Concerning Dyslexia

[HoreTore]

Kadagar's thread("is it ok to forswear family and friends for political beliefs") derailed into a discussion of dyslexia. I find such a discussion quite interesting, so instead of continuing it on page 3 of a thread with a different subject, I'm starting this thread.

So, for those who haven't read it, here's a short summary:

Dyslexia means that you're too dumb to read and/or write. Reading and writing is a big field, however, so it varies from person to person.

And that's not a figure of speech by the way, it's the definition of dyslexia.

Now, dyslexia has gained a large social acceptance. I find that acceptance very puzzling. Can someone here explain to me why it's a-okay to publicly state that you're too dumb to write a proper sentence, or even a word?

[The Stranger]

do you accept people with down syndrome?

[HoreTore]

Ah, thread reopened. 104 views, some of you are bound to have an opinion. Fire away!


do you accept people with down syndrome?

Would you care to explain why you believe that comparison is meaningful and/or valid?

[Major Robert Dump]

The whole premise of this thread is offensive and off-putting. I struggled with dyslexia for years and it affected my quality of life, my family and my opportunities. Finally, the Doctors told me I would never look like a model and that if I didn't eat something I would die.

And I haven't stopped eating since.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I know right? Why do we accept such idiots in our society. Obviously we must either make them feel ashamed for what they were born into or just remove them entirely.

I just can't stand people who don't have the same natural abilities I do. If you lost the genetic lottery, I'm sorry but nature says you are a lesser being.

[Beskar]

http://www.dyslexia.com/famous.htm
http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/about-dyslexia/famous-dyslexics.html

I always thought the Celebrity List of people with Dyslexia was interesting. There is always a social stigma associated with people with Dyslexia as if they cannot produce anything of value for society and in the contrary, it seems some of the greatest people of our times were actually dyslexics. For what they make up in lack of literary skill is attributed elsewhere, for example a blind person has heightened senses of hearing and touch. Though oddly enough, literary style of playwriting is actually better suited for people with dyslexia as they are more natural at doing it.

Is it more of a case that language and communication is constructed in an inefficient manner?

[Fragony]

They are not too stupid to read or write, they just can't get the logic. People who have it are often very good at math, so they can't be all that dumb.

[Kralizec]

I know right? Why do we accept such idiots in our society. Obviously we must either make them feel ashamed for what they were born into or just remove them entirely.

I just can't stand people who don't have the same natural abilities I do. If you lost the genetic lottery, I'm sorry but nature says you are a lesser being.

Precisely. People with dyslexia need to come to terms with their disability and accept that, at best, they're only suitable for menial labour. This is not elitist or bigoted; I never said that being a ditch digger is lesser work than being a doctor or a lawyer, or any educated profession for that matter. Some jobs are just rewarded with more respect from society, better wages and better labour terms overall.

Trying to get dyslexics to overcome their disadvantages and giving them formal education is a waste of recources, and simply saddles society with a lot dead weight.

If they could have as few children as possible, that would be swell too.

[Fragony]

Trying to get dyslexics to overcome their disadvantages and giving them formal education is a waste of recources, and simply saddles society with a lot dead weight.

A formal education, ok, fine. So tailor it a bit towards a beta-study. A lot of people at the Tech-uni's of Delft and Wageningen are dyslectic but they can understand formula's just fine. When you talk to a person who is dyslectic you won't notice it, they understand language(s), it's the writing that confuses them, it doesn't make sense to them in the same way that some things don't make sense to an austist.

You are probably having the case in mind of that father of two dyslectic kids, but they just weren't smart enough to do the gymnasium on all levels. Bugger

[caravel]

http://www.dyslexia.com/famous.htm
http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/about-dyslexia/famous-dyslexics.html

I always thought the Celebrity List of people with Dyslexia was interesting. There is always a social stigma associated with people with Dyslexia as if they cannot produce anything of value for society and in the contrary, it seems some of the greatest people of our times were actually dyslexics. For what they make up in lack of literary skill is attributed elsewhere, for example a blind person has heightened senses of hearing and touch. Though oddly enough, literary style of playwriting is actually better suited for people with dyslexia as they are more natural at doing it.
Dyscalcula and dysgraphia in my case. Reading, typing and spelling, etc is not a problem. In fact by the age of 6 I was well ahead of my peers and pretty much "top of the class" in that respect. Of course back when I went to school you were simply "thick" or "lazy"... mathematics on the other hand is still an uphill struggle, even at my age, especially mental arithmetic. Absolutely useless at it.

