3 ms·

I have two children roughly OP's age, they couldn't possibly be more different in terms of motricity, senses, intelligence, etc. Polar opposites. My first said

I have two children roughly OP's age, they couldn't possibly be more different in terms of motricity, senses, intelligence, etc. Polar opposites. My first said her first words at 9 months old, "ba" for ball, bath, and 2-3 more meanings, and made a repeated sound pointing towards the object of interest, sound which cannot be described in words. Before the age of 1 we had amassed over 50 words, most up to 3 syllables, a handful had more. Same for walking, fine motricity, etc. She reads at 5 years old. My second only started saying single syllable words at 1y10m, started walking similarly later, and isn't able to do at 1y10m most things that my first was already able to do before being 1yo, so the delay between them is higher than 100%, more than double. Same family, same teaching style, etc, only 3 years apart. The ability to teach your child to do something depends almost entirely on the child, your teaching abilities don't seem to matter much, they simply copy you. All that matters is that you are present and offer them the attention they need.

viraptor 1y ago
Yeah, one off examples don't really mean much when people talk about anything kids related. In this case additionally because hyperlexia exists. (https://www.healthline.com/health/hyperlexia https://www.healthline.com/health/hyperlexia) Maybe the methods worked, maybe you got lucky, maybe the kid learned despite what you did. Who knows.
- pc86 1y ago
  I see this "yeah well that's an anecdote so let's just ignore it" claim a lot but it doesn't hold water in my opinion. Most glaringly, the article almost immediately links to peer-reviewed scholarly research about the effects of reading for pleasure being initiated at various times in development relative to the average. N > 10,000, not that big N is itself a positive measure but it certainly doesn't hurt. There are certainly times where "this is an anecdote" is useful commentary, even though everybody knows what an anecdote is. But I don't think this is one of those times.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - viraptor 1y ago
    I meant the method, not the benefits - that one kid reading at 3yo doesn't say anything about the method used. Also, that paper classifies early as starting reading between 0-7yo. Also, in twin studies they show quite high heritability compared to environment impact (which is higher to be fair). Also the impact they showed was between early reading and positive outcomes, but it doesn't show that (simplifying) you can make kids read earlier in some ways. So it's an interesting study, but it's not really discussing "How I taught...". It's (simplifying) "do early readers have better life", not "can you use method to give kids better life via earlier reading". (Which may still be true!)
pc86 1y ago
Are they the same sex? I seem to recall a study where there are some - not huge, but statistically significant - differences in first onset of movement vs. language in boys vs. girls.
- perlgeek 1y ago
  The common wisdom is that that girls often speak earlier than boys.
  - pc86 1y ago
    Yeah and anecdotally this is what I've noticed in our family and our friends' families at a pretty high percentage.
- randunel 1y ago
  My youngest is a boy, indeed.
darkwater 1y ago
More or less same here, both girls, now 10 and 7. The 10yo started reading pretty good at 4.5yo on her own, now she reads books for teenagers since a couple of years, the 7yo is more or less OK for her age (probably having her side by side with her sister doesn't help us to be fair).
Jedd 1y ago
Is that just the phenomenon of subsequent children leveraging the benefits of a slightly older sibling? Combined with some training of the parents by the first child, and therefore a significantly different mindset being exhibited towards the second child. > The ability to teach your child to do something depends almost entirely on the child ... Is this a summary of your personal experience or are you citing research?
- timcobb 1y ago
  Nope, it's "just" genetics...
- xattt 1y ago
  I can second the OP. Children can be wildly different, and development can be influenced both ways. The age gap between children also matters. Yes, children can piggyback off the achievements of their older sibling in social development and play. However, I found that I am unable to devote as much time with my second child because my attention is split.
  - wiredfool 1y ago
    First Child: ooh I know nothing. Nothing works. Second Child: Ok, We've got this. Except, No, completely different. Third Child: At least we've got the range. No. No you don't. Big issue we had with the first was that he was reading several years above grade level, and we ran out of interesting things for him to read that were age appropriate. When they can read the Hobbit at 7, but are scared, it's really difficult. Of course, he's now reading things like type theory and scares me with Nix advocacy, so I guess it all comes around.
    - WillAdams 1y ago
      A great follow-one to _The Hobbit_ is Susan Cooper's _The Dark is Rising_ --- my kids also enjoyed H. Beam Piper's _Little Fuzzy_ (and its sequels).
      - 1y ago
HPsquared 1y ago
Biologically it's not double, you need to add 9 months to both. Then it's not 12m vs 22m, it's 21m vs 31m. Still a big difference but not twice as fast, just 48% faster overall. Brain development starts very soon after conception.
Freak_NL 1y ago
Genetics and a bit of dice rolling. That's the biggest part of the equation it seems. I have only one specimen to work with (and I am not inclined to create more), but he was reading at 4 and currently at 6 reads at a 3rd or 4th grade level, despite still being stuck in kindergarden until September. Sure, we read to him, and we make him read aloud to us too, but we're really just catalysts. He can make himself comfortable in a chair or on a sofa and read comics (Donald Duck, Asterix, etc.) for hours without any prompting (which, honestly, is a really nice feature to have on a child). I expect we'll be able to coerce him onto autonomously reading suitable books in addition to comics by next year too. I do strongly believe that him seeing us read, and being surrounded by (actual paper) books helps. It means he grows up in an environment where books are normal, not just something you must grapple with because of school. I don't like the heavy training implied by the article though. I want to raise a kid who likes reading, not one who will resent being pushed to read.
- acquisitionsilk 1y ago
  I wonder if it's merely some language or cultural difference, and I don't mean it as a snipe at all, but may I just say - software products have "features", human beings have traits! Maybe it's a confusion based on the fact that human beings as well as traits also do have "features", but that refers to things like having tiny ears. Having a very strong liking for sitting reading books for long periods is a lovely trait, but it certainly is not a feature (I would say!).
  - BobaFloutist 1y ago
    I think it was intentionally playful language, not a language difference.
- WillAdams 1y ago
  One thing which I tried to do with my kids, after exhausting all the classics (Narnia, _The Hobbit_, _The Lord of the Rings_, Susan Cooper's _The Dark is Rising Pentalogy_ --- highly recommend the latter for folks who have not read it) was to read biographies in chronological order --- as a dry run I did American Presidents (which did great things for my understanding of the ebb-and-flow of American history, since I would try to read an adult biography in advance in anticipation of questions). The intent was to then go back to the beginning of human history and read biographies of notable persons in chronological order --- unfortunately, my wife's work schedule changed, so that bedtime reading quit happening --- probably my kids were about to age out of this anyway, but it was an interesting endeavour, and one which I have been meaning to take up again for my own sake. EDIT: and, if I should ever have grandchildren, inflict on them.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
avidphantasm 1y ago
Came here to say this. Well said. Also language skills and reading have a complicated relationship. My daughter was saying sentences like “no suppository for me!” when she was two (she had constipation issues). But is now seven and while she still has excellent verbal skills, reading is coming slowly for her, though she can read and is making progress, it’s just slower than her classmates. Her school district has high standards (students on average read at two years above grade level). However, I wonder if this push to have kids read at younger and younger ages is not appropriate and harmful at some point. We were warned by our OT upon entering kindergarten that the curriculum will have the kids do things that are not developmentally appropriate. Also, my daughter has a mid spring birthday, so she’s 6 months younger than many of her classmates, which at this age still matters I think. I think the theory is that it’s okay if the bucket overflows, at least it’s full. However, I worry that pushing kids to do too much too early can make it hard for them to build confidence and enthusiasm for reading and learning in general.
yoko888 1y ago
[dead]
- danbender 1y ago
  I loved reading that. 100% this. Accompanying our little ones and appreciating their perspective.

