I restored them. A very childish editor is repeatedly removing them, for no reason that I can see other than he doesn't like the person who made them. He seems to have found support from an administrator, unfortunately, who has protected the article. So I will say here that phrases like "what makes these results remarkable" are an appalling violation of NPOV, which is a core policy of the encyclopaedia. If a phrase like that appears on an article even for a second, it is shameful. For an editor to repeatedly re-add this text is pure vandalism. It's absolutely absurd that he has not been punished for such behaviours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.219.220 (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religiosity of participants

I removed a few statements regarding the religious upbringing of the participants. These have been uncited since September 2013 and fail WP:V. I've looked briefly for the studies named (Robin Sears, Columbia University, 1995; Michael McCullough; University of Miami; 2005), but I've had no luck, so I'm leaving a note here in case anyone else can find proper citations. clpo13_(talk) 19:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable peoole rejected by the study

Where to put the info, that none if the study participants win Nibel prize, whereas there were 2 Nobel laureates in physics who were IQ tested, but rejected in this study ? SlovakBarbie (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]