[Kadagar_AV]

I also believe the premise of this discussion is... off putting....

What are you getting at here HT?

[Fragony]

Dyscalcula and dysgraphia in my case. Reading, typing and spelling, etc is not a problem. In fact by the age of 6 I was well ahead of my peers and pretty much "top of the class" in that respect. Of course back when I went to school you were simply "thick" or "lazy"... mathematics on the other hand is still an uphill struggle, even at my age, especially mental arithmetic. Absolutely useless at it.

I would't call myself dyscalculist but maths was a nightmare for me as well. My brother could just look at a formula and understand it immediatly, but to me it doesn't make sense. I managed and passed all exams, but I was very very lucky that the exams were very easy that year, I never scored higher than a 3.9 when making older ones. Now I had an 8 for both math and physics, lucky me

[Kralizec]

I've always been pretty good at mental calculations, and probably could have been reasonably good at mathematics if I had even the slightest bit of interest in it. But in high school I thought it was the most boring thing on the planet. There were other subjects/courses that I had to work for in order to get passing grades*, such as economy, but for those it took considerably less willpower to do homework. In the last years of high school the math tests became a lot harder and I seriously regretted that I paid so little attention to it earlier.

* for some subjects, like history or English class, I never had to do any real work - I pretty much absorbed that knowledge like a spunge with no effort at all.

[The Stranger]

Ah, thread reopened. 104 views, some of you are bound to have an opinion. Fire away!



Would you care to explain why you believe that comparison is meaningful and/or valid?

yes does it matter if you are too stupid to do anything or just too stupid to read and write?

[HoreTore]

yes does it matter if you are too stupid to do anything or just too stupid to read and write?

I have no idea what you mean, sorry.

Anyway, back to ze thread.

The opening post was offensive, that was the point. The question is, why is it offensive?

This thread was reported to the mods, locked, etc. Apparently calling people dumb because they can't read or write is a nono. A while ago, there was a thread about how people who don't understand politics should be treated as second-class citizen and have their voting rights removed. No reporting was done in that case as far as I know.

That situation is exactly the same as this one. But oh noes, you say, those who can't read or write have dyslexia! It's a condition, they can't help it! The fact is that it's the same, with one exception: those who can't read or write get a fancy-sounding name for their inability, and gain social acceptance for who they are. Those who don't understand politics are called dumb and people want to take away their voting rights.

Dyslexia is not a disease. It's not a medical condition. It's not contagious, and it's not something you can cure. In layman's terms, it's called "being dumb". In technical terms, it's called "(severe) problems with writing". Imagine if I had written the OP about statistics, for example. Would anyone have reported me then? I think not. Yet more people struggle with statistics than writing, and calling them "dumb" is perfectly acceptable in society.

Caravel is a lucky man. Few people with specific math difficulties get much help. It's much more common for those who struggle with maths to feel "dumb" and end up thinking they're failures.

I should be happy at the social acceptance people who struggle with writing are getting. But I just can't enjoy that when I see people who have the exact same struggle in other fields get harassed on a daily basis. And that's the point of this thread.



And Frags, no. Just no. Struggling with writing is not helpful in understanding mathematics. Your ears remain the same if you lose your sight, they do not grow super-awesome over night. Blind people simply have to rely more on their hearing.

[Montmorency]

I should be happy at the social acceptance people who struggle with writing are getting. But I just can't enjoy that when I see people who have the exact same struggle in other fields get harassed on a daily basis. And that's the point of this thread.


Oh. I figured your point was something Carlin-esque.


Your ears remain the same if you lose your sight, they do not grow super-awesome over night. Blind people simply have to rely more on their hearing.

Neural plasticity. In blind individuals, brain regions concerned with sight shrink - while other regions are growing at their expense. If you lose a hand, the adjacent areas (wrist and neck?) in the somatic map grow, increasing sensitivity there. That's not to say dyslexia necessarily entails a similar process, though.


I should be happy at the social acceptance people who struggle with writing are getting. But I just can't enjoy that when I see people who have the exact same struggle in other fields get harassed on a daily basis. And that's the point of this thread.

:thumbsup:


Dyslexia is not a disease. It's not a medical condition.