viraptor 1y ago

Yeah, one off examples don't really mean much when people talk about anything kids related. In this case additionally because hyperlexia exists. (https://www.healthline.com/health/hyperlexia https://www.healthline.com/health/hyperlexia) Maybe the methods worked, maybe you got lucky, maybe the kid learned despite what you did. Who knows.

pc86 1y ago
I see this "yeah well that's an anecdote so let's just ignore it" claim a lot but it doesn't hold water in my opinion. Most glaringly, the article almost immediately links to peer-reviewed scholarly research about the effects of reading for pleasure being initiated at various times in development relative to the average. N > 10,000, not that big N is itself a positive measure but it certainly doesn't hurt. There are certainly times where "this is an anecdote" is useful commentary, even though everybody knows what an anecdote is. But I don't think this is one of those times.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- viraptor 1y ago
  I meant the method, not the benefits - that one kid reading at 3yo doesn't say anything about the method used. Also, that paper classifies early as starting reading between 0-7yo. Also, in twin studies they show quite high heritability compared to environment impact (which is higher to be fair). Also the impact they showed was between early reading and positive outcomes, but it doesn't show that (simplifying) you can make kids read earlier in some ways. So it's an interesting study, but it's not really discussing "How I taught...". It's (simplifying) "do early readers have better life", not "can you use method to give kids better life via earlier reading". (Which may still be true!)

pc86 1y ago

Are they the same sex? I seem to recall a study where there are some - not huge, but statistically significant - differences in first onset of movement vs. language in boys vs. girls.

perlgeek 1y ago
The common wisdom is that that girls often speak earlier than boys.
- pc86 1y ago
  Yeah and anecdotally this is what I've noticed in our family and our friends' families at a pretty high percentage.
randunel 1y ago
My youngest is a boy, indeed.

darkwater 1y ago

More or less same here, both girls, now 10 and 7. The 10yo started reading pretty good at 4.5yo on her own, now she reads books for teenagers since a couple of years, the 7yo is more or less OK for her age (probably having her side by side with her sister doesn't help us to be fair).

