Dr. Knuth did a Q&A session at UBC earlier this year, which was open to the public for free, on a first-come first-serve basis. I was able to score a seat.
He was a wonderful and thoughtful speaker, and did his best to answer questions about a huge variety of topics. He spoke with energy and enthusiasm. I felt quite lucky for getting the chance to see him in the flesh.
I know there is video of the session, but I'm not sure if UBC ever published it.
Something in the second "chapter" jumped out at me: apparently Knuth was reading at age 2 and a half. I have two sons, aged two and three, and the thought that they would read seems completely unthinkable to me. However, this is the second time I've read this about someone this week (there was a story about a boy genius who was admitted to MIT at age 15 on HN recently). In both cases, the parents taught their kids reading at an extremely early age.
So I wonder: Am I just underestimating the mental capacity of a 2 year old? Should I teach my kids more challenging things than playing with dough?
Or is there already such an incredible variance at age two, that there are children who can learn to read at a time when my kids are just getting the hang of basic grammar?
From what my parents are telling me, my (one year) older sister was reading at the age of 4, and I was reading at the age of 3. Their technique was to read the books to the children with them sitting on the lap, so that they can see the text. One should also read the same books repeatedly, so that the kids are familiar with the text, and can match the words they remember with symbols in a book. They must also actually like the stories, so that they're not bored with the exercise.
My three younger sisters didn't learn to read so early, but it seems the reason was each additional kid reduced time the parents could spend per kid.
There's really no reason to, you know, for the transcription to include every filler word and little, you know, rewording. In fact, it makes the, I think it makes it really hard to read.
"I worked the supplementary problems. I was, you know, I was scared I wouldn’t learn calculus, so I worked hard on it ... But after a year, I could do all of those problems in the same time as my classmates were doing the assigned problems, and after that I could just coast in mathematics"
Is this another nail in the coffin for the myth of genius?
6 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 24.1 ms ] threadHe was a wonderful and thoughtful speaker, and did his best to answer questions about a huge variety of topics. He spoke with energy and enthusiasm. I felt quite lucky for getting the chance to see him in the flesh.
I know there is video of the session, but I'm not sure if UBC ever published it.
So I wonder: Am I just underestimating the mental capacity of a 2 year old? Should I teach my kids more challenging things than playing with dough?
Or is there already such an incredible variance at age two, that there are children who can learn to read at a time when my kids are just getting the hang of basic grammar?
My three younger sisters didn't learn to read so early, but it seems the reason was each additional kid reduced time the parents could spend per kid.
"I worked the supplementary problems. I was, you know, I was scared I wouldn’t learn calculus, so I worked hard on it ... But after a year, I could do all of those problems in the same time as my classmates were doing the assigned problems, and after that I could just coast in mathematics"
Is this another nail in the coffin for the myth of genius?