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.
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!).
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.
Brain development starts very soon after conception.
> 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?
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.
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.
The problem was coming up with enough to read that wasn't too scary when he was young. Even the Hobbit was rough. Harry Potter is downright scary. Book series were falling in a week. We never had Christmas present books that lasted till New Year's.
I'm pretty sure that we have The Dark is Rising, but it was never one that was a reread, if they ever got through it. I've read the Little Fuzzy and other H Beam Piper books, and they're a little 50's to really let a young kid loose on.
Terry Pratchett worked, specifically the Bromeliad Trilogy. Eragon was ok. There was a set of Wings of Fire. And bookshelves of others that are gone by now.
See my comment elsethread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44126584
The problem of course is "the newspapers in utopia are boring" (to paraphrase Mark Twain) and "tales of the land of the happy nice people" doesn't make for much of a story.
Another couple of books which I enjoyed sharing w/ my kids were _Divers Down! Adventure Beneath Hawaiian Seas_ and _The Adventures of the Mad Scientists Club_ (and various sequels).
The sibling comments here primarily echoed a similar sentiment, while agreeing that there's variation and assuming that's just random, while also tacitly confirming that 2nd-child tended to perform less well.
> Is this a summary of your personal experience or are you citing research?
Strictly personal experience, not just my own kids, but also personally observed.
Which is somewhat ironic because I’m the one that’s bipolar.
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.
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!)
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.
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.