Jedd 1y ago

Is that just the phenomenon of subsequent children leveraging the benefits of a slightly older sibling? Combined with some training of the parents by the first child, and therefore a significantly different mindset being exhibited towards the second child. > The ability to teach your child to do something depends almost entirely on the child ... Is this a summary of your personal experience or are you citing research?

timcobb 1y ago
Nope, it's "just" genetics...
xattt 1y ago
I can second the OP. Children can be wildly different, and development can be influenced both ways. The age gap between children also matters. Yes, children can piggyback off the achievements of their older sibling in social development and play. However, I found that I am unable to devote as much time with my second child because my attention is split.
- wiredfool 1y ago
  First Child: ooh I know nothing. Nothing works. Second Child: Ok, We've got this. Except, No, completely different. Third Child: At least we've got the range. No. No you don't. Big issue we had with the first was that he was reading several years above grade level, and we ran out of interesting things for him to read that were age appropriate. When they can read the Hobbit at 7, but are scared, it's really difficult. Of course, he's now reading things like type theory and scares me with Nix advocacy, so I guess it all comes around.
  - WillAdams 1y ago
    A great follow-one to _The Hobbit_ is Susan Cooper's _The Dark is Rising_ --- my kids also enjoyed H. Beam Piper's _Little Fuzzy_ (and its sequels).
    - 1y ago

HPsquared 1y ago

Biologically it's not double, you need to add 9 months to both. Then it's not 12m vs 22m, it's 21m vs 31m. Still a big difference but not twice as fast, just 48% faster overall. Brain development starts very soon after conception.

Freak_NL 1y ago

Genetics and a bit of dice rolling. That's the biggest part of the equation it seems. I have only one specimen to work with (and I am not inclined to create more), but he was reading at 4 and currently at 6 reads at a 3rd or 4th grade level, despite still being stuck in kindergarden until September. Sure, we read to him, and we make him read aloud to us too, but we're really just catalysts. He can make himself comfortable in a chair or on a sofa and read comics (Donald Duck, Asterix, etc.) for hours without any prompting (which, honestly, is a really nice feature to have on a child). I expect we'll be able to coerce him onto autonomously reading suitable books in addition to comics by next year too. I do strongly believe that him seeing us read, and being surrounded by (actual paper) books helps. It means he grows up in an environment where books are normal, not just something you must grapple with because of school. I don't like the heavy training implied by the article though. I want to raise a kid who likes reading, not one who will resent being pushed to read.

acquisitionsilk 1y ago
I wonder if it's merely some language or cultural difference, and I don't mean it as a snipe at all, but may I just say - software products have "features", human beings have traits! Maybe it's a confusion based on the fact that human beings as well as traits also do have "features", but that refers to things like having tiny ears. Having a very strong liking for sitting reading books for long periods is a lovely trait, but it certainly is not a feature (I would say!).
- BobaFloutist 1y ago
  I think it was intentionally playful language, not a language difference.
WillAdams 1y ago
One thing which I tried to do with my kids, after exhausting all the classics (Narnia, _The Hobbit_, _The Lord of the Rings_, Susan Cooper's _The Dark is Rising Pentalogy_ --- highly recommend the latter for folks who have not read it) was to read biographies in chronological order --- as a dry run I did American Presidents (which did great things for my understanding of the ebb-and-flow of American history, since I would try to read an adult biography in advance in anticipation of questions). The intent was to then go back to the beginning of human history and read biographies of notable persons in chronological order --- unfortunately, my wife's work schedule changed, so that bedtime reading quit happening --- probably my kids were about to age out of this anyway, but it was an interesting endeavour, and one which I have been meaning to take up again for my own sake. EDIT: and, if I should ever have grandchildren, inflict on them.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

avidphantasm 1y ago

Came here to say this. Well said. Also language skills and reading have a complicated relationship. My daughter was saying sentences like “no suppository for me!” when she was two (she had constipation issues). But is now seven and while she still has excellent verbal skills, reading is coming slowly for her, though she can read and is making progress, it’s just slower than her classmates. Her school district has high standards (students on average read at two years above grade level). However, I wonder if this push to have kids read at younger and younger ages is not appropriate and harmful at some point. We were warned by our OT upon entering kindergarten that the curriculum will have the kids do things that are not developmentally appropriate. Also, my daughter has a mid spring birthday, so she’s 6 months younger than many of her classmates, which at this age still matters I think. I think the theory is that it’s okay if the bucket overflows, at least it’s full. However, I worry that pushing kids to do too much too early can make it hard for them to build confidence and enthusiasm for reading and learning in general.

yoko888 1y ago

[dead]

danbender 1y ago
I loved reading that. 100% this. Accompanying our little ones and appreciating their perspective.