Anybody else find this bigoted?

Post Reply New Topic

http://education.penelopetrunk.com/2012 ... h-reading/

Points 1 (the use of "neurotypical" and 4 ("danger sign").

Yeah, I taught myself to read at four, I guess this lady thinks if my parents had stopped me from reading I would have been normal? Uh, nope. I wasn't normal before that either.

At the very least, reading COMPREHENSION should be taught. Merely reading the words does not guarantee that the reader fully comprehends what he/she is reading.

It's ridiculous to advocate a totally hands-off approach to teaching reading.

The author isn't implying that reading early causes Asperger's, just that reading too early can result in poorer social skills, which may or may not be true. It's not bigoted to say a fact, and Aspies having poor social skills is a definite fact.

In certain circles, reading LEADS to social interaction--don't you agree?

I guess "overeading" could lead to isolation; it actually did, in my case. However, the acqusition of knowledge through reading invariably leads to the ability to converse well in social situations. The Aspie/autistic has to be encouraged/taught to socialize, while maintaining his/her "autistic" identity" (the positive aspects--such as the ability to see things, especially visually, from unique perspectives).

But having them due to reading is not, nor is calling it dangerous.

Ok, to clarify what I mean (I'm kind of loopy from sleep deprivation at the moment):
She first says neurotypical kids will teach themselves to read eventually and implies that this is good.
Then she says (apparently to reassure parents of neurotypical kids who aren't reading by five or six?) that kids who teach themselves to read earlier are damaging their social skills. I mean, at first she said it's "associated with" poor social skills, which makes sense, anything people on the spectrum do will be. Correlation doesn't imply causation. However, then she talks about how some nameless "teachers" told some parents that "focusing on words" would cause poor social skills, which sounds pretty sketchy to me.

So, it's good when neurotypical kids do it, but if non-neurotypical kids do it even sooner... that's bad. Even the things we are good at have to be attacked. And yes, social skills are obviously more useful in our society than anything else, and that is not a good thing - it means actual knowledge and skills are pushed to the side - but neurotypicals are smug about it, because it gives them an advantage over people who may be smarter and more capable than they are.

Last edited by Nonperson on 17 Oct 2014, 12:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

It is bigoted, it is just a bit silly. I can not see any harm which can come from a kid knowing how to read. Unless the kid finds and starts to read some very adult books like "120 days of sodom", but if a kid gets to read De Sade I am more concerned about the people who give a kid access to such a work of total filth.

Haha, I secretly read "The Handmaid's Tale" when I was six, but I didn't understand it.

My kids all taught themselves to read at five, which I guess wouldn't get this lady's approval, since it's not late (although it's also not early enough for hyperlexia). I'd imagine most kids can teach themselves to read, if they're read to and given some basic building blocks (like the alphabet), but she's trying to use autism to scare people off of even letting their young kids read. It seems like an anti-intellectual throwback: "you don't need any of that fancy book-learnin, what you need are social skills'".

Point 4 is funny:

Again, the overvaluation of social skills. Honestly, people need to get over this. Are neurotypicals so needy they need to make everyone conform to their narrow view of what constitutes valuable communication.

I see it more as bias. I know I wouldn't have learn to read on my own but I had a disability so that doesn't count. So just because her own kids learned to read on her own or her friends' kids and other kids she knows, doesn't mean all learn on their own or else there would have been no illiterate adults.

Also seeing a McDonalds sign and knowing it's McDonalds is not reading nor is seeing a word you memorize. Give them a word they don't know and if they can't pronounce it, they can't read and they were just doing it by rote and had words memorized they know. I remember had these two books memorized at age seven but I was not reading. I really learned to read when my mom made me read books than her reading to me because I had to actually try and pronounce the words and remember the sounds they make to actually learn to read. But then I could read but couldn't comprehend what I was reading. I still have that issue and I have to read something over and over to make sure I understand it and sometimes people will read the same thing I read but have a totally different perspective so it's like we both read two different things instead of the same post or blog or article. I find some books easier to read and some harder to read. I find kid books a lot easier. Yeah I do see people online can read but they sure can't comprehend what they read. I don't know if they are stupid or have reading problems or if they simply do not care because it's the internet so they don't care to read it carefully or read every word for word.


IMO everyone has a bigoted view, it doesn't make them bad people nor us. I guess another word for it is bias. Everyone has a bias opinion. That is what I learned in high school in English. Our English teacher made us write about our own bias view we have and I didn't understand and mom told me I have a bias view about weight loss so write that. So I did.

She's not saying that early reading causes Asperger's. She saying that they might be linked-- actually, she's saying that Asperger's might cause early reading (it doesn't in all cases, but it did in mine-- I memorized the stories I loved, and then one day found myself looking at them only to realize that the words made sense, however I was strictly a sight reader, not learning to sound words out until I was taught to do so).

She's also right about school reading programs being a bit of a fraud-- not all kids are going to read well in the first three grades of school, and it's not necessarily a problem if they don't. Different brains grow at different rates; boys especially sometimes aren't "wired" to read well until they're about 8. It's another joy of the worship of the standardized test-- in order to test well, they must either read fluently or have paperwork that allows someone to read the test to them. They must test well by third grade. Therefore, they must either read fluently or have a diagnosis that will necessitate that accommodation by third grade.

I don't think she's saying that reading instruction should be eliminated. Just that we get a bit silly with it, especially in early childhood.

I mean, I'm drilling my two-year-old in letters and letter sounds. Just to have her "ready for kindergarten," because I live in a district where they believe that "Ideally, children will attend a high-quality day-care for at least 40 hours a week from six months of age."

Tell me that isn't ABSURD. To the point of being dystopian.

Yes. The hive mind requires conformity. If it didn't it would not have lasted so long or be so powerful.

I'm more inclined to think that A.S. causes early reading.
Books allow you to easily filter what is real and useful from what is imaginary. Humans do not like when you do this in person.

No kidding. So much of people's conception of themselves and their lives is a constructed fiction. I'm amazed that they never realize this.

They can become quite offended when you do not recognize their imagined identities.
Conditioning is powerful. I have been told that it takes two or three days to talk an adult NT back to reality. I've also been told that once they integrate back into society that they re-assimilate very quickly.

Did you miss this?
"The teachers met separately with each parent and explained how dangerous hyperlexia is to a developing brain. A child's social skills are developing at a rapid rate at age three, and if the brain starts focusing on words instead of social skills, the brain loses the chance to develop those social skills. The teachers told the parents to discourage early reading."

I agree with you on the emphasis on preschool being absurd. I tend to think it's a backlash from moms who feel guilty about not staying home with their young kids: "oh yeah? Well, my kids are better educated than yours!"
A lot of middle/upper-middle class parents don't give their kids enough time to simply play, or spend enough time bonding with them.

My mother wouldn't allow me to read her Readers Digest Condensed Classics when I was in grammar school because she thought I wouldn't understand them.
I did understand them, but I didn't tell her or argue with her. Perhaps the limited attempts I made to sneak a read had already destroyed my social skills.
I was only allowed to read my children's story books of which I had three.
I still have no social skills.
I think I just disproved their conjecture.
I didn't learn to read at home. I learned to read in first grade (I didn't go to kindergarten).
I learned to read with Dick and Jane books. I loved those books. The repetition made reading so easy to learn.

As a child I read books about dinosaurs, National Geographics, encyclopedias, and other books about general science, botany, or insects.
Even without the reading, I can't see having picked up any more social skills. The proper environment just wasn't there, and the public school system was far too hostile.