In article . com,
Beliavsky wrote:

Each pair consists of one sibling with an IQ in the normal range of
90-110 ,a range that includes 50% of the population. I will call this
group the normals. The second sibling in each pair had an IQ either
higher than 110, putting him in the top quartile of intelligence (the
bright) or lower than 90, putting him in the bottom quartile (the
dull). These constraints produced a sample of 710 pairs.

Actually, I have a problem with these definitions. For most of the research
I've seen, gifted means either the top 10% for IQ or (more frequently) IQ130,
which is the top 5%. THe definition of 'bright' is rather too broad here, and
I wonder how the stats would look if the authors had used a better-accepted
definition.

Secondly, giftedness is strongly heritable, with a gifted child's siblings,
parents and grandparents usually of a similar intelligence (within 5-10 points
-- see http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/we_have_learned.htm). I don't know if
*IQ* is as strongly heritable in the entire population, but if it is, there is
a good chance of these 710 pairs being aberrant.

My 2c.

Lastly, of course, we haven't seen any definition of 'success' yet.

Here's my 'success' story: A good friend of mine discovered that one of his
workmates had known me at high school. She naturally enquired as to what I
was doing these days, and when he said I was a librarian, looked rather
surprised. "I thought she was smarter than that!"

So there you are -- librarianship is intrinsically Unsuccessful!

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/