On Termites.

In the 3rd chapter of Outliers , Malcolm Gladwell talks about Lewis Terman - a pioneer in Educational Psychology and his “Terman Study of the Gifted”^[1] - which is the oldest and longest-running longitudinal study in the field of psychology which began in 1921 at Stanford. The motivation behind this study was Terman’s belief in IQ’s importance. He believed that IQ was of a prime importance to success and achievement. Thus, he became invested in this idea of tracking the lives of young geniuses - children having exceptionally high IQ. He started interviewing 1500 such young geniuses and picked few amongst them, keeping a track of their lives, health, and achievements. These children were known as Termites. The average IQ of final “Termites” was 151. Terman hypothesized that these “Termites” would become something great when they grow up. He thought most of them would become Policy Makers, great artists, and Nobel laureates. Turns out Terman was right. After 35 years, it is observed that out of those Termites, 70 earned listings in American Men of Science, and 3 were elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Ten had entries in the Directory of American Scholars, and 31 appeared in Who’s Who in America. However, it is also worth noting that Terman was not entirely right. Many Termites were successful, but many were not. Most led normal middle-class lives, and none of them became famous for anything. There was one boy who was shut out from the study because his IQ was not “high” enough to be Termite. He later went to Harvard and received Nobel Prize in Physics for “Researches on semiconductors and discovery of the transistor effect”^[2]. He was none other than William Shockley. Gladwell further asserts that Terman was wrong about his Termites, and that he was wrong about the relationship between genius and success. Thus, the conclusion is that it is highly unpredictable to conclude whether these “smart” overachiever types would go on to become someone great or end up being average. In fact, I believe our understandings of the definitions of “smart” and “average” might also be biased and misguided.

References