[learc83]

There is no solid evidence that teaching reading early is advantageous, and in fact there is evidence that it can be damaging. No one really knows why exactly, but there are several theories ranging from discouraging other types of play and interaction, to the difficulty turning them off of reading later on.

>it's "how soon does this kid have the tool to satisfy their natural curiosity about things that require more than someone telling them about it?"

I don't think that's true at all, an average 4-7 year old who can read, cannot read to a level where they can learn topics complex enough that they "require more than someone telling them about it."

A kid who learns to read at 7 will catch up to the kid who learned at 4, so that by the time they are ready to teach themselves on their own through reading, there won't be a difference.

https://deyproject.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/readinginkind...

[lordnacho]

Simple explanation: decreasing return + noise means you can't tell whether someone has been doing something for 10 years or 13.

[egypturnash]

> ...to the difficulty turning them off of reading later on.

Wait. What?

Who the hell thinks that making kids stop liking to read is a thing that should happen?

[jacalata]

I think that sentence meant "the difficulty of reading at a young age makes them less interested in reading when they are older"

[egypturnash]

Hmm, oh yeah, I think you're right.

(Personally I was reading by the time I was four without my parents doing anything more than reading to me on a regular basis, and maybe setting a good model by reading a lot themselves.)

[learc83]

Yeah, you're correct. I'd edit it to be a bit clearer, but it's too late.