Learning to read and personality type

[onemoretime]

When did you learn to read? I started pretty early, either in the late twos or early threes. Of course, I didn't start talking until only a few months before that, and wasn't elocuting correctly until I was five, so I guess that balances out.

I'm trying to determine whether quickly learning to read is more of an N/S thing, or an P/J thing. The N/S thought is that N-users might notice the connection between written word and speech much more quickly, while S-users might require the connection to be more explicitly pointed out. Consequently, this might mean that the former don't necessarily sound words out in their head when reading, while the latter do, since there's much more of a concept of a written word representing a speech pattern, rather than both the writing and speech indicating a given concept.

The P/J thought is that extraverted Sensing/intuiting will more likely pick up on the connection between language and writing, as there is a greater sense of familiarity with the outside world. For example, an Se user might learn to read easily when a written word is pointed out, and then told that it means a given spoken word. Ne will just put two and two together. Meanwhile, introverted Sensing/intuiting might have a harder time with this, given the introverted nature of their perceptive functions. Si will have had to internalize the rules for the connection between written words and speech, while Ni will struggle with there being any true connection between writing and speech (which of course, leads to a later fascination with language, particularly in the formation of artificial language)

Your opinions?

 

[Totenkindly]

My parents were shocked when I went to school (I think I started when I was still four, approaching five)... because they didn't realize I knew how to read.

The teacher ended up telling them, since I surprised her.

My parents had read to me a lot, and I guess I had been practicing on the sly. I don't have specific memories of reading alone, I just know I've always loved books and was always reading. I was reading on a high school level in elementary school and quickly went past that, and I lived in the library (or would have if I could).

yes, I think pattern recognition is very useful for readers. I have always read quickly and while I can miss details because I go so fast, I usually had a really good big-picture overview of what I have read (I grasp the "essence" of it); slower linear readers seem to get lost or bored or frustrated more often.

Obviously even the teachers are unsure on this sort of things. It's why we get people practicing phonics for a time, then going back to more pure memorization of individual letters or words themselves, on a case by case basis. i think both are useful, especially in regards to English (which is not quite an intuitive language, it's just a versatile one).

One thing I noticed is that my NP and NJ kids used speech qualifiers ("actually," "honestly," "certainly," "possibly," "potentially," etc.) at early ages a lot more; my SP kid didn't care to be so specific, it just wasn't important to him.

 

[onemoretime]

My parents were shocked when I went to school (I think I started when I was still four, approaching five)... because they didn't realize I knew how to read.

The teacher ended up telling them, since I surprised her.

Hahaha, that's awesome. I was "found out" so to speak when my dad realized that I wasn't just looking at the pictures in the newspaper. I can't think of a time since I've been self-aware that I didn't know how to read.

My parents had read to me a lot, and I guess I had been practicing on the sly. I don't have specific memories of reading alone, I just know I've always loved books and was always reading. I was reading on a high school level in elementary school and quickly went past that, and I lived in the library (or would have if I could).

Yeah, I wasn't really reading upper-level material at that age, but I did read books about things most kids weren't interested in. I never could figure out why people liked those fictional books about sports, when sports history was much more entertaining.

yes, I think pattern recognition is very useful for readers. I have always read quickly and while I can miss details because I go so fast, I usually had a really good big-picture overview of what I have read (I grasp the "essence" of it); slower linear readers seem to get lost or bored or frustrated more often.

Same here. I always hated it in school when they asked what the "main idea" of a passage was - I couldn't understand what they were even asking for. Why ask me when you could just read it yourself? What made this a particularly important question - just ask me what the guy's trying to say.

Obviously even the teachers are unsure on this sort of things. It's why we get people practicing phonics for a time, then going back to more pure memorization of individual letters or words themselves, on a case by case basis. i think both are useful, especially in regards to English (which is not quite an intuitive language, it's just a versatile one).

I'm not a huge fan of phonics, but I understand with some it can be useful. To me, it's biggest flaw is conflating the information-transmission functions of both writing and speech, rather than making it clear that both serve distinct purposes, and how important body language and surrounding context are in speech, while they are completely unavailable in writing.

In fact, I'd say that's a big problem of English education in general - completely neglecting the social information aspect of speech, which I'd argue is the more important part.

You're right, though, it's not easy in English, since it's a weird hybrid of a synthetic and an analytical language, so you can't really teach any of the tricks of both of those without dumping a whole bunch of unnecessary context around.

One thing I noticed is that my NP and NJ kids used speech qualifiers ("actually," "honestly," "certainly," "possibly," "potentially," etc.) at early ages a lot more; my SP kid didn't care to be so specific, it just wasn't important to him.

I used to drive my parents nuts with this - I'd never fail to hedge my bets when making a statement. They always wanted to be able to hold me to something, and I'd never let them do it, since I'd want to keep my options open somewhat.