It's a disability. :shrug:

And as you mentioned in the other thread:

Dysl
Dyslexia is indeed only applicable to those who perform average or above in other subjects. The same goes for dyscalculi, the math equivalent. That doesn't mean we don't have a way to "determine dyslexia" in below-average students, however. The short version:

If you're crap at reading, but do well on other stuff, you have dyslexia.
If you're crap at reading and a bunch of other stuff, we have a different term for your situation.

"Just being dumb" is a primitive and limited way of looking at things, so if you're still on your rhetorical plank - I agree that it should be abandoned. Whenever I think of someone as "dumb" or "stupid", I wonder to myself, 'Boy didn't that feel good' and reassess the situation.

[Husar]

And Frags, no. Just no. Struggling with writing is not helpful in understanding mathematics. Your ears remain the same if you lose your sight, they do not grow super-awesome over night. Blind people simply have to rely more on their hearing.

That's partly correct, but you forgot to mention that the brain adapts and uses regions that cannot be used anymore to improve other areas. For example the area responsible for sight may change over time and help with the interpretation and filtering of sounds. That does not excuse being too dumb to see, of course.

As for politics, it depends. Not everything is birth-related and even some things that are are the fault of the parents who smoked for example even though they knew better. Unless we're going to say there is no free will and the universe is 100% predictable and pre-determined.

[HoreTore]

Disability? How can you define "stupidity", if not by "disability"?

What goes for those who struggle with writing goes for those who struggle with maths, politics or biology. Personally, I of course don't call or consider any of the four "dumb". Those who struggle with these things simply struggle with them. There's nothing more to it, and my job is to help them. Society, however, makes a distinction between those who struggle with writing(and increasingly, maths) and those who struggle in other fields.

Tiaexz posted a link of a list with famous people who can't write properly. Can you imagine a list of "famous people who don't understand politics", without people looking at the list only to get cheap laughs? No? Why?

[Montmorency]

Disability? How can you define "stupidity", if not by "disability"?

Then of course it should at once be labeled a psychological disorder, as we're all on the spectrum? Hehe.


Tiaexz posted a link of a list with famous people who can't write properly. Can you imagine a list of "famous people who don't understand politics", without people looking at the list only to get cheap laughs? No? Why?

This reminds me of a point my 8th-grade math teacher once made: "Plenty of people are innumerate, and aren't ashamed to admit it. But can you imagine going up to a person and asking them their opinion on a popular book, only to hear, 'Aw shyucks, now I cayun't reead!'?"

It seems to be a mix between how common the thing is perceived to be - if most are bad at math, it's no surprise that society, as reflecting a majority view, would put it down as venial - and how basic the incapacity is.

Think of "retards". They get the most soft-handed treatment of all, nowadays, and they're living with maximal incapacity.


Unless we're going to say there is no free will and the universe is 100% predictable and pre-determined.

Hey now, we could say that even if the universe were random. :sneaky:

[HoreTore]

I'm going to pour some mor gasoline on this thread:

Inability to write is associated with boys. Inability to do maths is associated with girls. The boys get help and understanding, the girls got nothing but contempt. The school system(and society) is focused on problems boys face, while ignoring girls.

The argument that the school is designed for girls is nonsense. The school is designed for boys.

[The Stranger]

I have no idea what you mean, sorry.



you ask, why should we accept that certain people lack the cognitive abilities to perform certain tasks. I ask you, do you accept people with down syndrome? Because clearly they lack the cognitive abilities to perform certain tasks as well. And the tasks they cant perform seem fundamentally more important to me than those dyslexic people cant perform.

[Montmorency]

Oh, sorry, that was the point, Husar jogged me: between perception of innate capacity and incapacity down to 'gross' or 'unusual' ignorance - ignorance of something that every normal person should have knowledge of. Something like that, will do for now.


Inability to do maths is associated with girls.

Is that the old prejudice or are you referring to scientific findings?


The argument that the school is designed for girls is nonsense. The school is designed for boys.

Do you mean that in the sense of 'designed for' or 'biased towards'?

[HoreTore]

you ask, why should we accept that certain people lack the cognitive abilities to perform certain tasks. I ask you, do you accept people with down syndrome? Because clearly they lack the cognitive abilities to perform certain tasks as well. And the tasks they cant perform seem fundamentally more important to me than those dyslexic people cant perform.

