[TCSoft]

I think I'm not quite understanding what they're saying. In section 5.1 of the PDF tsumnia linked, the author talks about how it's not that enrichment activities have no benefit (despite saying actually writing that), is that the enrichment activities have no greater benefit than leisure activities. Did I get that right?

My older daughter loves to read, so she reads a lot, and her teacher (when school was in session) says she's one of the best readers in the class. So is this paper saying that if my daughter had done activities instead of read (like play video games or run around outside) she'd be just as good a reader? That doesn't seem right based on my experience.

Also, I read a lot about the benefits of having children learn to play music, especially starting with a piano. Some studies referenced here: https://www.lindebladpiano.com/blog/benefits-of-playing-pian.... Doesn't this paper suggest those other studies are wrong? I'm kind of slow when it comes to understanding papers like this.

[zeroonetwothree]

> So is this paper saying that if my daughter had done activities instead of read (like play video games or run around outside) she'd be just as good a reader?

No, they are saying that your daughters overall cognitive skill would be equal. So maybe she’d be worse at reading but better some other cognitive skill (say, special recognition). Basically there’s no free lunch—if you spend on one thing you aren’t spending it on something else.

[TCSoft]

Aha, that makes sense. Thanks for the reply.

[Aeolun]

> So is this paper saying that if my daughter had done activities instead of read (like play video games or run around outside) she'd be just as good a reader?

I can only imagine that the paper says that in aggregate kids get as much out of play as they get out of enrichment.

Though I’d also say that if your daughter likes reading, that’s pretty much play/leisure to her, not enrichment (or both).

[TCSoft]

Good point on reading may not be enrichment for her, thanks.