Yes but any good study should describe the bell curve, if not an even more complex model, and the greater the sample the wider the curve will be.

Absolutely agree. The greater the degree of ‘N’, the more generalised the output.

Really, for me, there is another process we have to do to ascertain the ideal sample for the study being undertaken which requires some evaluation of the hypothesis and the expected outcome, depending upon the context.

Research is not as easy as some people think!

Us Humans are a complex species. We still don't understand what we're doing in this world and fight all the time. It's probably why aliens haven't made first contact. We're just a fucked up world.

I think this is an arbitrary distinction between "group" and "individual." There is really no distinction. An "individual" potential, to the extent that it is unique to that particular individual, cannot truly be understood without understanding why others do not share that uniqueness. An individual human being, taken out of the context of the species and society, cannot be meaningfully understood.

I would disagree that we know "a lot about the accomplishments and current performances of our species." We know some, but our understanding is very much muddled, and sometimes by mystical thinking. The arbitrary boundary between "individual" and "the rest of the universe" is just that, arbitrary.

As I have said many time here, and elsewhere, there is no "one size fits all" for Homo Sapiens.

Way to click bait like a shame less failing youtuber!

The problem with looking at studies of only one person means that the data only applies to that one person, and therefore might not apply to everyone.

That is why these types of studies typically don't get much traction in the social sciences, where finding one person who meets the criteria is akin to cherry picking data.

Some of the greatest leaps in neuropsychology came from individual case studies.