Psychologists Find a Surprising Thing Happens to Kids Who Read Harry Potter

[ashling]

Last edited Thu Jul 31, 2014, 09:18 AM - Edit history (1)

http://mic.com/articles/95236/psychologists-find-a-surprising-thing-happens-to-kids-who-read-harry-potter

The news: Harry Potter's greatest feat might not have been defeating Voldemort, but teaching young people around the world to battle prejudice. At least that's the finding of a new paper in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, which claims reading the Harry Potter series significantly improved young peoples' perception of stigmatized groups like immigrants, homosexuals or refugees.

...

In all three studies, the researchers credited the books with improving the readers' ability to assume the perspective of marginalized groups. They also claimed that young children, with the help of a teacher, were able to understand that Harry's frequent support of "mudbloods" was an allegory towards bigotry in real-life society.

================================================

of course the studies were all done in Europe (2 in Italy, one in UK)

Here in the US the books just turn kids into satanists

[woodsprite]

1. They actually turned my son, who was a slow reader who hated books, into an avid reader

who voraciously goes through books now. We're talking about a boy who was constantly being pulled out of regular classes to be put in special reading groups until he was in 5th grade.

Now we're struggling with reading books in play format and dealing with old english -- Midsummer Night's Dream -- 9th grade summer homework.

[kath]

41. Shakespeare's plays were written to be WATCHED, not read. have him watch a movie version first,

Then the struggle to read it won't be quite so bad.

Also, there are versions of the Bard's plays that have the original version of the play on one side of the page, and a rewrite in modern-day English on the other side. teacher never needs to know that he read it this way.

Summer assignments are bullshit. We never had them back in the day, and we turned out fine, thankyouverymuch.

[NV Whino]

2. Should be required reading for Congress.

[BrotherIvan]

3. Good novels will do that

I once gave a speech at a teacher's conference (which my principal BEGGED me not to and there was some talk of repercussions from the district) when the new standards said that we would no longer be teaching the novel or long form of any kind. I tried to point out that reading a paragraph or half a page was not room enough to develop an idea. The reading novels sucked a student into a story and taught them lessons sometimes unwittingly. Literature has a humanizing effect. That's why we still prize made-up stories in our culture. We will be far poorer if we lose them.

[Wounded Bear]

4. "Literature has a humanizing effect."

I think that's why they call it the one of the Humanities.

[Springslips]

5. There are studies that show. . .

That reading fictional novels helps improve social skills. We need to take education back from the people killing it.

[BrotherIvan]

10. Could not agree more

[pnwmom]

16. Reading novels is a way to increase skills in empathy, because through identifying

with fictional characters, people can learn to put themselves into the shoes of people unlike themselves.

This is another reason it's such a shame that the common core is de-emphasizing fiction.

How do educations who say they will never be teaching "the long form of any kind" expect today's high school graduates to ever succeed in college? No one's going to be spared the "long form"there. Even STEM majors will have to read some actual books.

[Enthusiast]

18. If anything is clear in this country

it is that the Righties® do not want an increase in empathy.

For Righties® it is an Ayn Rand world all the way.

[BrotherIvan]

23. The novel will be gone in college soon enough

Our entire education system has been corrupted. Our K-12 has been ruined by teaching to the test so testing companies can make money. Our colleges cost so much, students see it as a high-priced trade school instead of a well-rounded education (and I can't say I blame them at those prices). We have no vision of what it means to be educated any more. We see education's end result as landing a high-paying job which is like mixing the ingredients for baking a cake and hoping it turns out a cheeseburger.

It used to be the term "well-read" was synonymous for being educated, but not any longer. At my Ivy League University quite a while ago, I was forced to take the survey course for Literature even though I was already taking graduate-level courses at the same time (I had transferred in as a sophomore so had to do some of their freshman courses again). In those courses, which for many science and math majors was the only literature course they would have to take, we never read a whole book, only excerpts. It was a joke and I was not the teaching assistant's handling the class (my tuition at work) particularly favorite student.

I meet many people who are quite smart and successful who proudly admit they don't read. Perhaps a magazine article here and there is the longest thing they will read. So I was happy to see kids with books in their laps. I didn't care that HP was fairly derivative, I knew that learning how to read, how to learn from what one reads, how to get intense enjoyment from such a quiet, solitary pursuit was the valuable lesson. And as I watch libraries closing down and children not being coaxed to sit quietly and read, I know where this is going.

