# What would happen to a child if the only books you read to them were more complex?



## Sage In All Fields (Nov 22, 2020)

I don't know what exactly to search for to get actual science on this, or if there even is any science on this, but presumably there was a time when 'children's literature' wasn't really a genre and they would have to learn to read from regular books? If this is the case how might that impact a child's development?

I'm wondering if when I have kids I should avoid exposing them to 'children's literature' because I'm wondering if it may in fact be contributing to people growing up to be really illiterate.


----------



## Troonos (Nov 22, 2020)

I've wondered the same. Sometimes I think about teaching my kids science when they're toddlers.


----------



## Medulseur (Nov 22, 2020)

Comprehension. The reason why books aimed at children are simpler is because most kids can't comprehend more advanced material. That is how it's always been, even before 'children's literature' became a genre. If you start them out with a complicated book that they can't understand, they won't get far very quickly and they won't enjoy reading at all.


----------



## Rusty Crab (Nov 22, 2020)

If you try and teach anybody something that's too far beyond their level, it will just go in one ear and out the other instantly. Even if they manage to memorize it, they still won't actually understand it. The key in education is to challenge, but not overwhelm.


----------



## Botchy Galoop (Nov 22, 2020)

In the not-so-distant past, the only literature available to most Western families was the Bible, often in Latin or Greek. It was not unusual for 6 and 7 year old children to be literate not only in their native language, but also in the Ecclesiastical languages. Reading more adult books to children will give them a much greater vocabulary. 
That being said,  children's literature is also useful in teaching sounds, phonemes, alphabet, etc. to the rapidly growing sponge that is a childs' brain. 
Probably the best thing you can do with an infant/toddler/child is to blow up your TV and do not give them the internet until puberty, if ever.


----------



## Sage In All Fields (Nov 22, 2020)

Rusty Crab said:


> Even if they manage to memorize it, they still won't actually understand it.


But isn't this how alot of things are learned? We usually teach the more concrete before going into details right? You learn that things fall before you learn how gravity works right?


----------



## cypocraphy (Nov 22, 2020)

I learned to read very early. Yet I still turned out to be a dumbass who shitposts on kiwifarms. So, probably nothing.


----------



## Sage In All Fields (Nov 22, 2020)

Botchy Galoop said:


> Probably the best thing you can do with an infant/toddler/child is to blow up your TV and do not give them the internet until puberty, if ever.


I'm considering having my children build their own simple machines, or using old hardware so that they get a chance to learn and their ability to use the internet is bottlenecked enough that they'll restrict its use to important things. I really don't see a reason to own a TV though, it just seems to harm.


----------



## Dutch Courage (Nov 22, 2020)

Medulseur said:


> Comprehension. The reason why books aimed at children are simpler is because most kids can't comprehend more advanced material. That is how it's always been, even before 'children's literature' became a genre. If you start them out with a complicated book that they can't understand, they won't get far very quickly and they won't enjoy reading at all.


The problem is  too many books written for kids are _too _stupid.  The authors are dumb, and they patronize the kids.

There has been plenty of quality children's literature in the last century; some of it is a little old, but it is timeless (like the original Winnie the Pooh, for example).  There has to be some substance to a story, or kids (like anyone) get bored.  Also important is for the parent to talk about the story with the kid, to help him to think analytically and critically.  Kids can still learn to love to read, but they need the right guidance.


----------



## Rusty Crab (Nov 22, 2020)

Sage In All Fields said:


> I'm considering having my children build their own simple machines, or using old hardware so that they get a chance to learn


That's a much better idea. Active, hands-on learning tends to stick with you much better and you get to think about the underlying principles more. To this day, I credit my career in software dev to Lego Mindstorms. Do not underestimate the power of tinkering.


----------



## peanus weenus (Nov 22, 2020)

Another question, what would happen to an adult man if he only ever watches cartoons for kids and plays videogames?


----------



## Rusty Crab (Nov 22, 2020)

peanus weenus said:


> Another question, what would happen to an adult man if he only ever watches cartoons for kids and plays videogames?





			https://kiwifarms.net/threads/the-third-statement.79302


----------



## Botchy Galoop (Nov 22, 2020)

OP, if you want to dive a little deeper into this subject, look up Early Childhood Education, language acquisition, literacy. There is a plethora of info, but beware the later studies, they are definitely tainted by political correctness. 
How children -age birth thru 5- develop language is pretty fascinating...at least to this sped.