.....and the question then, is why do you accept those with downs syndrome and dyslexia, but not those who can't figure out fractions, how to read a map or biology?

[HoreTore]

Is that the old prejudice or are you referring to scientific findings?

Do you mean that in the sense of 'designed for' or 'biased towards'?

The answer to both questions is "both".

[Husar]

Disability? How can you define "stupidity", if not by "disability"?

Lazyness. Sometimes you may notice that people don't use their brain and then you explain something to them and they understand it perfectly well. They're not disabled or unable, they just didn't invest any time into thinking about the issue. And for a moment they are stupid because they decide not to use their brain capacity.*


I'm going to pour some mor gasoline on this thread:

Inability to write is associated with boys. Inability to do maths is associated with girls. The boys get help and understanding, the girls got nothing but contempt. The school system(and society) is focused on problems boys face, while ignoring girls.

The argument that the school is designed for girls is nonsense. The school is designed for boys.
Maybe in your chauvinistic socialist paradise...




*For more information about brain capacity, please visit your local church of scientology. ~;)

[HoreTore]

First of all: loved the scientlogy referance :beam:

Laziness doesn't cut it as a definition though. Laziness can be the cause of an inability to do something, but laziness isn't the inability itself.

Also, I would use "disinterest" instead of "laziness", if course ~;)

Still, that gets us nowhere. We still have a group of people who all struggle to understand X, and society treats them differently depending on what that X is. One group is called "dyslectic", the other groups are called "dumb".

My chauvinist socialist paradise is apparently ruled by a man-hating and authoritarian feminist state. Yours is too, btw. This is supposedly shown especially well in our school system.

I'd say it's the other way around.

[caravel]

Dyslexia is not a disease. It's not a medical condition. It's not contagious, and it's not something you can cure. In layman's terms, it's called "being dumb". In technical terms, it's called "(severe) problems with writing". Imagine if I had written the OP about statistics, for example. Would anyone have reported me then? I think not. Yet more people struggle with statistics than writing, and calling them "dumb" is perfectly acceptable in society.
On the off chance that you're not simply playing devil's advocate there and actually believe that, STFW.

[Husar]

Laziness doesn't cut it as a definition though. Laziness can be the cause of an inability to do something, but laziness isn't the inability itself.

Also, I would use "disinterest" instead of "laziness", if course ~;)
Sometimes it's just dumb to be that disinterested...


Still, that gets us nowhere. We still have a group of people who all struggle to understand X, and society treats them differently depending on what that X is. One group is called "dyslectic", the other groups are called "dumb".
Well, sometimes "dumb" means less intelligent and while I'm aware that intelligence is hard to define, especially if you want dumb people to understand it, that's just the case. Of course the word has a negative connotation, but so does "poor". Noone wants to be poor or dumb, but some people are, whether it is their own fault is a different question.


My chauvinist socialist paradise is apparently ruled by a man-hating and authoritarian feminist state. Yours is too, btw. This is supposedly shown especially well in our school system.

I'd say it's the other way around.
Sorry for being dumb, but what exactly do you mean now? I know more girls who excell at maths than boys, now I'm not a teacher but you are so I assume you just wanted to come clean on the fact that you prefer boys and neglect girls and it's not just you but all Norwegian teachers.

[HoreTore]

I connect with boys on a personal level faster than girls, but I connect with girls on an educational level faster than boys. Anyhoo:

It was an argument against the right-wing antifeminist rant about schools being designed to favour girls instead of boys.

As for actual ability comparisons: more girls are in the bottom end of the math scale, but more girls are also in the upper end. Boys dominate the middle. Funnily, the graphs for boy/girl ability match the majority/immigrant graph... But that's a subject for a different thread!

Yes, "dumb" means "less intelligent". How can we define "less intelligent", if not by looking at a persons abilities? Also, dyslexia isn't a reason why a person can't write. A person isn't unable to write because he has dyslexia, he has dyslexia because he can't write. In other words, "because he's too dumb/unintelligent to write".

Following your posts arguments, dyslectics are thus defined as dumb. Is that a fair definition?

[Hax]

First of all: loved the scientlogy referance :beam:


Can't even spell "reference" correctly. God, you're dumb, aren't you?

