Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You entire post #83 and #89,you can not provide a link or a fact to back up one single thing you said.
No person with a university title can confirm what I'm saying therefore it must be false, right? Just because there isn't a peer review published on the subject.
Why can't a person be allowed to show his own opinion without being ridiculed? I am not saying this is the word of god, I am saying that based on a couple of observations, that maybe there is something to it. Is that so hard to understand?
If only what is currently known by science today can be seen as truth and every other idea is just something to laugh at then we are doomed to complete ignorance.
It's like a new religion, and I'm blaspheming to dare to put out a new idea not sanctioned by the scientific authority.
40 is still young. I wasn't asking about you, I asking if the people you know that started to read between 3-5 are already over 50. Mental disorders have been on the rise and are expected to continue to increase. Nobody will suspect that have anything to do with learning to read early, but you can't state on the negative until it has been studied. Like I said before, maybe the brain isn't developed enough to start using it to read and understanding things from books. Maybe old folks had a reason why it was better to let kids develop and learn by themselves without books.
You can’t stop a kid from learning to read.
Your reasoning is so flawed let’s just start with, early reading has been studied.
Your reasoning is so flawed let’s just start with, early reading has been studied.
We are talking about the effect early reading have on people's memory over 50. I didn't know it has been studied. I'm interesting to read about it. Please share a link.
I just looked up what they say about the cause of dementia. Dementia is caused by damage to or changes in the brain. Might as well just say they have no idea. That is like saying What is the cause of fever? high temperature.
I could read the word "Off" on an on-off switch at 18 months. I could read fluently at 3 to 4. What do you think happened in school when I was placed with average kids? I was bored silly, and the teacher let me read books in the back of the classroom.
Thank God my parents understood the situation and put me in a school for gifted children a few years later when I was able to take the bus. It was expensive but I'm worth it, I guess.
I was an early reader, started kindergarten at the typical time (never attended preschool), read well ahead of grade level through most of my schooling, and was never bored. I didn't care if we were going over something I already knew. I just breezed through it and got extra free time to read on my own, do art projects, or whatever else interested me. Because I was well-behaved, rather than a bored hellion, I got a lot of leeway and freedom.
No person with a university title can confirm what I'm saying therefore it must be false, right? Just because there isn't a peer review published on the subject.
Why can't a person be allowed to show his own opinion without being ridiculed? I am not saying this is the word of god, I am saying that based on a couple of observations, that maybe there is something to it. Is that so hard to understand?
So, if I have a couple of observations that seem to refute that hypothesis, are my anecdotes just as valid as yours?
So, if I have a couple of observations that seem to refute that hypothesis, are my anecdotes just as valid as yours?
Let's hear them to see how they relate.
If you know somebody who learned to read at 3, is 60 now and has a very good memory then that would seem to refute my hypothesis. Although that wouldn't prove anything since I am talking about the possibility of a tendency.
Kinda like if you were to test two groups of 60 years old people. One learned to read between 3-4 and the other 7-8. Which is more likely to have better memory. Most people would say there is no correlation. I am saying maybe there is. It's just an idea.
No need to act like we're in a mosque and I'm disrespecting Muhammad.
I was an early reader, started kindergarten at the typical time (never attended preschool), read well ahead of grade level through most of my schooling, and was never bored. I didn't care if we were going over something I already knew. I just breezed through it and got extra free time to read on my own, do art projects, or whatever else interested me. Because I was well-behaved, rather than a bored hellion, I got a lot of leeway and freedom.
Well, you're a girl. School is more suited to the typical temperament and behavior of girls. I just didn't have it in me to sit through 13 years of schooling and not learn anything. It is not a moral failing. I did well after I went to the better (much better) school.
I taught myself to read at age two, without any help or encouragement from anyone. I had to invent the method to do it, as well. I used the Sunday funny papers mainly at first. There was a radio reader for them and I benefited greatly from that. I never hit a peak and then declined and I still regret that our school district was so rigid in its policies, that I wasn't allowed to start school a year or two early. A friend who attended Catholic schools, was allowed to skip an early grade and it gave him an incentive to do well, being challenged by older classmates. He ended up with a PhD and a full professorship.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.