How easy would be to ask politicians in your country to separate kids in school based not on their age but rather their...

how easy would be to ask politicians in your country to separate kids in school based not on their age but rather their IQ?

would that even work? iq seems arbitrary for that. you could have very hard working students with average iq and students with high iq that just aren't into it, i think

So they can segregate and eradicate high IQ autists from the gene pool?

better than having dumb niggers dragging down the class into something really slow for the smart kids.

that will mean they will have a better enviroment and can improve faster than being with average dumb normies.

>segregate children based on puzzle-solving game
how about mmr from dota 2?

OP that doesn't make sense.

IQ is literally a score which has been divided by your age. Your age is part of your IQ calculation.

So an IQ of 100 means a different level of intelligence at every age.

Not regarding the question but the actual functionality of that - literally impossible if were talking about primary school because even intelligent kids cant accomplish some tasks early on because they aren't old enough yet (Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development). Also I personally believe it should be done based on their levels of showing interest and capability.

what happens then if some kid score one standart deviantion higher than the average.

like 117 at 11 years old.

IQ is defined as "mental age" divided by "biological age," so it makes no sense to divide students by IQ. What you're asking for, OP, is to divide classes based on smart and dumb kids, which many schools do (mine did and I loved it). And in high school, it happened naturally at my school in that smart and dumb kids eventually segregated themselves.

Not IQ but here in holland we have separate levels starting at high school, based on a test at the end of primary school and teacherĀ“s assessment.

What about it?

Again, IQ = "mental age" divided by "biological age". "Mental age" is determined by IQ test, biological age is obvious.

oh, so it's already implemented in the first world?

I guess then my taco country sucks then.

IQ is a pseudosciene

Yes, it works pretty well IMO. To go to university you have to have completed the highest level (of 3), but if you start out lower you can quite easily move up (or down) if it turns out you can and want to do better. Also you can go to university after you've completed a post-high school education on a lower level, etc.

Look up rosenthal effect

Interesting. Media and politicians were throwing a hissy fit a while ago because a study had shown that kids with high-educated parents are more likely to get higher education themselves. It's pretty obvious if you ask me but not to most people apparently.

It is important for the psychological development of the kids to be with other kids their age.
Thats the reason Veeky Forums is so autistic, they didnt get what they needed because they where rare in first place

I'm not quite sure if i understood all of this correctly but, IQ is still based on age, although indirectly. For example we know we can expect a 10 year old to solve 10 exercises on an IQ test and thus get a score 100, we also expect a 14 year old to solve 14 exercises and get also a score of 100, means they both have the same IQ, but they weren't capable of solving the same exercises, thus I don't believe this would work.

The development of the average brain at that age. Some are more developed than others, hence differences in IQ

>It is important for the psychological development of the kids to be with other kids their age
agreed. this is the best way to raise alpha and beta males.

lets say you put an intellegent kid in a higher grade, situation which happens here in spain
>Fuckin weirdo
Same situation Alpha-Beta

here in murica, high schools are nothing more than daycares until you reach adulthood

that's because the uneducated are easily manipulated. They can't come to naturally understand something like the rosenthal effect, they will only hear about it, and whether they are told it's good or bad will determine their opinion as opposed to thinking for themselves. Fuck normies.

That sort of dragging down typically happens only in state schools in "bad" or below average districts/neighbourhoods and in those places it would not be feasible or fruitful to separate students beyond having "honours courses" due to finances and quality/expertise of the teachers at such schools.

so true, which is sadly why manchild is now in our vernacular

You realise that one of the most basic things you learn in school is social skills right? Sure, the really smart kids would learn more math, but they'd end up much more unhappy.

so you're happy among normies?

>You realise that one of the most basic things you learn in school is social skills right
lol no

That example is correct.

OP if you were smart, you wouldn't be with niggers.

Your "smartness" compared to the other retards in your class shouldn't be mistaken for superior intelligence. You are mediocre.

He's right. If your school is moving too slowly for you, just crack open a fucking book.

It would get rid of that nasty problem where people born right before a schools cut off date tend to preform much worse early on in school.

Yes it would work. In fact, IQ was originally a measure of mental age (mental age/chronological age, hence quotient), though it is now an ordinate ranking of intelligence on a bell curve because the quotient has low validity beyond 2 SD's.

Separating geniuses from plebs would actually increase the morale, discipline and work ethic of the geniuses. Not to mention, geniuses have better work ethic and discipline to begin with. The two traits are correlated. After all, intelligence is higher order thinking skills and self control is one of them. Most intelligent people don't try very hard because they are not required to. School is too easy for them. Imagine being a child with a quotient IQ of 150 (approx deviated IQ of 141 with SD 15 and norm 100). In 3rd grade, you would have the intellectual and logical maturity of a high school sophomore. In an average class of 25, the smartest and the dumbest child can be expected to have a difference in mental age of over 5 years.

The way classes are structured now, it is as stupid as letting high schoolers and elementary schoolers play football together. It is detrimental to the average and below average students' love of learning (they get trampled over) and to the work ethic and sanity of above average students. And unfortunately, intelligence isn't as immediately apparent as stature would be for sports.