[Andres]

So, if I understand you correctly, your point is that you dislike the fact that people with a mental disability that hasn't gotten a label yet are called "dumb" while those who have gotten a label (dyslexia, dyscalcula, dyscetera) have a fancy name for their disability? And not only that, the latter group gets attention and special treatment to help them overcome their disability, while the former are just treated badly and called "dumb"?
HoreTore

[HoreTore]

I am indeed!

I blame the "scientlogy"-spelling on the iPad's keyboard, but the misspelled "reference" is all mine. I hate that word, I usually screw it up when writing Norwegian too...

[HoreTore]

So, if I understand you correctly, your point is that you dislike the fact that people with a mental disability that hasn't gotten a label yet are called "dumb" while those who have gotten a label (dyslexia, dyscalcula, dyscetera) have a fancy name for their disability? And not only that, the latter group gets attention and special treatment to help them overcome their disability, while the former are just treated badly and called "dumb"?
HoreTore

Correct, except for calling it a "mental disability".

[The Stranger]

.....and the question then, is why do you accept those with downs syndrome and dyslexia, but not those who can't figure out fractions, how to read a map or biology?

who says i dont? it seems to me you are just looking out to shock, pour gasoline on flammable topics, because if your concern was, like you pointed out later, that we do not treat people with similar disabilities in a similar fashion, you could have and should have made this the main point of your OP. Also, i asked my question before you made this clear, so there was no way for me to know that that was your main concern.

[HoreTore]

who says i dont?

Because "everyone" does it.

[The Stranger]

BS...

anyway for me, disability to do something is no reason to not accept that person. I however do believe that every person should atleast try to live up to his potential, I would not accept not trying (lazyness or carelesness in your layman's terms), I would accept limited potential (being dumb in your layman's terms).

[Husar]

I connect with boys on a personal level faster than girls, but I connect with girls on an educational level faster than boys. Anyhoo:

It was an argument against the right-wing antifeminist rant about schools being designed to favour girls instead of boys.
Partisan politics. Don't let Europe become another America by engaging in even more "us vs. them" political bigotry that leads to a two-party system!


As for actual ability comparisons: more girls are in the bottom end of the math scale, but more girls are also in the upper end. Boys dominate the middle. Funnily, the graphs for boy/girl ability match the majority/immigrant graph... But that's a subject for a different thread!
No, it just proves that girls are indeed from another planet.*


Yes, "dumb" means "less intelligent". How can we define "less intelligent", if not by looking at a persons abilities? Also, dyslexia isn't a reason why a person can't write. A person isn't unable to write because he has dyslexia, he has dyslexia because he can't write. In other words, "because he's too dumb/unintelligent to write".

Following your posts arguments, dyslectics are thus defined as dumb. Is that a fair definition?
No, I don't know why you are being so unfair.
On the topic of unfair, it wasn't a fair interpretation either because intelligence is not based on a single ability and I never claimed that it was. Dumb also doesn't mean "less intelligent", it means "below a subjectively insufficient threshold of intelligence"!

And this needs separate treatment:

Also, dyslexia isn't a reason why a person can't write. A person isn't unable to write because he has dyslexia, he has dyslexia because he can't write. In other words, "because he's too dumb/unintelligent to write".
The bolded term is completely nonsensical because you say the same thing twice, "dyslexia" is a synonym or name for "unable to write", neither is the cause or effect. The cause is, and I'm not a doctor, some deficiency in a certain part of the brain that does not affect other parts of the brain as far as I can tell. The effect is dyslexia or being unable to write.
However, a deficiency in a small does not make someone dumb overall. Especially unintelligent, but also dumb are terms that refer to the overall mental state of a person and not just some small area, as such neither term fits. If I say someone is "too dumb to drive" it's insulting because I assume that the overall intelligence of that person is too low to perform a task that most people can master even though the ability to drive has no bearing on mathematical or other talents, just like dyslexia.
Intelligence is more like the average of a person's mental capabilities and not just the lowest single ability, just like your grade in a 10-task-exam is not just the grade of the task you couldn't solve but the average of your score in all ten tasks.




*For more information about being from another planet, please consult your local church of scientology.**

**I know it gets old, but don't we all?

[HoreTore]

I am not attacking your values, Husar, I'm attacking the values of society as a whole. If you don't consider someone someone who can't do math stupid, then good. The fact remains that I have several students who feel like complete failures and idiots because they just can't wrap their minds around statistics. The number of people who feel that way because they have trouble writing is drastically lower. This is due to the term dyslexia and how society has accepted that inability.