----------



## Complete Reprobate (Nov 22, 2020)

I only had books as a tyke. That was great for when I became an underachiever with an expansive vocabulary.


----------



## Kosher Dill (Nov 22, 2020)

Botchy Galoop said:


> In the not-so-distant past, the only literature available to most Western families was the Bible


And in the even-less-distant past, the _second_ book a household would have had was "The Pilgrim's Progress".

But let's not forget what good old Sleepy Joe taught us - learning also depends on how many words you _hear_ on the record player.


----------



## Overly Serious (Nov 22, 2020)

There's a related thread around here somewhere about good books to provide to kids to guard them against social evils / political oppression etc. It's a worthwhile question but it's misguided because the first things children need are values. It's no good teaching little children about Evil before they've learned to value Good.

Consider G.K.Chesterton's statement that fairy tales are important not because they teach us dragons are real, but because they teach us that dragons can be fought.

We teach values before we teach moral theory. To teach moral theory without first teaching values leads to the sort of post-modernist moral relativism we see in colleges today.

We teach addition before multiplication, multiplication before indices.

Children should read true things (allegory can still be truth). But they need to start with the basic building blocks because if you present them with the whole cathedral right away they wont know whether to focus on superficial details or the basic architecture.

And in particular children should have fun. Wuthering Heights is a powerful novel but a child isn't equipped to understand the relationships or motivations within it. They can understand the motives and relations in The Hobbit because it's writ large: curiosity, greed, danger and loyalty. Those four things are in Wuthering Heights, too but a child wont recognize them. And if you start them off on Wuthering Heights and not The Hobbit they may never understand them. Same way if you started a kid off on integration and skipped multiplication they may never really understand integration even if they eventually learned to follow the process. Kids will find the Hobbit fun. Wuthering Heights not so much.

None of this is saying kids should read _bad_ literature. There's plenty of that out there aimed at children. *Specifically* aimed at children it seems. But if you want them to understand villainy and forgiveness, you start them off with Darth Vader, not Heathcliffe.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Nov 22, 2020)

Botchy Galoop said:


> Probably the best thing you can do with an infant/toddler/child is to blow up your TV and do not give them the internet until puberty, if ever


Yeah, why would you want a kid with modern skills in pandemic future? They might actually get a job and move out and get their own pod to live in.

Here's some good bedtime reading ages 4-6


----------



## Sage In All Fields (Nov 22, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> Yeah, why would you want a kid with modern skills in pandemic future? They might actually get a job and move out and get their own pod to live in.


If you wanna breed drones who are entirely dependent on the neoliberal system to function that's on you.



Lemmingwise said:


> Here's some good bedtime reading ages 4-6View attachment 1743515


I actually read "Who Stole Feminsm", Christina Hoff Sommers oversold it by alot, if you've seen her speak it's basically an entire book rehashing that, mentioning most of the same stories. I got bored and stopped reading half way.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Nov 22, 2020)

Sage In All Fields said:


> I actually read "Who Stole Feminsm", Christina Hoff Sommers oversold it by alot, if you've seen her speak it's basically an entire book rehashing that, mentioning most of the same stories. I got bored and stopped reading half way.



Well yeah, if you're over 6 it's going to be boring. Might as well read harry potter at that point.

As for political awareness, have you tried talking to your kids?


----------



## Jonah Hill poster (Nov 24, 2020)

most of the complex books that children read before say fantasy novels and comic books will have the child go through phases and backtalk towards authority. if you force children to pay attention to said “complex” books, he’ll just go back to doing what children do: *ACT LIKE CHILDREN*


----------



## AMHOLIO (Nov 25, 2020)

Even if you find that one out of 100 kids that understand what you were teaching them, I am pretty sure that kid would end up like this:


----------



## Sage In All Fields (Nov 25, 2020)

albert chan said:


> most of the complex books that children read before say fantasy novels and comic books will have the child go through phases and backtalk towards authority. if you force children to pay attention to said “complex” books, he’ll just go back to doing what children do: *ACT LIKE CHILDREN*


I don't think you need to do any forcing, children are naturally curious unless you have school beat it out of them. They might not care for one book but maybe they'll care for another, you just have to give them variety.


