Live data from Hacker News

Large home libraries may have a long-term impact on proficiency: study

smithsonianmag.com

71–80 of 163 posts

Re: Large home libraries may have a long-term impact on proficiency: study

#71

I liked how Matt Yglesias summarized the quality of this research: "Kids who grow up in households with lots of pants suitable for tall adults grow up to be tall as adults." Making causal claims without accounting for genetic confounds is simply pseudoscience, there are no excuses.

> Making causal claims without accounting for genetic confounds is simply pseudoscience, there are no excuses. This study was done in response to the Scarborough and Dobrich paper that found that how much parents read to their children (generally) isn't correlated with children's future reading ability, but how many books are in their household is a positive predictor of future reading ability. It's one of the most f…

> It’s one of the most famous and surprising findings in all of social science.

Kind of makes sense in a way. Only anecdotal, but I’ve learned to read at 5 years of age almost all by myself (my dad had taught me the letters a little time before that) only because I was bored as hell while I was vacationing at my grandparents’ house and there were a couple of books around. I picked one and started reading it loud while I was alone, and that was it. I’m no genius, mind you, that’s why I think that my experience is not unique.

Re: Large home libraries may have a long-term impact on proficiency: study

#72

I liked how Matt Yglesias summarized the quality of this research: "Kids who grow up in households with lots of pants suitable for tall adults grow up to be tall as adults." Making causal claims without accounting for genetic confounds is simply pseudoscience, there are no excuses.

> Making causal claims without accounting for genetic confounds is simply pseudoscience, there are no excuses. This study was done in response to the Scarborough and Dobrich paper that found that how much parents read to their children (generally) isn't correlated with children's future reading ability, but how many books are in their household is a positive predictor of future reading ability. It's one of the most f…

That's the whole point - there is research supporting the point that "how many books are in their household is a positive predictor" not only of future reading ability but also a bunch of other things, but there seems to be no research supporting that "Growing Up Surrounded by Books Could Have Powerful, Lasting Effect on the Mind". These are very, very, very different things.

In essence, a very likely explanation for the observed "childhood books vs adult success" observation is that growing up surrounded by books is an indicator that your parents may have higher socioeconomic status than average, or that they have an above average educational background and IQ, or possibly all of it, and for those things it's well known that they have hereditary (both nature-hereditary and nurture-hereditary) effects that indicate that the kids are somewhat more likely to be successful in most aspects of life.

That observation (both in your link and in the studies described in the main article above) is not a reason to assume any causal relationship; the original studies don't claim that, but the article we're discussing does try to imply such claim without any appropriate justification, and that is inexcusable pseudoscience.

Re: Large home libraries may have a long-term impact on proficiency: study

#73

I liked how Matt Yglesias summarized the quality of this research: "Kids who grow up in households with lots of pants suitable for tall adults grow up to be tall as adults." Making causal claims without accounting for genetic confounds is simply pseudoscience, there are no excuses.

On top of that, the factor under consideration was self-reported:

'Respondents, who ranged in age from 25 to 65, were asked to estimate how many books were in their house when they were 16 years old.'

It's very likely that avid readers will overreport the books, while reluctant readers are likely to underreport.

Re: Large home libraries may have a long-term impact on proficiency: study

#74

I liked how Matt Yglesias summarized the quality of this research: "Kids who grow up in households with lots of pants suitable for tall adults grow up to be tall as adults." Making causal claims without accounting for genetic confounds is simply pseudoscience, there are no excuses.

LOL. The fact remains that when you have a household full of books, it means that your parents or the people in your household READ. Period. It says that learning is emphasized. Screw genetics, you will read.

Re: Large home libraries may have a long-term impact on proficiency: study

#75
Definitely. When I was little, my parents had this amazing book about each of the planets in the solar system from the late 80s. It had all these theoretical paintings of what the surface of each planet looks like (or the interior of Jupiter). I didn't understand the science since it was more adult-focused. But it was definitely good to have around.

Re: Large home libraries may have a long-term impact on proficiency: study

#76

I liked how Matt Yglesias summarized the quality of this research: "Kids who grow up in households with lots of pants suitable for tall adults grow up to be tall as adults." Making causal claims without accounting for genetic confounds is simply pseudoscience, there are no excuses.

How about: "Kids who grow up in households full of gym/sports equipments, grow up to be muscular/athletic". The quality of this research may indeed be poor, but the "tall pants" analogy seems disingenuous.

This is a closer analogy. It has the same "sounds right" appeal, while sharing the problem with confounding variables. But Yglesias' analogy does a much better job of illustrating the problem; it is purposefully absurd in a way that quickly leads to the desired explanation.