That's why I couldn't hack it as a teacher. I had visions of my high school years, sitting around in a circle discussing Dostoevsky and shutting myself in for a weekend of devouring 1984. I say this not to brag, but because I know that the teen years are the absolute most important for shaping one's thought, for deciding how the world works and how to navigate within it. One might find new things later, but that formative time is crucial. It's where one awakens as an adult human being. So I think it is no coincidence that fundies want to take away or control anything that might reach a student that makes them think. They complain about liberal radicalization or questioning authority, and most novels in particular tend to have a liberal bent. So by giving them bland, meaningless paragraphs as their curriculum, they are creating mindless, minimum wage workers. That's why Walmart, Hobby Lobby, and Microsoft are deep into the education business. If I were a parent, they couldn't shut me up about it. Instead, they're convincing parents that it's all the teacher's fault in a classic divide and conquer move.

Sorry for such a long reply. This is just one of those subjects I've thought & discussed with lifelong teachers for quite some time.

[pnwmom]

24. This is really interesting to me.

I can't believe that at an Ivy, in a literature class, they'd be teaching with excerpts of books rather than whole novels! No wonder they say that many of the second tier, and even third tier, liberal arts colleges can offer a better education.

And I agree with you completely about HP, and similar books. When my children were in elementary school, they were discouraged by the librarian from reading books in series, so I bought them. Series that would make HP look like classic literature. Those series are like comfort foods for kids, and I thought -- and still think -- that it's great for kids when books can be like comfort foods. They'll move on to harder books when they're ready.

When he was in 3rd grade, my youngest discovered THE GIVER on his own. After he read that book he carried it around for a week, asking me questions about what I thought the ending meant, and what might have happened next. He said he wished he hadn't read the book because "now I'll never be able to read it again for the first time." A book had blown his mind. It was wonderful as a parent to see. Years later, I watched Dostoevsky have the same impact. What a shame that the schools are now depriving students of these experiences.

I'll have to talk to my son about how they're teaching novels at his college. I assumed they were assigning whole books. There's nothing I can do about that, of course, if they're not. (And my son would most likely read the whole book anyway, if he had the time.) But I am curious.

[BrotherIvan]

30. Agree so much

Any child who learns to "read without reading," meaning, no longer seeing the words but picturing in their mind's eye what the story is telling them, will move on to devour more books. I realized that many of my students did not read because they were not good readers--they could not enjoy it because it was so hard. Your children will thank you for the rest of their lives for giving them such a wonderful gift.

It is one of the great pleasures that with a library card can be absolutely free. My students were from a very low-income neighborhood, some had never been out of that suburban ghetto. I was trying to tell them that books can take you on adventures, teach you things, give you a chance to have a conversation with great minds who are long dead. It helps the imagination, which I was shocked to find that the majority of my students did not have. That might sound like a harsh statement, but study after study has shown that consuming passive stories, such as TV and movies actually deadens the imagination while reading and oral stories allows it to grow. They didn't like fiction because they thought it was a lie. We worked on it and had great fun. We would do sort of a retelling of the story in their words, coining a "ghettosaurus" at which we all laughed till we hurt.

As for the Ivy League, it is very overrated and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone wanting a real education. Definitely not worth going into lifelong debt! The classes I was describing were the survey courses, but I've spoken with people at other schools who said theirs was much the same. It wasn't until you picked specific literature classes that you were required to read a number of books.

I had attended an excellent small school and the only reason I wanted to transfer is because it was in my home town and I wanted to get out of the house. But the small school meant my classes were less than 20 and my professors were all excellent. Moving to a large school where half of the classes are taught by teacher's assistants and were in lecture hall stadiums was not worth it. Not to mention that most of my fellow students didn't care about anything other than partying and networking: they'd been accepted so they had their golden ticket. To top it off, it wasn't very demanding. The smaller school was far more rigorous!

[Enthusiast]

31. I cannot understand why a librarian would discourage children from reading books in series.

Is there some educational theory that I am not aware of?

[pnwmom]

32. She wanted every kid to read books in every category, and she had lots of categories.

So she made them rotate.

Also, in a K-5 school that used to be a K-6, she carefully culled out all the books that had been intended for 6th graders. As if they'd be too much for the 4th - 5th graders. Even though this was one of the district elementaries with a pull-out program for gifted students.

She ruined librarians for me. I had liked them when I was a kid. Actually, my favorite teacher was a librarian. And it was another librarian who introduced me to the Bobbsey twins, my first comfort food, in first grade (pretty awful, in retrospect); as well as a biographical series of famous Americans.

