Alternate hypotheses not considered at all, which is really a whole category of problems/thoughts.
Didn’t seem to care that they were measuring different things in adults and kids.
As it is, the article is spending about half of its two pages just to say “the way we define ‘gifted’ is totally different in kids and adults, and so people who are in one group aren’t necessarily in the other.”
First thought: no control group.
Alternate hypotheses not considered at all, which is really a whole category of problems/thoughts.
Didn’t seem to care that they were measuring different things in adults and kids.
As it is, the article is spending about half of its two pages just to say “the way we define ‘gifted’ is totally different in kids and adults, and so people who are in one group aren’t necessarily in the other.”