How can a 3 year-old read Sartre? (Tiger mother)

[ZZZenAgain]

I know we have talked about Amy Chua a lot already but this really puzzles me. Read an interview with her in a German news magazine.

Just paraphrasing from memory : "Whilst other dc learnt numbers from 1-10, I taught Sophia addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and decimal numbers. When she was 3 she read Sartre".

Now did Sartre write some books I don't know about which would appeal to/be accessible to a 3 year old? I can imagine a 3 year old under some circumstances might be able to decode the words but could a 3 year old understand Sartre's books and actually get anything out of them?

At 3, my dd did not read anyhing so I can't compare but I do wonder what the point is in reading Sartre aged 3. Or is Sophia a far from ordinary child anyway even without the parental training, is she an exceptionally gifted person?

i think, quite possibly, she is talking shite

Maybe the 3yo could relate to Sartre's account of being 3, he spends quite a lot of time in "Words" talking about his early years. "I hate my childhood and everything about it" - that's perhaps a 3yo-friendly sentiment.

Not that my children were reading anything at 3, so I can't say whether they'd have appreciated it. but as Webwiz says, it does make a refreshing change from the Harry Potter benchmark.

she would not have let her girls play with wooden blocks for instance.Instead she ... took them to museums.

Obviously not science museums where kids are encouraged to build bridges, solve spatial puzzles...

Oh well, would have been fun if her kids had quoted back to her "All human actions are equivalent and all are on principle doomed to failure." - surely a cast-iron get-out from practising scales?

Well, most children aren't reading at 3 but most children are read to. Would anyone think that Sartre would be a good thing to read to their 3 year old?

DBIL used to read the BMJ to my toddlers when he was babysitting. He said "they don't complain and it's more interesting for me". I fully expect at least one of them to recoup this early input by becoming a medic.

or if they don't become a medic it will hide in their subconscious for years then they will astonish themselves and their University Challenge teammates by answering an obscure medical question that the medic on their team didn't know

At 3, I do hope she wasn't reading it in translation. That would be slacking.

Indeed, the concepts just don't translate perfectly do they?

When I read one of those articles about Tiger Mother last week I had a little wibble that maybe I am just too unpushy with my offspring. But really, Sartre of all things you could possibly think of for a bright preschooler to read or listen to. It's bizarre.

She must be absolutely crazy after all, so I can go back to slack parenting feeling a bit consoled.

But really, Sartre of all things you could possibly think of for a bright preschooler to read or listen to. It's bizarre.

Quite. Victor Hugo or Charles Dickens would be infinitely more suitable if you fancy exposing your DC to some serious literature at age 3.
She's odd, no question. But I love how she has parlayed her own oddball ideas into a (no doubt) best selling book.

My three year old is currently reading a book that deals with growth, greed, learning moderation, transformation as well as teaching visual spatial skills

Its called

Wait for it

The Very Hungry Caterpillar

ditto Chaz!

Indeed, Dickens and Victor Hugo are far more child-friendly. That's why there are popular children's films based on them. My dds are quite keen on bits of Dickens, but they are school age, not 3. All those neglected orphans and corporal punishment, they love it.

But can you imagine a Disney version of Sartre?

My DB was reading Dickens at 4 (Oliver Twist)- but I think much of it went over his head to be honest.

I suspect that a lot of Sartre still goes over my head. And I have a philosophy degree. Some of it going over your head is not a reason not to read something.

I have read this book. Although I do not approve parenting methods, there is (I think) a lot of humour in the book that some readers (and possibly some interviewers) seem to have missed.

The reference in the book to a young child reading Sartre was I think a deliberate exagerration told in a bit of a "he said, she said" way (i.e. her version of her child's achievements verus her husband's more mundane version)

I dont have the book in front of me but when I get home this evening I will try to remeber to dig it out and quote the extract.

I have not seen the article, and it sounds like she refers to Sartre reading in a more serious way, but that is really not how it came across in the book (unless I was reading in humour that was not actually there)

Sartre wrote a few children's books. Not a lot of people know that.

Being and Noddyness was a top read.

That's not my philosopher, his views are too nihilistic.

In the rush to prepare children for higher education, the value of childhood has been forgotten.

My daughter's childhood was very, very special for me.

It was a time of magic. A box of tissues turning into snowflakes. Beanie babies transformed into an orchestra. Colorful, mysterious objects posing as birthday presents to mommy.

It was a time of performances. A white cloud singing. A red apple reciting a poem. A pink butterfly dancing.

It was a time of improvising. Using a stapler to hem a Halloween costume. Making Shel Silverstein's Giving Tree come alive with a green umbrella and red plastic apples.

Childhood is a gift. A gift from my daughter to me. And I am so very glad I was able to see it as such, and enjoy it to the fullest.

www.thegoodchinesemother.wordpress.com

I read astonishing things at 3 apparently. I didn't understand them, I could just read very early. At 4 I could spell stupidly complicated words (it was my party trick) but I would have had no idea what they meant. Does this make me an exceptionally high achieving genius of a human being? No. Nor did the classical music. Or the advanced abstract mathematical concepts.

The Very Hungry Caterpillar is far more age appropriate and there's a lot more to actually learn from it than there is available by being able to 'read' Sartre.

Didn't Sartre say that hell was being locked in a room with your friends? Not a sentiment I'd want my three year old to grow up with.

This reminds me of the reason I avoid the science museum, it's a theme park for middle class parents to take their kids and thinking their child will learn science through some form of osmosis, whereas they just want to press the computer screen endlessly or go to the Imax.