I'm finding it interesting to consider all three scenarios together. What is the similarly between your analogy and the book study that makes them sound right while the pants analogy sounds wrong? I contend that it is the aspect of growth through practice. My intuition is that these three scenarios exist on a spectrum with regards to how much affect practice has. It is clear that working out a lot results in more muscles, and it's clear that trying on tall pants a lot does not result in becoming tall. To me, it's also clear that reading a lot of books "exercises" some sort of book-reading "muscle". But it's less clear what the follow-on effects of exercising that muscle might be. It's also not clear whether growing up with either gym equipment or books around usually results in heavy use of those things!

Re: Large home libraries may have a long-term impact on proficiency: study

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Making causal claims without accounting for genetic confounds is simply pseudoscience, there are no excuses. This study was done in response to the Scarborough and Dobrich paper that found that how much parents read to their children (generally) isn't correlated with children's future reading ability, but how many books are in their household is a positive predictor of future reading ability. It's one of the most f…

That's the whole point - there is research supporting the point that "how many books are in their household is a positive predictor" not only of future reading ability but also a bunch of other things, but there seems to be no research supporting that "Growing Up Surrounded by Books Could Have Powerful, Lasting Effect on the Mind". These are very, very, very different things. In essence, a very likely explanation for…

> there seems to be no research supporting that "Growing Up Surrounded by Books Could Have Powerful, Lasting Effect on the Mind"

Maybe not in this particular study, but the whole point is that any given study is going to be done in the larger context of a one or more fields of pre-existing research.

If you look at the paper I linked to, the proposed model is that in order for kids to be good at reading, they need to read. And the kids who read the most are going to be those who love reading. Now when you as a parent read books to your kids, some kids will love that and others will hate it. And if you read to them if they don't like it, that can actually turn them off from reading and lead to them being worse at reading in the long term. Whereas if you just leave books around the house, sooner or later they're likely going to read some of them, and are more likely to develop a love of reading just by reading things they're interested in when they're interested in them rather than having reading being forced on them before they're interested.

No one is arguing that there isn't an SES component or whatever. But the actual proposed explanation comes from the context of the last 50+ years of research on intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation, and is interesting on its own.

Any one paper isn't going to look at more than one specific thing, but if you're only looking at that one paper without understanding the larger context of the research then you're not going to understand what's interesting about it or why it was worth doing.

Re: Large home libraries may have a long-term impact on proficiency: study

#78
post #46

I never enjoyed reading fiction. Fiction trains your mind to look for fictitious narratives in real life; it distorts your perception of life and makes the world a worse place for others who don't follow those narratives.

Fiction certainly can have that downside. But good fiction is also one of the most effective ways--apart from deep listening--of training empathy because it lets you step into someone's inner life. Rarely do we get a chance to see the world through someone else's eyes for long stretches. If you're not an immigrant, you can vicariously live the life of one through fiction and see what they have to deal with. If you're…

Absolutely on the money! You can't walk a mile in someone else's shoes, but with the right book, you can imagine it - which can make you do a complete 180 change in how you see a situation. I've had this happen many times and I attribute a lot of that to fiction!

Re: Large home libraries may have a long-term impact on proficiency: study

#79
I completely agree with this article, based on my own anecdotal experiences (I don't think the science behind this article was the best, but I'll save that for another post).

My great grandma never had the chance to go to school, but she loved to read. She would work, save up, and buy books whenever she could. Books were all she ever wanted for her birthday or Christmas. Even though she had no formal education to speak of, she was an intelligent woman and wrote prose and poetry as good as any I experienced in college.

My great-grandmother's love of reading has been passed down through four generations now (down to my children). I have over a thousand books in my house, some of which belonged to my great-grandmother. I learned software engineering by reading books I borrowed from my local public library and built a successful career through reading and studying these freely available tomes on my own. When my kids were in school, I told them to put all their efforts into reading. I knew from personal experience that if they could read well they would be able to learn anything they wanted to. So far, that has been the case.

If I could only have one life skill, it would be reading. Having access to hundreds of books growing up certainly helped me and made me who I am today. Of course, having books around does nothing for you unless you crack them open and read. The only downside has been schlepping all those books around every time we move.

Re: Large home libraries may have a long-term impact on proficiency: study

#80
post #21

I liked how Matt Yglesias summarized the quality of this research: "Kids who grow up in households with lots of pants suitable for tall adults grow up to be tall as adults." Making causal claims without accounting for genetic confounds is simply pseudoscience, there are no excuses.

Suggesting genetics is responsible instead (as opposed to any other variable) is no less pseudoscience. If only we could find some smart parents and get them to deny their kids books, we’d know for sure!

There’s plenty of smart people who don’t read books, they shouldn’t be hard to find for a study.
Post reply on HN