 

[compulsiverambler]

I think Se, Si and Ti are the main functions that enable learning to read, but other functions may act as motivators. Fe because text is a prominent form of communication, and in fact I wonder if that Fe motivation is why girls on average develop speech and literacy sooner than boys; Te because reading adequately is so important to achieving non-person centred goals as well; Ne because reading can feed the imagination.

Se - enables you to first notice the characteristics of each letter and sound, to focus on the text in front of you and to develop the physical skills of reading, which shouldn't be underestimated. That means through practice making it an automatic and effortless process to move the eyes from left to right and top to bottom across text and to keep the eyes trained on it and proceeding steadily along. These skills do have to be learned and some struggle more than others, jumping around the page or reading slowly because of the conscious effort and thought it's requiring to keep their eyes where they should be at each moment. By the time we're adults the majority, who came to find it easy, seem to forget that it ever didn't come naturally.

Si - enables you to remember what each word looks and sounds like and to notice recurring concrete patterns, i.e. combinations of letters representing particular sounds.

Ti - enables you to categorise the elements of language and understand the rules of grammar.

To some extent Te will help you understand the rules as well, by considering the possibility that sometimes rules which seem internally inconsistent or arbitrary merely serve to minimise ambiguity. The reasoning behind the apostrophe being used for possessive nouns but not possessive pronouns eluded me for a long time because I wasn't applying a Te perspective.

 

[Saslou]

So i just rang my mum because i was curious about this.

I was read to from birth. You could have a proper conversation with me from the age of 2. I was reading books myself at 3.5-4 yrs. Although i could read, i struggled with colours. Just couldn't get it.

Hmmm, lol.

 

[poppy]

The P/J thought is that extraverted Sensing/intuiting will more likely pick up on the connection between language and writing, as there is a greater sense of familiarity with the outside world. For example, an Se user might learn to read easily when a written word is pointed out, and then told that it means a given spoken word. Ne will just put two and two together. Meanwhile, introverted Sensing/intuiting might have a harder time with this, given the introverted nature of their perceptive functions. Si will have had to internalize the rules for the connection between written words and speech, while Ni will struggle with there being any true connection between writing and speech (which of course, leads to a later fascination with language, particularly in the formation of artificial language)

Your opinions?

That's kind of interesting to me. I don't know when my parents started encouraging me to read, probably fairly early, but I guess I had no interest in it for a while (apparently they hoped that I would be an athlete because I was so not inclined to read ). I guess at some point I must have made the connection because I went pretty quickly from being totally apathetic towards reading to doing it voraciously.

 

[phthalocyanine]

my parents say i started with books at 3 and i could read at 4. i was read to a lot and owned books with words in them before i could read them, so i think i was pretty well encouraged.

i remember i used to follow people around with my dr. seuss books hoping they'd let me read to them. i think there was some regret on my parents' parts for so much encouragement because i was really obsessed with reading for a good year, and it drove everyone nuts.


"wanna hear a story?"
-"NO."

 

[compulsiverambler]

Si will have had to internalize the rules for the connection between written words and speech

You can't learn to read fluently without doing a lot of that. As long as what was initially learned is correct, a strong Si preference is going to be a huge advantage because deviations from the internalised norms will produce stronger gut reactions. These will be the people who can most easily spot that a spelling "just doesn't look right".

 

[FDG]

Around early 3. Around 5 I was reading a lot, 5-6 books a week, I really loved to read when I was a kid. Now I also do, but school and work take time away. I remember asking my mother to teach me to write when I was 4, because I wanted to know, although I didn't become a "good" writer until elementary school. But I already knew the basics, and this was maddening to some teachers since I had acquired my own way of doing some of the stuff.

I don't think connecting this to functions makes any sense, to be honest.

 

[brainheart]

I don't think I learned to read earlier than what is usual- kindergarten, age 5. But once I learned, I took off. I was a contextual reader, absolutely. I might not have known what all the words meant, but I figured it out in the context- using what I already knew to make inferences about what I didn't fully understand. Based on my ability (and eagerness) to do this, I was able to read junior high level books by second grade. I've noticed that I do the same thing when I am learning a foreign language.

I notice my second grade son (for sure an IXXP, not going to try and determine anything else at this moment) doing the same thing when he reads as I did; my daughter in fourth grade (my guess EXFJ) doesn't seem to. For this reason, he is almost at the same reading level as her. It's possible that being a perceiver does make one more willing to wander into unknown territory and feel around/fake it while one figures it out/masters it. And if that perceiver happens to be interested in the written word (or what one discovers by reading it), I think they may be more likely to progress quickly. But also, it's possible that the cognitive functions don't matter in this process. It's possible that as long as you have the interest, you are going to use your own approach to figure it out. It's also possible that introverts in general are more likely to advance quickly because it is a safe way of interacting with the outside world on one's own terms.