----------



## Cheerlead-in-Chief (Feb 8, 2021)

I'd be proud of them if they read the Communist Manifesto. Then I'd spoil them


----------



## Prophetic Spirit (Feb 8, 2021)

Nah, kids can't understand how a fallen prince traveled to the world searching for a specific person, killed people to save his own and later failing promises to deep down in his own rabbid hole.
At least there's a happy ending in the end of that but kids either gonna be scared or boring earlier


----------



## furūtsu (Feb 9, 2021)

Assuming that kid isn't a one in a million child genius, they'll get bored and resent you for not letting them just play Xbox like all the other kids.

I kid. I think it's important to give kids quality material to read, but most won't understand Tolstoy or Dostoevsky. Start off small, like The Hobbit, and help them work their way up. Also make sure you ask them questions and encourage them to do the same, make them think about the broader concepts and apply them to their own lives.


----------



## Bad Gateway (Feb 9, 2021)

Sage In All Fields said:


> I don't know what exactly to search for to get actual science on this, or if there even is any science on this, but presumably there was a time when 'children's literature' wasn't really a genre and they would have to learn to read from regular books? If this is the case how might that impact a child's development?
> 
> I'm wondering if when I have kids I should avoid exposing them to 'children's literature' because I'm wondering if it may in fact be contributing to people growing up to be really illiterate.


What do you mean you don't know what to search to find out about this? 

Every university in the fucking world offers degrees in both early childhood and elementary education. There are hundreds of years of research from every developed country in the world on this topic. Entire fields of dedicated study which cross multiple disciplines. You don't even know what you're asking. That's not what "illiterate" means. Work on that first, then worry about the reading comprehension of the kids you'll never have.


----------



## Haim Arlosoroff (Feb 9, 2021)

Sage In All Fields said:


> If this is the case how might that impact a child's development?
> 
> I'm wondering if when I have kids I should avoid exposing them to 'children's literature' because I'm wondering if it may in fact be contributing to people growing up to be really illiterate.


Read them aesop's fables (the townsend translation is the best), and Fairy Tales Told for Children(by Hans Christian Andersen).  Think of knowledge as a tree, the trunk is their birth knowledge, the branches are the things like walking and language that nature primes in us to learn, the twigs are words and little facts, and the leaves are the associations we make about them.  When confronted in life by a problem, we try to associate it to things we know, then we use facts and ideas we've learned, and our confidence is found by our certainty that we are at least grasping the right branch of our knowledge.  In other words, you must teach the opposite way from general to specific that your child will then use specific to general for the rest of their lives.

I for one, read far to much sci-fi such as Dune, ender's game, war of the worlds, hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, and Protector (a 1973 book by Larry Niven) and it gave me the gift of wild points-of-view which allowed me to see the different subjectivities of people who counter my way of thinking which got me into psychology and politics.

Ultimately, books exist to show children different ways of living to what they immediately see.  Most of all people vastly vastly overestimate in their personal parenting how much their child learns from speaking to them versus showing them.  They learn by watching, far more than being told.  But books can spark their active imagination, which effects them as if they are watching a real thing, rather than instruction manual reading which only is retained short-term or as politeness/correct behavior.

In the very short, anything which they actively watch in reality or which promotes new ideas that engage their imagination is best. Expose them to much, double down on as many things as stick, and you'll have a thoughtful child that might be more of a handful once their imagination lets them plot and plan since you primed it so much.  Intelligence can be a curse, it can get you into trouble.



Lemmingwise said:


> Here's some good bedtime reading ages 4-6


I'm picturing a child with Julius Evola, Søren Kierkegaard, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Jean-Paul Sartre, Friedrich Nietzsche, Arthur Schopenhauer, Sigmund Freud, or G. W. Leibniz rattling around their head.  That would be one horrible child to let talk around strangers.


----------



## Sage In All Fields (Feb 9, 2021)

Bad Gateway said:


> That's not what "illiterate" means.


----------



## Bad Gateway (Feb 9, 2021)

Sage In All Fields said:


> View attachment 1907799


You didn't mean any of those things.


----------



## Sage In All Fields (Feb 9, 2021)

Bad Gateway said:


> You didn't mean any of those things.


