Is putting a 160IQ kid in a class of mostly average people during school as bad or worse than putting an average kid in...

>people who didn't get any question wrong in an IQ test are profoundly more intelligent than people who got a few questions wrong

no shit, IQ tests should have 1000 questions, and each one worth 1 point

Modern schooling is about socializing an individual, not about education. Education is just the excuse.

it wasn't based on IQ tests

I would assume a logarithmic progression, an average kid in a class of retards would feel horrible while a genius in a class of average kids would just feel frustrated.

I have a 130 give or take iq and was put in special classes because I acted up when I was younger, the worst part was all the teachers telling me how much smarter I was but not moving me to normal classes

It's not as bad.

The first example is like putting a raceccar driver on the highway. The second example is like taking a licensed driver and throwing them on the road with a bunch of 12 year olds who don't know how to drive

This thread deserves a tip

when did IQ's start going above 140? when i was administered mine the max score was 140.

>tfw too intelligent for school

a high Iq child has the ability to teach themselves without much help from the teacher so is able to progress at his own pace to some degree even if in a class of average students, provided the teacher let him get on with a different textbook on his own.

On the other hand an average child is much less able to teach himself with a textbook and is thus forced to go along at the pace of the retards meaning he is missing out on his academic potential to a much greater degree than the high IQ child in a class of normal children.

This is obvious and teh fact that you were not able to clearly see this reasoning on your own means that you must be average or low IQ unlike me.

No, children should not be alienated for being smart. Smart children need to learn how to interact with normal people and learn how they think and function.

It is also important to teach the child that he is not superior or better just because of his intellect.

OP is so smart he set a new precedent.
If a child's IQ is truly the high, the teacher will learn from them, even if just through osmosis. Eventually the child will cuckold the teacher into submission, and assume his rightful place as principal of the school district.

>It is also important to teach the child that he is not superior or better just because of his intellect.
If anything being in a class full of normie and tard will not teach you that. The best recipe for humility is being around people who are smarter than you.

Define "smart". You can't be the best at everything, just because you are good at math does not mean you are "smart".
You cant be both left brained dominant and right brained dominant. People are often good at different things, they are smart in their own way.

You're retarded. The left/right brain thing isn't real. And there is clearly a trend that shows there is a single type of intelligence, not "multiple intelligences". Brainlet detected.

People who excel is something generally tend to do at least good in whatever they turn their attention to.
This is especially true of children in school.

>The left/right brain thing isn't real.

Source on that?

And what do you mean with one type of intelligence? Do you seriously mean that someone that is "smart" is good at everything? If mathematicians are so smart, and therefor good at everything, how come they don't rule the world and fuck movie stars? Is a calculator smarter than you?

Who is the smarter? The mathematician who solves the math problems, the artist who paints the pretty picture, the musician who compose beautiful music or the builder who builds your house? Neither of them would survive in the wild anyways so how much did that get them?

That's not quite true. Children who are good at math/science don't usually excel in arts or crafts. Never notice why there are so many spergs in STEM fields with zero social intelligence?

I'm not the guy you responded to but holy shit are you retarded.

>is a calculator smarter than you
KEK

Go back to school kid.

dude you are dumb as a rock lol

Who cares idiot? These fucking threads are annoying as fuck, stick to talking about science and math

>Ad hominem

Your butthurt is showing, should be pretty easy to argue against if it is so retarded, right?

>Children who are good at math/science don't usually excel in arts or crafts.
you wot? Pretty everyone I ever met who displayed academic excellence also played the cello or some other shit like that.

>believes in the "multiple intelligences" meme
LOL. There's only one intelligence dumb faggot.

go to bed, underage faggot.

You're confusing intelligence with talents. Arts are talent. There is only one intelligence.

Anecdotal evidence is not relevant here. Then I could as easily say that just because I had a sperg in my class who was good at math but sucked at music and social skills that's the case for everyone.

And as I asked in that post, what do you mean with only "one intelligence"?

Which is? And why should I go to bed 7:35 in the morning?

>ignores the arguments
Brainlet detected. Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself.

What are you, 5? Intelligence is the ability to derive new information from old information. There are not multiple intelligences you sperglod.

KEK someone ban this retard

You don't even know what fallacy is do you?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

Alot of people would beg to differ.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

Also how do you explain right and left brain dominated people?

>posts wiki links thinking he's proving anything at all
Typical brainlet

You realize you've been cornered right? Again, someone ban this retard.

Ahahahahha kill urself bro.

>Anecdotal evidence is not relevant here
As opposed to?

Actual sources, which I provided, and those guys none. They fall back on fallacy instead of answearing my questions about their own statements. Then when presented with evidence that contradicts them they go back to their ad hominem.

Seriously, when did Veeky Forums become /pol/?

And what does that fucking word "brainlet" even mean?

This is why I advocate classes based on long general term social needs with a semi-structured recess.