So when my son first started to love a series, I bought every Goosebumps book I could find.

[Enthusiast]

33. My son would never read a book. I should have seen it as a warning sign.

He would only read articles in magazines.

He had parents that were avid readers.

Spilled milk.

My father shared a number of books with me. I'll never forget it to my dying day.

[Ron Obvious]

6. I confess I only read the first one...

... and I've heard Rowling improves with the subsequent novels, but I found HP rather weak sauce.

At 13, I was reading books like LOTR, 1984, Sherlock Holmes, and Dracula (Bram Stoker) and I suspect I would have quickly dismissed HP of being worthy of my time.

Anything that gets kids to read these days is a good thing, I suppose.

[BB1]

7. Please read the other six as well!

I read all of what you mentioned and quite some more to boot, but Harry Potter has a special place in my heart, my library and my e-reader. Where LOTR is gloomy and 1984 downright scary, Potter finds ways to brighten up your day (or at least your mood).
My friends and I all went out to see the movies (after we read the books) and after the movies we bought the dvds. And we're 35+

[Ron Obvious]

8. Fair enough!

Would reading the other six after the first be equivalent to reading LOTR after The Hobbit, you think? I read LOTR first and hated The Hobbit on first reading (I grew fond of it later). Maybe this is similar?

[NewJeffCT]

12. Not exactly

I think it's more like Rowling became a more confident, mature and better writer after the success (both commercially and critically) of the first book. The books each also become a bit more complex and a bit longer as the series went on as well.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

[ancianita]

14. As an English teacher and Rowling fan, I concur that all the books became more complicated.

Along with that came increased sentence length and vocabulary to match the maturity of the main characters, relationship development and depth, along with symbolism and archetypal imagery. The writing improves to match the demands of the arc of an eight year story, or however long Harry and friends were at Hogwart...

My view is that we could all but end illiteracy in this country if at least the first three books were read in schools by fourth grade. From there, students would take it upon themselves to finish the rest, which is another important level of building intellect -- developing reading stamina and imaginative experience that builds their confidence to tackle any advanced studies demands of high school or college.

I'm making a sweeping claim, I know, but I feel qualified to make it.

[pnwmom]

34. Or maybe she always intended the books to age up with the characters.

It's a good question.

[pnwmom]

17. Then you should have read it at 7 or 8, which is when my children started reading them.

The early books are geared toward middle-grade readers, which is defined as about 8 - 12. So it's not surprising you weren't interested in them at 13. (The last books were geared to YA readers, or age 12 and up. The difficulty and depth of the books increased in these later books.)

However, many books that are scorned by sophisticated 13 year olds turn out to be better than they realized when re-read in adulthood. The Potter Books may be in that category for many people.

[Ron Obvious]

22. To clarify:

I was probably about 40 when I first read HP. I was just speculating how I would have felt about it had I been 13 (my assumption of the target age, apparently in error), and concluded I wouldn't have thought much of it.

I may be mistaken about how I would have felt about it at 13 anyway. Like many of my generation, I grew up on Enid Blyton, whose books I used to devour. Reading them again as an adult, I was horrified at how absolutely awful they were in every respect.

I've also had the opposite experience of re-reading e.g. The White Mountains as an adult, which I thought was excellent. However, at 13 I liked it about the same as Enid Blyton, so I may have unfairly dismissed HP as something that wouldn't have interested me at 13.

Maybe it's time to give it another try.

[pnwmom]

25. If you do give it another try, seriously -- imagine yourself at 8 for the first novel.

And about 12 or 13 for the 7th novel. There really was development in the novels as the series went on, and the first and last novels are targeted at different ages of readers.

[Enthusiast]

20. The books you read at 13 did not generate

the huge increase in reading by young people that the HP books clearly have.

That is the point.

The HP books have captured the imagination of an entire generation of new young readers.

We should encourage it, embrace it.

Maybe then young people will eventually read the more sophisticated books you cited.

[pnwmom]

27. And not just in reading -- in reading LONG books.

Some of those were 750 page whoppers -- and no HP addict hesitated because of the length. The children's book industry is still feeling the effects, with allowed page limits significantly higher than they used to be.

[Enthusiast]

29. Yes. I see this as very encouraging.

[hifiguy]

42. They are well more than worth the effort to read.

I was introduced to Harry Potter by the wife of a dear old friend. She is a very picky reader, spoke five languages at the time and holds a Ph.D in Medieval History; she had already brought Tom Sharpe, Robertson Davies and others to my grateful attention. I figured if HP was good enough for her elevated but open-minded tastes it was more than good enough for me. I was right.