>mental age
>geniuses
>IQ

How fucking stupid are you. It's STATISTICS. I suggest that you take some high school level psychology before you spout your retarded memes.

It is verifiable that people develop at different rates. That is the primary reason that child prodigies exist.

Smart kids who like math are happy doing math. It's simple...

And actually, according to many studies, the famous Terman Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth included, smarter students are on average, better adjusted. (cont...)

No. You put the smart kids with OTHER smart kids their age. You let older smart kids mentor them once in a while, like book buddies.

That's a bad argument. g correlates EXTREMELY highly with real life tasks, more so with complex tasks.

Yes. The vast majority of humanity's great ideas, treatises, writings, inventions, theories and works are created by the top 1% of minds, with only the top 10% even having the potential for scientific, rational and creative thought.

Putting geniuses together would make them even smarter by honing their skills through competitiveness. It is a good idea for the same reason that sports camps and teams are a good idea. A confluence of talent increases the accomplishments of all players. The opposite reason is why Jewish genius is declining. Jews used to congregate in certain areas. Jewish quarters in Vienna for example. The more they disperse, the less frequently Jewish intellectuals will appear.

Except not all smart kids are self guided. Not to mention, school takes up a huge amount of time. Wasted time.

Partly correct. They only use age based quotients for young children these days. Deviated scores are much more accurate.

>but they weren't capable of solving the same exercises, thus I don't believe this would work

You really fucking think that tens of thousands of psychologists, geneticists, psychometrists, and psychiatrists, many intelligent in their own right, haven't fucking thought of that? The makers of IQ tests strive for cultural fairness and the most fundamental mental tests possible. Basic tests of memory, spacial puzzles, sequences, basic word logic, etc, things that are accessible to everyone of all ages.

(cont)

- (Genetic Studies of Genius, Vol. IV, "The Gifted Child Grows Up", Terman and Odum, Stanford University Press, 1949, pg. 1)

Beginning about 1850, it became fashionable to perceive highly intelligent children as misfits who "burned out", or overtaxed their brains and died young. They were thought to be pale, asthenic, bespectacled, and stoop-shouldered, and headed for adult stupidity or insanity. "The myth became prevalent that many of the great geniuses were dunces in childhood." The view developed that a rich and well-balanced maturity depends upon the prolongation of infancy and the fullest experience with each developmental stage. The bright child should protected from intellectual stimulation, "and any tendency toward early cleverness should be positively discouraged."
This must have been very comforting to the average citizen, and to the intellectually challenged. That smart kid in class would pay for it when she/he grew up.
The Terman Study showed that gifted children grow up to become gifted adults, and that they tend to be successful, well-adjusted, and long-lived.... healthier, wealthier, and wiser. They're taller and better-looking, on average, and they're an invitation to uncomfortable comparisons for the rest of us. It's hard not to feel competitive with them, and at a competitive disadvantage.

>>Putting geniuses together would make them even smarter by honing their skills through competitiveness
Why must everything be a goddamn competition? Let the geniuses collaborate.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that OP meant
>how easy would be to ask politicians in your country to separate normal kids from the obvious retards in school?

Not gonna happen, unfortunately. The most vocal parents are usually the ones who spawned imbeciles in the first place.

Competition leads to collaboration.

It's better to have geniuses close together so they can decide to be rivals or friends, rather than leave them cooped up with plebs and retards, where they will never have the choice to begin with.

Yeah, or a blend of the two would be good, sort of like how a high school math team works together to compete with other schools. I think they should play around with the education system a bit; it'd be hard to make it much worse.

>telling parents their kid is stupid
That will go down well.

In mine it's easy. We separate em based at least in part on IQ when they go to high school

>Extremely difficult.
>Norway.

The minute somebody talks about not only giving millions to special needs kids that will never do anything but work in tertiary or quadriary service for someone else;
but instead suggests that there MIGHT be an idea to take care of the needs of children regardless of IQ, for instance by not letting every high-IQ child lose the most important growth period of their cognitive abilities to infights and rote memorization with the other idiots;

some "parents who care about retards" organization goes and cries crocodile tears on public television and the plans are invariably scrapped.

>muh differences in ability and therefore opportunity
>muh idiot babby is a genius in his own right
>muh EQ is as important as IQ

Assuming it's politically possible and that IQ even moderately correlates with intelligence, which it's not and it doesn't, it would create a magnificent environment of smart kids and powerful kids. They'll mix together like scotch and ice.

I see you weren't expressly forbidden from reading your own material in class.
>furthermore dragged to PT-conference and explained how it's detrimental to class environment
>taught to shut the fuck up if you have a solution to the specific problem because nobody else fucking opens their idiot mouths and sticking out is faux pas

and finally

>emancipated from any love of learning by being arbitrarily held back from rapid advancement by a school "for everyone", despite being precocious and self taught oral and written in 2 languages by age 5.

>user's handwriting is bad, this is indicative that his academic performance is bad

Suck my cock.

>implying we were allowed to do this