How would you go about in-home tutoring your average IQ child on math?

IQ is a meme.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/László_Polgár

terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/advice-on-gifted-education/
and its references

got a better alternative ? :^)

>expect to have a smart child and teach it loads of maths
>child is born dumb as a brick
>proceed kill yourself

I will never understand why breeders play the genetic lottery.

>got a better alternative ? :^)

yes, studying

Was more asking how would give the child a solid foundation, so he wouldn't struggle in the future

Just tell your kid to get gud

Hard study with good technique

Thanks senpai

first post best post

How's studying a better alternative to measure intelligence?

Oh, you misinterpreted my original post.
IQ measures intelligence adequately. Given an "average IQ child" however, you can still teach them to be intelligent if they are young and hardworking.

Not to brag, but I've been doing linear algebra, vector/multivariable calc, odes since high school. Btw I'm an EE/CS student. UC Berkley.

what sort of sex-ed cirriculum do home schoolers do? xD

i come to their houses and give them private tutor sessions

Sex-ed isn't really necessary. I didn't have sex-ed... actually if you're talking about learning about reproduction, contraception and all that, it was in my Grade 7 Biology curriculum so it wouldn't matter if I was home-schooled or not.

It's all in the textbook famallama.

>tfw she grew up to plot a political coup against him, evincing him from his own party, only a few years after he gave her the reigns
kids are so cruel

sex-ed isn't really necessary, y'know

it really just boils down to "the talk"

Agreed

I wouldn't have an average IQ child ;^).

Nonetheless, children typically don't respond well to structure (nor should they). They also aren't yet in a place where they understand the utility of a given thing, nor do they legitimately understand why they might need it in the future (even if you explain to them in depth to the point where you've made them think they do).

Just show them a few things from time to time. Connect it to something they're already working on and branch out from there. The important part is the familiar starting point. You can't start them out in the unfamiliar because it'll just float in a void for them, and they'll either forget or it'll end up so compartmentalized it's as useless as rote memorization.

Harder question than it seems, and harder than my answer acknowledges. I'm struggling with how to not rob a child of the "magic" of not knowing or caring. Stuff like bridge points to alternate dimensions / universes, creatures living in the forest, gnomes living in trees, etc. The maybe and the wondering.

Posing questions in intuitive form, guiding the child through intuitive solutions to those questions, then slowly introducing notation.

>your average IQ child
>muh wife's son

I don't think you need to rob them of the wondering necessarily. You just try to direct it towards things that might actually happen/have scientific basis, like an inter-planetary civilization in our lifetime, VR, cryonics/radical life extension, multiple universes, that sort of thing. Not saying it's easy, but I think that could be a better stand-in.

>Hurrrr durrr abstraction is boring and children don't like it
Opinion discarded. Children love solving puzzles.

Her teeth haven't grew up

>In home

Sick pedophile fuck. Meet them at thw library.

That wasn't remotely implied.

>You just try to direct it towards
That's the core problem, I don't know if I should direct it. I also don't know what thoughts should be directly afforded, and which shouldn't. There are significant problems with giving the ability to get too far ahead without really laying out the underpinnings. It biases against novel or self derived thought and can cause a tendency to skip the basics.

I'm not sure about communicating the notion of particles and scale , even though it's readily demonstrated by continuing to cut an object in half until you can't, and highlighting then any arbitrarily delineated "object" if viewed as a whole, can also be viewed as made up of parts which themselves are wholes, etc.

I guess the concern is that my father knew a lot, thought a lot, and had realized a lot. Read a lot of 50's era sci-fi as well. But he never really elaborated any kind of logical framework directly or in full, it just came through implicitly.

>OP was asking about math education
>now those two retards keep going on about popsci sci fi crap

>Compartmentalization
>Doesn't understand how a given element relates with greater whole
The topic is about how to avoid making you.

So you want a formula to make pot smoking popsci fags?

No.

IQ is not real