23 Dec 17
Originally posted by @humyYes 110 is above average but far from brilliant. You make observations which you believe are absolutely true and are unable to see the limits of your observation.
110 IQ is ABOVE average for IQ.
If there was such thing as an 'ability-to-making-insults-IQ', apparently yours is well below average.
I would say you are average intelligence but likes to pretend you are something more.
Originally posted by @eladarThen either you are delusional or something worse.
I would say you are average intelligence but likes to pretend you are something more.
Everyone here that reads all your posts knows it is you who either likes to pretend or has the delusion that you are smarter than all people here that don't agree with your opinions, which is most if not all the scientists and experts here. You do that with comments such as "Are you as dense as the others? " (your exact words to a real scientist here) whenever someone here disagrees with your opinion. Sorry! You are NOT smarter than them! I am also not smarter than them but the big difference here is, unlike you, I don't pretend nor believe I am smarter than them.
Yes 110 is above average but far from brilliant.
and 110 IQ isn't ' dense' like you clearly implied.
But it isn't someone's IQ that is the problem here; it is you arrogantly trying to insult smart people here for disagreeing with your idiotic opinions.
You make observations which you believe are absolutely true and are unable to see the limits of your observation.strange how you are unable to demonstrate any examples of me doing this. Apparently you make false observations of us all doing this.
23 Dec 17
Originally posted by @humyI think world renowned Child Psychologists opinions
I just looked it up and read it ...
Most of it looks pretty much like just common sense to me.
are a little better than "common sense".
However my point was that "scaffolding" is the technique to
accelerate a child's learning. As a Special Needs Teacher
I know that children need a diverse amount of props
to achieve their individual potentials. Sometimes those
props are cheap, sometimes not ... and very expensive.
I want to allocate money to need, not irrationally give
the same money to each child regardless of their
situation.
23 Dec 17
8 edits
Originally posted by @wolfgang59I think the same which is why I (obviously) also disagree with Eladar.
I want to allocate money to need, not irrationally give
the same money to each child regardless of their
situation.
For each person to have the fairest education opportunity humanly possible, it would be both wrong and idiotic to, for example, deny the blind braille because seeing-people that don't need braille don't get money especially for braille (Eladar's 'logic' ). No seeing-person is shouting "Hey! How come that blind person get money spent on braille for him and not me who doesn't need braille! That isn't fair! I demand money spent on braille for me, who doesn't need it, because he got money spent on braille for him who needs it" 😛 Using the same 'logic', people that need crutches shouldn't get crutches because most people don't need them and it costs extra money to give it to those that do. Lets just hope he will never be put in charge of spending (what a disaster that would be).
23 Dec 17
Originally posted by @wolfgang59You want to pick and choose need.
I think world renowned Child Psychologists opinions
are a little better than "common sense".
However my point was that "scaffolding" is the technique to
accelerate a child's learning. As a Special Needs Teacher
I know that children need a diverse amount of props
to achieve their individual potentials. Sometimes those
props are cheap, sometime ...[text shortened]... ey to need, not irrationally give
the same money to each child regardless of their
situation.