You should inform the world of your mind-reading abilities.


----------



## Bad Gateway (Feb 9, 2021)

Sage In All Fields said:


> You should inform the world of your mind-reading abilities.


I'm wondering if when I have kids I should avoid exposing them to 'children's literature' because I'm wondering if it may in fact be contributing to people growing up to be really unable to read and write.

I'm wondering if when I have kids I should avoid exposing them to 'children's literature' because I'm wondering if it may in fact be contributing to people growing up to be really lacking education.

I'm wondering if when I have kids I should avoid exposing them to 'children's literature' because I'm wondering if it may in fact be contributing to people growing up to be really lacking in literary and linguistic cultural knowledge.

I'm wondering if when I have kids I should avoid exposing them to 'children's literature' because I'm wondering if it may in fact be contributing to people growing up to be really lacking knowledge in a field I won't specify.


----------



## Sage In All Fields (Feb 9, 2021)

Bad Gateway said:


> I'm wondering if when I have kids I should avoid exposing them to 'children's literature' because I'm wondering if it may in fact be contributing to people growing up to be really unable to read and write.
> 
> I'm wondering if when I have kids I should avoid exposing them to 'children's literature' because I'm wondering if it may in fact be contributing to people growing up to be really lacking education.
> 
> ...


Case in point


----------



## AMERICA (Feb 9, 2021)

Bilingual children take a bit longer to pick up both languages as children; they test at lower levels than monolingual children until a certain point where they then become indistinguishable in skill. It delays language development but does not prevent or hinder it.*

If you read the child books that are overly complex, I wonder if you'd have a similar situation, where it takes the child longer to pick up the language, but they even out to where they "should" be later, probably beyond.

*i learned this so long ago that i wonder if this is still the "modern" idea of how things work; take with a grain of salt


----------



## Bad Gateway (Feb 9, 2021)

Sage In All Fields said:


> Case in point


Maybe you shoulda read more children's books or less or whatever your thing was


----------



## Fliddaroonie (Feb 9, 2021)

I'm not sure about reading books way above your child's age or level. But I can for sure see the benefit on talking to them properly. Not using idiotic baby talk, and talking to them even when they're non verbal is a great thing. Answering their questions honestly, admitting when you dont know an answer by looking it up and finding it out is  no bad thing.

And if I  can? Never, ever shout or show anger when questions are asked. Ever. Because if you want your kids to come to you for answers then that's how you put them off.


Edit: and ffs, don't infantalise stuff. I've lost count of the number of grown ass women who cant distinguished between their vagina and their vulva and instead call the foofoos or twinkle
 Apt names for things are  not something to be scared of.


----------



## Ramuchan (Feb 10, 2021)

Sage In All Fields said:


> I don't know what exactly to search for to get actual science on this, or if there even is any science on this, but presumably there was a time when 'children's literature' wasn't really a genre and they would have to learn to read from regular books? If this is the case how might that impact a child's development?
> 
> I'm wondering if when I have kids I should avoid exposing them to 'children's literature' because I'm wondering if it may in fact be contributing to people growing up to be really illiterate.


Coming from the school system, I think that kids would actually turn out much better if they went straight to mature genres. I know you've probably seen 4 year olds play Beethoven or 10 year olds solving rubik's cubes in a matter of seconds. Point is kid's minds are very flexible at a young age, basically mature in the sense that intellect is strongest. I don't know if we would enjoy books to the point that they would rival other means of modern entertainment, but if they are given to kids at young ages and glorified like fortnite, we might see a world where school is all about science, and writing and reading are common hobbies among teens. Essentially we'd see something along the lines of a mass Doki Doki Literature Club.


----------



## L50LasPak (Feb 10, 2021)

This has been done. Over and over again. It always turns out the same. If you overload a kid with knowledge from a young age, they become drastically antisocial and reclusive, with strange fixations to match their intellect. You do get an adult who by all possible measures is undeniably brilliant, but they are mysteriously nonfunctional, completely nervous wrecks who loathe human contact and lose all interest in putting their knowledge to any use. 

I wonder what they know that we don't. 

William J Sidis is perhaps the most dramatic example, but there are plenty of others.


			https://www.damninteresting.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-william-j-sidis/


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 22, 2021)

L50LasPak said:


> If you overload a kid with knowledge from a young age, they become drastically antisocial and reclusive


Do we have any evidence that the same doesn't happen to adults? Lol.