Dyslexia doesn't have a cause. "Dyslexia" is the term we give for those who have specific difficulties with writing. There are several reasons why people have such problems, from a number of causes, both biological and enviromental.

And the sentence you bolded doesn't say "the same thing twice". The order of things is switched in the second half.

[Beskar]

So the premise of the thread is that people with marked disabilities such as dyslexica, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, autism, aspergers, ADHD are simply stupid people with fancy titles is in complete contrast to neurological impairments found in research which demonstrates evidence of different 'wiring' within the brain compared to typical brain samples of people and in a subsection of that, people who simply are too lazy to check the validity of sources and pigeon-hole themselves in the conservative bubbles such as FOX news, reading only the headlines which makes them 'stupid'.

People with disabilities are stigmatised heavily in society, even in the past exterminated / sterilised for conditions and yet you inflame the situation because a couple of forum members felt comfortable enough to express they had a disability to each other, you find it is totally okay to phrase your topic like this when it is your own ignorance on the matter which is at fault.


The fact remains that I have several students who feel like complete failures and idiots because they just can't wrap their minds around statistics.

Dyscalculia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia) is one cause, the other is bad teachers since many Maths teachers are unable to adequately teach maths and just expect the students to magically do it. When I first did algebra I was utterly confused by these letters since letters were not numbers and the teacher didn't teach us, it was only when some one sat me down and explained then I went "Oh.. that's easy". If your students really do have difficulties as they show signs of a neuralogical disorder such as dyscalculia, then recommend them to your school educational psychologist. If there are grounds for suspicion, they will be investigated and these students can get the help they need and are entitled to.



As for your phrasing, I could reword your post into a race-debate if that makes you understand why people found it offensive. It would look like this -

It is the equal of arguing:
Now, 'Black' people have gained a large social acceptance. I find that acceptance very puzzling. Can someone here explain to me why it's a-okay to publicly state that you're 'black'?

Class Room Experience:
I have some 'Arabian' people in my class, they are struggling since 9/11 and they are not receiving the same acceptance, the system is corrupt and biased as they are not getting the help they need

Why are they called stupid and not ethnic minorities:
'White' people who spend too much time in the sun and getting sun burned are simply classed as stupid 'white people' by society, they are not given the same treatment as ethnic minorities.

[Husar]

I am not attacking your values, Husar, I'm attacking the values of society as a whole. If you don't consider someone someone who can't do math stupid, then good.
I know and I'm challenging your attack, although it's okay if you have doublexia. ~;)


The fact remains that I have several students who feel like complete failures and idiots because they just can't wrap their minds around statistics. The number of people who feel that way because they have trouble writing is drastically lower. This is due to the term dyslexia and how society has accepted that inability.
Is that so or do you just assume it is? How are the treatments for other conditions? Of course they shouldn't feel that way but then again even I am dumb and sometimes feel worse than I am, I doubt it's because I lack a name for my disorders.


Dyslexia doesn't have a cause. "Dyslexia" is the term we give for those who have specific difficulties with writing. There are several reasons why people have such problems, from a number of causes, both biological and enviromental.
Tiaexz already answered this (see quote below).


And the sentence you bolded doesn't say "the same thing twice". The order of things is switched in the second half.
The order of words but not the order of the content because you just switched synonyms!
So basically it says the same thing twice...


So the premise of the thread is that people with marked disabilities such as dyslexica, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, autism, aspergers, ADHD are simply dumb people with fancy titles is in complete contrast to neurological impairments found in research which demonstrates evidence of different 'wiring' within the brain compared to atypical brain samples of people who simply are too lazy to check the validity of sources and pigeon-hole themselves in the conservative bubbles such as FOX news, reading only the headlines which makes them 'dumb'.
No, I think his point is that dyscalculia should get more social acceptance to make kids with dyscalculia feel great like kids with the socially dyslexia already do. Additionally I assume that he thinks people who watch Fox News all day aren't really dumb, just born that way and should get a fancy name for their disorder, like dysfoxia, so they can feel great about their birth condition as well.

