How Nonsense Sharpens the Intellect

An article in the New York Times, How Nonsense Sharpens the Intellect, October 6, 2009, by Benedict Carey.

The rub of the article is the reporting of some recent studies suggesting that when the brain is stimulated by nonsensical information, it responds by heightening its efforts, towards which it is already predisposed, to find patterns in the information. The studies indicate that the brain, so stimulated, becomes more effective in finding patterns which it otherwise would overlook. At the same time, there is evidence to suggest that it also becomes more prone to false positives, seeing patterns where there are none.

Interesting studies in their own right but I wonder what the connection might be with traditions in children's literature. Does our early exposure of children to Mother Goose poems and rhymes (many of which are reasonably incomprehensible) and poets such as Edward Lear, prime children's brains to better find patterns in language and reading than they might otherwise? Do Mother Goose and Lear accelerate children's brain development or do they simply make them more attentive to patterns and therefore accomplish more earlier? And what about riddles? Does an early engagement with riddles (riddles being a frequent component of folktales and a tradition in its own right), better prime the brain for comprehending more subtle and nuanced stories?

Which other linguistic/cultural traditions include early exposure to the type of paradoxes and nonsense of Mother Goose and Lear so prevalent in the anglo-sphere? Are there notable differences in academic accomplishment (both static and innovative) between those linguistic cultures with early exposure to nonsense and those that do not have such exposure?

Further: how might this relate to jokes, puns, and other forms of humor which depend on misdirecting the brain in one direction while delivering the punchline from an entirely different angle, i.e. forcing it to adjust from one expected pattern to an unanticipated pattern?

There are many ways to dice up reading materials but one way might be to identify three categories of reading 1) that which tells us what we wish to know (instruction manuals and writing of that ilk), 2) that which affirms what we already know (comfort reading), and 3) that which instructs or informs us indirectly and by unexpected example (literature and higher functioning non-fiction). This third category is effectively an extension of the brain seeking to find patterns which it otherwise might have overlooked and to make sense of a pattern of information or events which otherwise seems to have no pattern. Is there a quotient of nonsensical reading which primes us for then making sense of more elaborate writing. Do we get more from other works by reading the likes of Kafka and Whitman first?

I wonder.