Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Youth identified before age 13 (N = 320) as having profound mathematical or verbal reasoning abilities (top 1 in 10,000) were tracked for nearly three decades. Their awards and creative accomplishments by age 38, in combination with specific details about their occupational responsibilities, illuminate the magnitude of their contribution and professional stature. Many have been entrusted with obligations and resources for making critical decisions about individual and organizational well-being. Their leadership positions in business, health care, law, the professoriate, and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) suggest that many are outstanding creators of modern culture, constituting a precious human-capital resource. Identifying truly profound human potential, and forecasting differential development within such populations, requires assessing multiple cognitive abilities and using atypical measurement procedures. This study illustrates how ultimate criteria may be aggregated and longitudinally sequenced to validate such measures.

Keywords

cognitive abilities creativity human capital intelligence profoundly gifted STEM

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Benbow

C. P.

Stanley

J. C.

(1996). Inequity in equity: How “equity” can lead to inequity for high-potential students. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 249–292.

Bowker. (2012). New book titles and editions, 2002-2011. Retrieved from http://www.bowker.com/assets/downloads/products/isbn_output_2002-2011.pdf

Carnegie Foundation. (2010). The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. Retrieved from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/

Ceci

S. J.

Williams

W. M.

(2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 106, 3157–3162.

Colangelo

Assouline

S. G.

Gross

M. U. M.

(Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City: University of Iowa.

Friedman

T. L.

(2007). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.

Galton

(2006). Classification of men according to their natural gifts. Raleigh, NC: Hayes-Barton Press. (Original work published 1869)

Gohm

C. L.

Humphreys

L. G.

Yao

(1998). Under- achievement among spatially gifted students. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 515–531.

Gottfredson

L. S.

(2003). The challenge and promise of cognitive career assessment. Journal of Career Assessment, 11, 115–135.

10.

Harzing

A. W.

(2007). Publish or perish (Version 3.6) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm

11.

Hebb

D. O.

(1949). The organization of behavior. New York, NY: Wiley.

12.

Holahan

C. K.

Sears

R. R.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1995). The gifted group in later maturity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

13.

Hunt

(2011). Human intelligence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Hunt

Wittmann

(2008). National intelligence and national prosperity. Intelligence, 36, 1–9.

15.

Judge

T. A.

Klinger

R. L.

Simon

L. S.

(2010). Time is on my side: Time, general mental ability, human capital, and extrinsic career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 92–107.

16.

Karlgaard

(2010, October). Scary smart. Forbes, 186, 26.

17.

Kell

H. J.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Steiger

J. H.

(in press). Creativity and technical innovation: Spatial ability’s unique role. Psychological Science.

18.

Lubinski

(2009). Cognitive epidemiology: With emphasis on untangling cognitive ability and socioeconomic status. Intelligence, 37, 625–633.

19.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2000). States of excellence. American Psychologist, 55, 137–150.

20.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2006). Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345.

21.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Webb

R. M.

Bleske-Rechek

(2006). Tracking exceptional human capital over two decades. Psychological Science, 17, 194–199.

22.

Lubinski

Webb

R. M.

Morelock

M. J.

Benbow

C. P.

(2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 718–729.

23.

Murray

(2003). Human accomplishment. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

24.

National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

25.

O’Boyle

Aguinis

(2012). The best and the rest: Revisiting the norm of normality of individual performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 79–119.

26.

Park

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns predict creativity in the arts and sciences: Tracking precocious youth over 25 years. Psychological Science, 18, 948–952.

27.

Park

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2013). When less is more: Effects of grade skipping on adult STEM productivity among mathematically precocious adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 176–198.

28.

Rindermann

Thompson

(2011). Cognitive capitalism: The effect of cognitive ability on wealth, as mediated through scientific achievement and economic freedom. Psychological Science, 22, 754–763.

29.

Simonton

D. K.

(1999a). Significant samples: The psychological study of eminent individuals. Psychological Methods, 4, 425–451.

30.

Simonton

D. K.

(1999b). Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic model. Psychological Review, 106, 435–457.

31.

Stanley

J. C.

(2000). Helping students learn only what they don’t already know. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 216–222.

32.

Rounds

Armstrong

P. I.

(2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 35, 859–884.

33.

Terman

L. M.

(1925–1959). Genetic studies of genius (Vols. 1–5). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

34.

Thorndike

R. L.

(1949). Personnel selection: Test and measurement techniques. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

35.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Educational attainment in the United States: 2010 – detailed tables. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2012/tables.html

36.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (2011). U.S. patent statistics chart: Calendar years 1963 – 2011. Retrieved from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm

37.

Wai

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over fifty years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817–835.

38.

Wai

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Steiger

J. H.

(2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 860–871.

39.

Zakaria

(2011). The post-American world (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.21 MB

Who Rises to the Top? Early Indicators

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material