What is interesting in this context is that you say different wiring in the brain, which is my understanding as well, while HoreTore adds "environmental" to that in what is no doubt a lame attempt to direct the topic towards class warfare. Of course I would like to see some evidence that dyslexia is caused by "environmental" effects that do not have anything to do with the brain and does not just victimize analphabets by reframing them dyslexics due to "environmental" effects.


People with disabilities are stigmatised heavily in society, even in the past exterminated / sterilised for conditions and yet you inflame the situation because a couple of forum members felt comfortable enough to express they had a disability to each other, you find it is totally okay to phrase your topic like this when it is your own ignorance on the matter which is at fault.
I think he has an impairment to bring his point across in the OP and the topic, we could call it "dystopia" so he can feel better about it. ~;)

[HoreTore]

Ah, the wonders of little-understood "catch-all"-terms... "Different wiring" can be one cause which leads to being labeled dyslectic, but there's a wealth of other reasons a person can get that label.

The point, Tiaexz, is that the people you just labeled stupid struggle with the exact same things you do.

So, that either makes you both dumb, or you can say that none of you are dumb. I lean towards the second, and I'm curious to know why you label yourself "dumb".

[Beskar]

So, that either makes you both dumb, or you can say that none of you are dumb. I lean towards the second, and I'm curious to know why you label yourself "dumb".

Because I am not actually stupid in any real sense of the term?

I am only can be addressed as 'stupid' in certain areas by relative comparison with my own performance in other areas, which scored 'average' compared to 'very superior' which is down to actual impairments. According to this wikipedia table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_reference_chart) for Wechsler, that is Average meaning 90-109 IQ, compared to my performance in non-affected areas which is over 130.

So perhaps something new for you - You can be Dyslexic and not be 'stupid'


[Dumb actually means 'Unable to speak, most typically because of congenital deafness.' so changed the word.]

[HoreTore]

It is indeed the point of this thread that you are not 'stupid' in any way or form, Tiaexz.

[Andres]

I think he has an impairment to bring his point across in the OP and the topic, we could call it "dystopica" so he can feel better about it. ~;)

:laugh4:

[caravel]

This thread just gets dumber and dumber... :rolleyes:

[Beskar]

Dumbest Ways to Die (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/nov/28/dumb-ways-to-die-video)

[Husar]

Ah, the wonders of little-understood "catch-all"-terms... "Different wiring" can be one cause which leads to being labeled dyslectic, but there's a wealth of other reasons a person can get that label.
If it's a label, then it's not a disability.


The point, Tiaexz, is that the people you just labeled stupid struggle with the exact same things you do.
But that doesn't mean they struggle for the same reasons. There is a huge difference between struggling because of a brain condition you were born with and "struggling" because you just don't put enough effort into something. The NHS for example (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Dyslexia/Pages/Causes.aspx) says all evidence points toward it being genetic so you may want to support your claim that other people can get the "label" and be called dyslexic for non-biological reasons. Or we can just move on and assume your claim is bollox.


So, that either makes you both dumb, or you can say that none of you are dumb. I lean towards the second, and I'm curious to know why you label yourself "dumb".
He doesn't, he says the other people are not dyslexic even though you wrongfully slap that label onto them.

[HoreTore]

Dumbest Ways to Die (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/nov/28/dumb-ways-to-die-video)

This thread had three points though:

Firstly, that dyslectics are not stupid.
Secondly, that those who struggle to learn other things than writing are not stupid either.
Thirdly, that to accept the first, but not the second, is hypocrisy.

Do you understand the point of the thread now, Tiaexz?

[HoreTore]

If it's a label, then it's not a disability.


But that doesn't mean they struggle for the same reasons. There is a huge difference between struggling because of a brain condition you were born with and "struggling" because you just don't put enough effort into something. The NHS for example (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Dyslexia/Pages/Causes.aspx) says all evidence points toward it being genetic so you may want to support your claim that other people can get the "label" and be called dyslexic for non-biological reasons. Or we can just move on and assume your claim is bollox.


He doesn't, he says the other people are not dyslexic even though you wrongfully slap that label onto them.

Imagine a long scale, Husar.

On one end, it says "can learn to read and write well". On the other, it says "cannot learn to read or write well". Everyone can put themselves somewhere on that scale, and there are many reasons why you end up on that point. One part of the scale is called "dyslexia". Exactly where that point is has shifted back and forth over time, and differs from place to place. Tiaexz has found the reason why he is on that end of the scale. That's far from the only reason you can end up there. The reason is quite obvious: dyslexia simply means "bad at writing, good at most other stuff". Such a huge definition will inevitably end up covering a bunch of different things.

