Harder to teach Low vs High IQ ???

Post Reply New Topic

Which is harder to teach when you have someone on the spectrum? Someone with a low IQ or a high IQ?

I think I would have an easier time with a low IQ, as I can patiently explore different methods of teaching until I find a way of making a connection. When I was working I know my boss was frustrated at times with the time I'd spend working with someone. But, I'm one of those who loses the track of time when solving problems.

A high IQ would be tougher, as they often struggle with masking and social interaction, which makes it harder to make a connection. They may even try to hide their deficits, so I don't know what they know and don't know.

Thoughts?

I think everyone is different, and cannot be divided into handy convenient pockets in which to place them for future reference. Regardless of IQ, the hardest people to teach are the ones who refuses to listen or learn, while the easiest to teach are those most receptive to new information with a willingness to absorb it. I've never found IQ to be a raw indicator of a person's learning ability.

For those on the spectrum, intelligence quotients are rather meaningless.

IQ tests are broadly an indicator of how well you can assimilate and contribute to NT society

Somebody who scores low on global IQ is likely quite capable of learning skills. The reason they ate harder to teach is because they process/comprehend language/communication differently

I am hoping autistic children 20 years from now will have their own personalised AI bot who will be their personal teacher/mentor whose sole purpose is to follow them their entire life and decode NT society/life/comms to help them survive and thrive in this world.

This is what I think I'm good at. Switching to different ways of thinking to match what they do best, rather than trying to force them to do it the way that I would do it.
I think it would be enlightening to work with someone with synesthesia to see if I could bring out that ability.

I was a teacher for a fairly short time many years ago. I think I did a pretty good job, but I found that, perhaps ironically, the fact that I myself had been a good student who found it easy to learn was actually a hindrance as a teacher, in that it was difficult for me to understand why some students found the subject challenging and were not able to easily grasp it.

I think the easiest person to teach is someone that the teacher understands and can relate to. But that's the reason why there is teacher training that is supposed to help teachers spot and adapt to different learning styles and abilities. That is also why teachers are supposed to use different ways of teaching so that everyone in the class will be able to learn, whether they are a visual learner, a verbal learner, etc.

you're gravely mistaken here.

IQ has almost nothing to do with "your ability to contribute to society", and certainly not to some NT subset of society.

Every sociology professor, and social science book and magazine article I have ever read said that "no one knows WHAT IQ tests measure", and that "IQ does not correlate with success or happiness, nor ANY thing".

They measure a certain type of intelligence...book learning or something. But not success in life ...ergo not your ability to contribute to society, or "NT society".

IQ tests have the same degree of worthlessness for NTs as for autistics.

What NTs have that autistics lack is not "IQ", but "EQ". Emotional intelligence...the ability to read people. That is not measured on traditional IQ tests. Only now, as we speak, is the shrink community developing EQ tests to measure emotional intelligence, and social instincts. The stuff that really matters. The stuff that NTs have autistics lack.

Here's my experience: (Not a teacher)

Low IQ -- Takes more time, more repetition, more simplification, more patience, more, more, more... On top of gauging mental stamina. No momentum, mostly trial and error or exploring multiple methods.
Can be brute forced, may persevere so just classic patience and stamina is just needed.

High IQ -- Requires some coaxing, had to find specific contexts/lateral thinking/outside the box -- had to manage shifting topics/relevance, tricky communication styles, may contend with ego/someone's own idea of self when it came to teaching. It's like I need sharper turns and momentum when it came to topics.
Cannot simply be brute forced, requires a degree of creativity which is trickier as it is tricky.

Does not account for: Learning disabilities, sensory factors, etc.

When it came to EQ, the socialization bits is actually the easy part. Really. It's just more emphasized.
Interactions be bypassed by scripts and a lot of 'playing it safe', soft-spoken and polite. Basically, it's easy to teach anyone fawning.
I say leave the communication aspects to SLPs.

The real hard part is "management" -- internal and external. Doing it is hard, teaching this is almost impossible without a degree of expertise in psychology.

The internal bits, if it's unmanageable, there won't be a lot of bypassing or even a chance for interaction because one is too busy in 'self-preoccupation'. To excel at this means a real chance to learn socialization through observation; albeit manual, but is still more possible.
The external bits is tricky; a process that can even start before first impressions interactions even started. Excelling at this don't even need a lot of body language reading, but more like making other people more predictable -- which is hard to figure.

Last edited by Edna3362 on 20 Jan 2024, 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I would also add lower expectations too. The level of improvement expected from greater effort does not (and often will not) yield the expected results. I also suspect out 20 different things a teacher does, perhaps there might only be one that motivates the child to learn, but pinpointing which one worked might be impossible to tell (especially the younger the child is).

this will probably be different for every person, both the teacher and the pupil/trainee. I don't think it can be quantified one way or another. Even the same 2 people on different days may have wildly different experiences.

Perhaps IQ isn't the best tool for the job.
Are there better tools for assessing students so you know what you are up against?

I play golf and there are rules like you can't test the sand in a bunker.
But, that is a game and teaching students on the spectrum is real life.
Why should I handicap myself and the student by ignoring tools that may be available to me?

There is an autism center in the next town from me for rich people.
I'm sure they can do a lot of things normal people can't afford.

As a gardener on a budget I can often do stuff with hand tools instead of power tools like the professionals.
The hand tools make the job so much easier than trying to do without!

Last edited by BTDT on 21 Jan 2024, 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

A higher IQ score suggests an increased ability to learn, at least in terms of traditional methods of book learning and so I would say higher IQ folk are easier to teach than lower IQ folk for that obvious reason.

As a teacher, educator, instructor - I have not had a difficult time with IQ being low or high. I can teach anyone. Everyone is different and has their own learning speed (which is fairly average across the board). I have never categorized my students in this manner. I have, however, found that males students are far more difficult to teach/educate compared to females. For me IQ does not enter the equation, gender does.

An IQ test puports to be a global measure of cognitive function. My point is that it has built in issues that make it culturally biased and does not take into account neuroplasticity. So essentially all it does is indicate a snapshot of cognitive performance and in this context performative in terms of predictive validity in how well one succeeds in NT society (which can include contributions as an "outcome").

As you point out the test on its own is now considered worthless and should be take in conjunction with other tests and measures to make sense of the score.