----------



## Cabelaz (Jul 22, 2021)

The road to autistic hell is paved with good intentions.
Respectful, responsible well-adjusted people have been shit out from a childhood of cheetos and halo 2. You just gotta pray your kid isn't a dumbass loser. No amount of parenting can fix that one!


----------



## Johan Schmidt (Jul 22, 2021)

Just spend good quality time with your kids. Involve them in things that are age appropriate for them; support them but don't coddle them and stay with the mother/father of your child as you raise them. We've literally been raising functional children since before we were even human, it's really not that hard.


----------



## Sage In All Fields (Jul 23, 2021)

Cabelaz said:


> Respectful, responsible well-adjusted people have been shit out from a childhood of cheetos and halo 2.


The amount of said people I have to deal with on a daily basis begs to differ.


----------



## Atatata (Jul 23, 2021)

They'd probably get really bored.
There's also how just because they can understand something doesn't mean that they can feel the emotional weight or reasonings behind it.
For example, you can only find a movie about death sad if you understand the concept of death in an emotional sense. 
If you show a kid something too soon, the true feelings of the work could be lost, even if they can understand it logically.


----------



## Bonesjones (Jul 23, 2021)

Why spend all that time building muscles and learning technique? I'm just gonna squat 500 pounds out the gate.


----------



## Sage In All Fields (Jul 24, 2021)

Bonesjones said:


> Why spend all that time building muscles and learning technique? I'm just gonna squat 500 pounds out the gate.


Your back isn't going to snap because you read a book that's too hard


----------



## Bonesjones (Jul 26, 2021)

Sage In All Fields said:


> Your back isn't going to snap because you read a book that's too hard


Look at this guy not reading the heaviest books possible for maximum gains


----------



## Bad Gateway (Jul 26, 2021)

hahaha this is a funny thread I forgot about this one

@Sage In All Fields are you still a fucking idiot about everything?


----------



## Sage In All Fields (Jul 31, 2021)

Bad Gateway said:


> hahaha this is a funny thread I forgot about this one
> 
> @Sage In All Fields are you still a fucking idiot about everything?


lmao are you still mad


----------



## Bad Gateway (Jul 31, 2021)

Sage In All Fields said:


> lmao are you still mad


Damn kid 5 days to come up with this? You love to see it


----------



## Anne Hyroe (Jul 31, 2021)

Try to read anything you’re going to expose your child(ren) to beforehand and get ready to answer any questions truthfully and in an age-appropriate way. Encourage your child to read books for their age and comprehension, then read more complex books to them before bed so you can explain anything they’re struggling with. Make literature more exciting by combining it with other activities that exercise different parts of the mind and body. We’re reading a book set in ancient Egypt currently so we’ve also made hieroglyphic name plates, visited an exhibition, made sand pyramids and had a silly dance-off. This way they develop their own interests, learn to read at their own pace and learn advanced vocabulary from the more challenging texts. Reading to and with your children is one of the best things you can do for them.


----------



## Sage In All Fields (Jul 31, 2021)

Bad Gateway said:


> Damn kid 5 days to come up with this? You love to see it


lol i'm just kinda inactive on kf atm, only reason i logged on was cus i heard cwc raped his mom


----------



## UselessPieceOfShit (Aug 1, 2021)

I never read child literature except the aphabet books. My family had a huge library of classic literature so I mostly read poetry like Pushkin, Lermontov and Mayakovski when I was 4 lol. Never understood a single thing in it though, since it indeed was too complex for me.

Wouldn't say that I turned out to be smarter than other kids, so I guess there are no great impact on child's development.


----------



## stares at error messages (Aug 1, 2021)

Sage In All Fields said:


> I don't know what exactly to search for to get actual science on this, or if there even is any science on this, but presumably there was a time when 'children's literature' wasn't really a genre and they would have to learn to read from regular books? If this is the case how might that impact a child's development?
> 
> I'm wondering if when I have kids I should avoid exposing them to 'children's literature' because I'm wondering if it may in fact be contributing to people growing up to be really illiterate.


The kid would have childhood nostalgia for complex books. 

Also, doing baby-talk to babies and toddler stunts language development.


----------

