>>211681384
I also did sports, and played outside all the time, in fact our mother would often just have us go outside to play all day.
When you aren't drowned in film all your life, time passes very slowly from your perspective as a child. so it's really not an either-or thing.
Three of us all grew up learning principally by reading textbooks and we all read extensively for entertainment, often the same books.
When you're homeschooled there isn't always a sporting event to go to, you sign up for some things associated with the school district, but when you finish your work at 2pm and everyone else in the neighborhood is still hearing lecture after slow lecture in a classroom, you don't really have a lot of other kids to play with.
My family isn't descended from any nobility on either side I know of, though I do know of some extremely poor and uneducated white trash in my lineage. Other than that farmers, quarriers, the occasional recent mechanic.
No authors, professors, or philosophers that I know of.
Salt of the earth. Peasantry. Common as mud.
You describe a situation where your reading was gated not by intelligence but rather accessibility - you're also acting as if cheap books are a novelty when there are libraries everywhere, you can buy old books for a dollar or a quarter at all kinds of places, at yard sales, anything.
The determining factor in reading is mostly being introduced to it and having it reinforced and encouraged or required in the first nine years of life. IQ is secondary, but that's not even what I'm telling you.
I'm telling you that not only IQ but your overall intelligence is very linked to not just the content of books you read but the mere active, regular process of reading. The benefits are diminishing past a certain point for most people, but reading less requires and more promotes a high IQ within whatever natural genetic or environmental limits
NCLB really was a disaster.
