Because in kindergarten I was regularly asked to go hang out by myself as literally every other student in the room learned to read. When they gave me the tests they use to measure themselves I got 99th percentile scores so literally neglecting me got them the metric as doing anything for me.

Yeah, I get the general idea. I, like most HN readers likely were, was in a similar situation.

And as a certified smart guy I now ask myself and others questions like: Why is it deeply offensive to hold you back when you are literally suggesting to hold them back instead?

Because there is a distinct bias against students who understand the material who get ignored in favor of students who don't Having a bit of talent hides what you actually need which tends to get ignored because you're better at figuring things out.

This has not been my experience.

It's very hard to disentangle though.

I have a smart, popular nephew from a good home, who also got extra acconodations on exams for dyslexia.

You could spin that either way:

Priviliged people taking advantage of accomodations for those with problems.

Or smart people who previously got written off as disruptive troublemakers being better catered for (though maybe we'll have less entrepreneurs if we keep all the smart people in the standard education track).

In particular, the benefits of living in a society with a basic level of mathmatical (etc.) understanding seems powerful but hard to trace through.

But if we can't even talk about the trade-offs calmly and factually then its just a pointless sgouting match. The people with the academic skills should be leading the way on that.

What's more important: make everybody average? or make it possible for some people to reach outstanding levels?

Option 2, in most cases.