Put them in key accelerated classes with other smart kids so they can learn at closer to their full speed with optional take home expansion plans for those extra bight ones. So we can make the best scientist and engineers.

And include life skills like classes like PE and Home Econ, where softer skill sets are favored. The smart kids will likely hate this as it will be too easy or hard depending on how they think, but an hour or two of this kind of stuff it doable and vital to making a well round citizen. As even the best scientist needs to interact with the world outside the lab.

>Actual sources, which I provided
what?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

And if you can't be bothered to scroll down a page then I can copy the source material as well.

Bibliography

Davis, Katie; Christodoulou, Joanna; Seider, Scott; Gardner, Howard (2011), "The Theory of Multiple Intelligences", in Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Barry, The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, pp. 485–503, ISBN 0521518067
Demetriou, Andreas; Raftopoulos, Athanassios (2005), Cognitive Developmental Change: Theories, Models and Measurement, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521825792
Demetriou, A.; Mouyi, A.; Spanoudis, G. (2010), "The development of mental processing", in Overton, W. F., The Handbook of Life-Span Development: Cognition, Biology and Methods, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 36–55, ISBN 978-0-470-39011-5
Eysenck, M. W., ed. (1994), The Blackwell Dictionary of Cognitive Psychology, Blackwell Publishers, pp. 192–193, ISBN 0631192573
Gardner, Howard (1993), Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice, Basic Books, ISBN 046501822X
Gardner, Howard (1983), Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Basic Books, ISBN 0133306143
Gardner, Howard (1999), Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century, Basic Books, ISBN 978-0-465-02611-1
Gardner, H. (2004), Changing Minds: The art and science of changing our own and other people's minds, Harvard Business School Press, ISBN 1422103293
Gardner, Howard (2006), Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons in Theory and Practice, Basic Books, ISBN 978-0465047680
Howard-Jones, Paul (2010), Introducing Neuroeducational Research, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 0415472008
Kaufman, Alan S. (2009), IQ Testing 101, Springer Publishing Company, ISBN 978-0-8261-0629-2

And of course you picked that theory because you actually read all those books as well as those from the opposite thesis and not just because you like the name of that wikipedia page?

Multiple intelligences is horseshit.

The neutral networks in the brain could favor one type of activity if that was all someone ever did but this is specialisation and not static throughout a person's life.

People are only bad at things they do not practice and can become skilled in any discipline - higher intelligence has a better ability to learn quickly and retain information so perhaps has a greater capacity for multi-disciplinary mastery.

It can't be any worse than sending a Rap genius to school with a rap clown nobody like Drake.

This.

No, I did not even pick anything. I was merley suggesting that there might be more than one type of intelligence and tried to engage in a discussion about what they defined as intelligence, as you can see my post before all the insults was 100% composed of questions.

Why does it trigger you so much that intelligence is not only an internet IQ score?

How do you explain right and left brain dominated people then?

>Is putting a 160IQ kid in a bus of mostly average people as bad or worse than putting an average kid in a bus with 60-80IQ retards?
>I mean it could be considered torturous in both cases right?

Is that the best course of action?

IQ is trash, but so is school..

The idea is that the smart kids will eventually be the ones leading the average and below average kids, so isolating them will just further the already ongoing class division.

>a 30 minute trip in a bus is the same as spending 8 hrs a day being forced to interact with people for 12 years
Well of course, why didn't I see it earlier.

You're right we should lobotomize anyone with an IQ above 60, lest they prove more useful to society than others.

>It is also important to teach the child that he is not superior or better just because of his intellect.
But he literally is.

IQ 160 is hardly relevant considering the rarity.
A better question would consider any IQ with a z-score of 2 or so.

This implies whether IQ is meaningful or not though. Any high IQ kid with parents that raise the kid properly shouldn't have a a problem dealing with others/school.

>IQ 160 is hardly relevant considering the rarity.
Idk man I think it's more relevant because of their rarity. I mean society is potentially squandering a very valuable and scarce resource by letting them wallow in intellectually unstimulating environments for the better part of their education. Subjectively, being forced to interact with your clear lessers as peers, being judged by their standards, and having some 105iq teacher ordering you around with their inane babbling is insulting, even cruel.

>This implies whether IQ is meaningful or not
>though. Any high IQ kid with parents that raise the kid properly shouldn't have a a problem dealing with others/school.
But we're not talking about dealing with it. Most people could 'deal with' 10 years in prison but that's not really an effective use of your time, is it? And it would probably be harmful to most to be subjected to this, no?

iq beyond two standard devs of the norm is too rare to make any hard and fast rules about and especially considering iq tests were devised less as a way to determine intelligence in a linear fashion and more as a way to test for retardation

Buttblasted IQfag detected

Well, it's not EXACTLY the same thing, but it would have basically the same results.

The more intelligent kid wouldn't develop correctly, and it would probably mess with their social interaction, self esteem, etc...