[caraher]

9. What I want to know is...

Who are these people who have "emotional identification with Voldemort?" Besides Dick Cheney, of course...

But actually, this probably serves as an even stronger reason for conservatives to discourage kids from reading. We can't have kids with positive attitudes toward LGBT folks, immigrants and refugees, can we?

[Bonobo]

11. House-elves.

She dropped the ball on that one.

[caraher]

21. An odd situation...

On one hand, with SPEW she had the kids show awareness of the status of house elves. But she also portrayed them as unwilling or unable to escape servitude.

On balance I agree the house elves were a negative.

[pnwmom]

28. Try seeing the house elves as a metaphor for the 99%.

Who are unwilling or unable to escape the control of the 1%.

[NewJeffCT]

35. true

like the fox news watchers who vote against their own best interests.

[dembotoz]

13. i thank jk for getting my 2 youngest boys to read

i remember with my oldest that getting him to read was like pulling teeth
then i found myself reading some of the suggested books
the box car kids--lord kill me now
complete drivel
for him it was classics illustrated books and the discovery that books could actually have a plot

i remember with my youngest boys going to the bookstore before midnight to get the new hp book.

i still have trouble with that idea

Going to a bookstore late at night so that we could get a book right when it came out

jk i thank you and salute you

[mackerel]

15. I loved those books! My kids weren't into them as much as I was

but they loved the films.

[raptor_rider]

19. Really???

Oh for eefs sake!!! I read all 7 and think I'm just fine!!! The press will do anything!!!!!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. in defense of Americans, we are less overtly racist to begin with. nt

[NewJeffCT]

36. Interesting

Hadn't really thought of it that way - but, in looking at it, I do agree that most overt racism is frowned upon. Though, some of the teabaggers might give one pause on that issue.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. our laws around discrimination are also better. in many ways, although Europeans may point fingers

at american racism, Americans have as a whole dealt with their issues of bigotry better than the Europeans

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Dally Caller: Millennials brainwashed into supporting Obama by Harry Potter books

Seriously, that's what they wrote:

Political science professor Anthony Gierzynski is the man behind the novel argument, reports The College Fix. He asserts that Millennials — the generation of Americans born from 1980 onward — have supported Obama in massive numbers because they were brainwashed by the moral lessons contained in British author J. K. Rowling’s mega-best-selling fantasy series chronicling the adventures of a young wizard.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/13/dark-arts-master-harry-potter-to-blame-for-obama-claims-professor/

The professor, of course, doesn't say anything like 'brainwashed'. Because he's not an idiot, unlike the Daily Caller writer, I guess.

A recent media effects study conducted by University of Vermont political science Professor Anthony Gierzynski has found the iconic Harry Potter book series “played a small but not insignificant role” in electing Obama, the educator says.

“The lessons fans internalized about tolerance, diversity, violence, torture, skepticism and authority made the Democratic Party and Barack Obama more appealing to fans of Harry Potter in the current political environment,” Gierzynski says in email to The College Fix.
...
When asked by The College Fix if Harry Potter was a Democrat and Voldermort a Republican, Gierzynski declined to answer directly, but did acknowledge some of the notions in the book “tend to line up with certain sides in the current climate.”

“Attitudes in opposition to the use of violence, torture and deadly force came to be associated with the Democrats at the end of the Bush years, mainly in opposition to Bush administration policies and failures in these areas,” he says. “The opposition to equal marital rights for same-sex couples and immigration reform by the Republicans put those who support political tolerance … and those who are more accepting of diversity on the side of the Democrats.”

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/14263/

[NewJeffCT]

38. damn, they figured out the plan

It was when Rowling visited Obama in Benghazi, Kenya when they were both young, she said she would write a fantastical book series that would brainwash American children into voting for him for president in 30 or 40 years, allowing him to implement Sharia Law, Communism, Socialism, Secular-Progressivism and more

[awoke_in_2003]

39. Dostoyevsky made me

start questioning my belief in god.

[hifiguy]

43. No wonder the reichwingers and god-botherers hated Rowling/HP so much.

The kids might start to THINK and QUESTION and we can't have that now.

I was reading a lot of Vonnegut, Bradbury, Tolkein and Orwell by my mid teens. Expanding the mind is a GOOD thing.