3 ms·
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 immedi
by 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 agoI 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!)