 

[Tamske]

Early. 3 or 4. My mother is an elementary school teacher. As she loves to teach reading, she did so with my sister and me
I had a little book called "Ping en de zeester" (about a penguin and a starfish) attached to the bars of my toddler's bed. Yes, it contained words with more than one syllable. I never understood why people need to learn one-syllable words first. If you can read the first syllable, just read the second one and attach them, no?
I love, love, love reading. It makes me introvert on any test where introversion is linked with reading.

 

[Athenian200]

Me? I was reading at age 3. I always like to tell people that because it usually impresses the ones who didn't read until 5 or 6.

My teacher actually got mad at me in Kindergarten and sent me to the principle's office because I said "You mean they're all illiterate? You're not doing a very good job then, are you?" when she explained why she was surprised I could read signs in the classroom, and she thought it was a curse word.

The principle didn't punish me when I told them what happened, though. Had to explain to the teacher what the word "illiterate" meant. She was really embarrassed and frustrated.

 

[BlahBlahNounBlah]

I read on my own by approx. age 2 or 3. I was read to from birth.

 

[Valiant]

My mind worked more like Kanji stuff. I remember knowing what the words meant, but not the individual letters.
I didn't really know all the different letters until like age 6, but I was pretty busy doing other stuff.
When I started reading around six, I started out by doing it seriously.
My first two books were The Count of Monte Cristo in early 1900's swedish. Real brick.
I was through it in no-time. Next up was The Lord of the Rings.
I never did baby-talk or such, my parents made it a point of using advanced and adult language around me at all times, and it worked.
Never had any problems using an advanced language at any age.

My parents are both students of developmental psychology and lots of other fun stuff, so this was actually all a part of the plan.
English wasn't really a problem, either. Just kinda became somewhat fluent in it from one day to another.
Seems like I have blockings like that... But once I piece it all i've learned here and there, I can wield it.
I'm currently bombarding myself with German, and i'm making huge progress in understanding the spoken language.
Trying to achieve it through an interest of mine, military history, since i've found that being interested is way better than just trying to learn.

 

[SilkRoad]

I was three when I learned how to read - I don't really remember it. I do like the story of how it happened, though, told me by my mum. Apparently she was in the kitchen and I came in and said "Mummy, what does 'soporific' mean?" (I kid you not). Apparently she took this very calmly and said "it means something that makes you sleepy"...I went off quite happy, and a minute later she thought "huh?" She wouldn't have invented this somewhat implausible story but I hope she didn't embellish it either, cause I do love it

The book, incidentally, was The Flopsy Bunnies by Beatrix Potter, which at least was fairly age appropriate. (Beatrix Potter loved to drop in unusual words and funny turns of phrase). But my parents hadn't realized I could read. With my older brother apparently they used more alphabet blocks, phonics, etc - I think he was four when he learned. With me, they mainly just read and read and read to me. I must have always realized books are something to be loved. At any given age I was always reading books that were ahead of what my normal reading level would be considered, but I would also be reading much more age-appropriate books. I think when I was five or six, and we were at the library (which we were a lot!), there was at least a little while when I was taking books from the picture book section, AND the primary fiction section, AND the 9+ section.

As for type, I don't know. INFJs are certainly supposed to be book lovers and I always have been. I'm guessing a little SP would be out there playing and messing around, an NT would be taking stuff apart and putting it back together, and an SJ...would probably have been helping with the baking?! Hard to say.

 

[Phantonym]

I can't remember how or when I actually learned how to read. I only consciously remember that I was already reading when I was 5 and that once I understood the capital letters, I could read the "regular letters" (I don't even know what they're called in English ) straight away. And I was definitely a contextual reader. Something just clicked to its place and I didn't need my parents to help me, it was so much more fun to figure things out on my own and gather more and more information as I devoured books.

 

[Kyrielle]

I know I was read to since I was a baby. And I'm fairly sure I started learning to read at 3 or 4. And I still remember the very first book I read all by myself, which must have been somewhere between 4 and 5. It was One Fish, Two Fish by Dr. Seuss.

 

[Bushranger]

Reading everyone's comments, I think the lesson to be learned here is simple.

Reading to your kids is a good idea, mkay!

Also, kids will be more likely to pick up a book themselves if they regularly see mum or dad sitting down and reading.

 

[ajblaise]

First to walk: SPs
First to read: NTs
First to whine: SJs
First to love: NFs

 

[King sns]

I was about 3 when I started learning.. about 4 before I was reading books.
I think I liked it when I was learning, but have never really liked it after that, even as a really little kid. I'm too...
twitchy.
fidgety.
ADD as the kids like to call it these days.

But my mom always had me reading something.