Number 19 317 123 19 317 126 19 317 130
Mean -45.0 -39.6 -34.2 52.0 6.9 16.8 46.5 33.1 19.2
σ 65.7 78.9 80.6 51.7 55.7 55.6 55.5 63.5 65.5
σ Mean 15.1 4.4 7.3 11.9 3.1 5.0 12.7 3.6 5.7
σσ 10.7 3.1 5.1 8.4 2.2 3.5 9.0 2.5 4.1
σ diff. ms. 15.7 16.8 12.3 12.9 13.2 13.9
D
———
σ diff. .04 .64 3.7 2.7 1.0 1.96
Median -42.6 -40.0 -30.0 52.0 5.0 0.0 40.7 33.0 15.0
The summary of results shows that the highly intelligent are less neurotic, more self-sufficient, and less submissive, as a group, than are the populations with which they are comparable. This divergence from the norms is found both for boys and for girls of the highly intelligent group, but it is much more pronounced for boys.
To one who has been familiar with the characteristics and the careers of these persons for fifteen years, the correspondence between what is found on the inventory and what is found in the actual lives is interestingly close. Boy 13, for instance (extremely high score for self-sufficiency and dominance), took ship on his own initiative as soon as he was twenty-one years old and sailed around the world as an ordinary seaman, returning to his post in the financial district of New York City when the journey was completed. Boy 35 is a well-known player in metropolitan and sectional chess tournaments, and was able to meet seasoned players when he was fifteen to seventeen years old (high scores for self-sufficiency and dominance). Boy 29 entered college at 14 years of age, "held his own" with the older students, earned money throughout his course, graduated at eighteen years of age with Phi Beta Kappa, and won a prize for research, in competition, in his junior year at medical school. Girl H won and held an appointment in public service, against heavy odds of sex, age, and general economic depression.
The indication from these data is that adolescents who as children tested from 135-190 IQ (S-B) are much less neurotic, much more self-sufficient and much less submissive than college students in general, or than adults of the mental caliber represented in the Bernreuter norms. It is to be noted in this comparison with the generality of college students that from data so far collected, the median intelligence of the group here presented reaches about Q#3# for college students, taking them the country over.
[1] For a more detailed account see Lorge and Hollingworth's "The Adult Status of Highly Intelligent Children," in Journal of Genetic Psychology (1936), Vol. 49, pages 215-226.
[2] Hollingworth and Kaunitz. "The Centile Status of Gifted Children at Maturity." Journal of Genetic Psychology (September, 1934), pages 106-120.
[3] Study made by Leta S. Hollingworth in previous years.
[4] For detailed results see the paper by this title, by Hollingworth and Rust, Journal of Psychology (1937), Vol. 4, pages 287-293.
CHAPTER NINETEEN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONALITY IN HIGHLY INTELLIGENT CHILDREN [1]
The children included in the term "highly intelligent children" cover a very wide range in intellectual variation—from an IQ of 130 (S-B) to the topmost limit of human diversity. This topmost limit seems to define itself at approximately 200 IQ. The most extreme deviates reported in the literature as fully measured fall at or near this point. A considerable number falling above 180 IQ have been reported, many of them not fully measured by Stanford-Binet because of the limitations of the test. It is therefore clear that children in the upper 1 per cent are not all alike. On the contrary, the child at the top of this group exceeds the child who barely reaches the group by much more than the latter exceeds the average child. The most able child in the upper 1 per cent surpasses the least able in this group by as much as the average child surpasses a moron (in terms of IQ). The really difficult problems of adjustment to life and to people come to those who test above 170 IQ. As there are so very few of these children, parents and teachers are seldom called upon to consider their needs. Thus when one does appear, he or she is the more likely to be misunderstood.