> The study, led by the University of York, found that parents' socioeconomic status and children's inherited DNA differences are powerful predictors of educational achievement.
> However, the research suggests that having the genes for school success is not as beneficial as having parents who are highly educated and wealthy. Only 47% of children in the study sample with a high genetic propensity for education but a poorer background made it to university, compared with 62% with a low genetic propensity but parents that are more affluent.
> The researchers found that children with a high genetic propensity for education who were also from wealthy and well-educated family backgrounds had the greatest advantage with 77% going to University. Meanwhile, only 21% of children from families with low socioeconomic status and low genetic propensity carried on into higher education.
So I can't speak to this specifically but I think it's well known reading to children when they're young improves their IQ. And that sounds pretty believable to me. In the formative years if you give the brain good info it's going to learn how to operate well. I know this is hand wavy, but I think wealth can be a proxy measure for a good home life in the formative years. So sorry I have no citations, but I find it pretty believable.
One-on-one tutoring by an expert is well known to be almost embarrassingly effective compared to classroom education[1]. It's also extremely expensive.
So not too long ago I think I figured out why people read fiction. I couldn't understand it, why would you want to know stories that weren't true? I think it's all about the social intelligence. True stories are what they are whether they're good or not. Fiction stories can be whatever the author wants them to be, so they can craft them for maximum drama. Hence why they might be good for diving into social and emotional intelligence.
So if you read fiction stories to a child you might have a lot to work with to teach them how to read people and how to interpret their emotions.
I think that you're significantly over-analyzing this. People read fiction because it's enjoyable, they like to have their imagination tickled, and it doesn't have to be tuned for maximum drama. This is like saying that you now understand why people would watch a movie which wasn't a documentary.
People, in general, implicitly learn how to read people and their emotions without coaching -- it's a natural part of being human for most. Autistic people, of course, are the exception here.
Anything that is engaging for THEM, and captures their imagination - although a lot of that rests with the person reading to them to bring it to life...
Just observe what makes them glow with excitement or intrigue and give them more of that...
Then perhaps steer them in the direction of their strengths - not yours.
Remember, it's their life and future not yours. Nurture them for in the direction of their own development...
Regardless of whether they stick with it, support them even when they switch to something else, the objective is the same.
what does that question even mean? anyone who has read almost anything (i except stuff like the marquis de sade) to kids must know that it is good for them, without worrying about whether the source is "considered good".
Elementary school teachers would read to their classes in the 80s.
They always picked books like that Shel Silvertein shit whose message
appealed more to adults than children. I remember being bored into fits
of rage and thinking "This is making me dumber. I want to go outside."