Now make a similar scale for other fields, as many as you'd like. The same rules apply to them.

And so, if being on one end of the scale in one of them is enough to be labeled "dumb", them the dyslectic is dumb as well.

I don't see it that way, though. Not for the dyslectic, not for the dyscalculic, not for those who can't read a map or those who don't understand politics.

And I see those who defend one or two of the scales while labeleling the other scales, as hypocrits.



But do have fun calling people dumb if that makes your penis grow.

[TinCow]

Do you understand the point of the thread now, Tiaexz?

There are ways to prove that point without being an ass.

[HoreTore]

There are ways to prove that point without being an ass.

Are they as much fun?

By the way, Tincow, several posters have now called huge groups of people dumb. And they've done so not to prove a point about them not being dumb, they've done because they believe these groups of people are simply dumb.

Now where's that banhammer?!?!??!!?

[TinCow]

Are they as much fun?

By the way, Tincow, several posters have now called huge groups of people dumb. And they've done so not to prove a point about them not being dumb, they've done because they believe these groups of people are simply dumb.

Now where's that banhammer?!?!??!!?

If you want people banned, whine to a Mod. I just work here.

[HoreTore]

If you want people banned, whine to a Mod. I just work here.

I reserve the right to whine to anyone, about anything, at any time.

That's part of my Norwegian heritage, you know ~;)

[TinCow]

I reserve the right to whine to anyone, about anything, at any time.

You'd make a great Tech Admin then.

[Beskar]

This thread had three points though:

Firstly, that dyslectics are not stupid.
Secondly, that those who struggle to learn other things than writing are not stupid either.
Thirdly, that to accept the first, but not the second, is hypocrisy.

Do you understand the point of the thread now, Tiaexz?

But here is the fundamental issue, you are not making the point you think you are making -

Posters felt open enough to say they have a disability, ranging from dyslexia to dyscalculia. Each of the posters were met with a warm response and were accepted.

In response to this, you specifically target dyslexia, you purposefully put typos in your opening message and you call them dumb. You then target them and people with disabilities with distain. (To make your point that people shouldn't do.)

You then attempt to reason that dyslexia was some special status in comparison to dyscalculia which was not expressed on this forum and from the side-topic, people with other disabilities were accepted. No one has come in and said "oh poster x has dyspraxia, he is just dumb, lol".

So fundamentally, who is your 'point' aimed at? There is no hypocrisy going on at all.

The point if any is that you are purposefully offending and upsetting other posters then trying to craptastically reason it away with utter bovine attempting to make a 'point' where there is no point to be made. This is the point you succeeded in making.

[Husar]

The reason is quite obvious: dyslexia simply means "bad at writing, good at most other stuff".

Not according to the NHS:


There are several theories about the causes of dyslexia, but all tend to agree it is a genetic condition passed on through families.

If it's genetic then it does not necessarily say that you are good at anything else and it also does not mean that people who aren't good at writing for non-genetic reasons are dyslexic as well. I have already asked you twice to list any causes that are non-genetic and you still haven't done that, yet you keep talking about scales, fish have scales, that doesn't make them dyslexic.

[HoreTore]

But here is the fundamental issue, you are not making the point you think you are making -

Posters felt open enough to say they have a disability, ranging from dyslexia to dyscalculia. Each of the posters were met with a warm response and were accepted.

In response to this, you specifically target dyslexia, you purposefully put typos in your opening message and you call them dumb. You then target them and people with disabilities with distain.

You then attempt to reason that dyslexia was some special status in comparison to dyscalculia which was not expressed on this forum and from the side-topic, people with other disabilities were accepted. No one has come in and said "oh poster x has dyspraxia, he is just dumb, lol".

So fundamentally, who is your 'point' aimed at? There is no hypocrisy going on at all. The point if any is that you are purposefully offending and upsetting other posters then trying to craptastically reason it away with utter bovine attempting to make a 'point' where there is no point to be made. This is the point you succeeded in making.

Just a few weeks ago, there was a thread here about how people who don't understand politics should be treated as second-class citizens and stripped of their voting rights.

That is what I'm arguing against. I didn't see you offer any perspectives of why we should label these people dumb and strip them of their rights. You're all up in arms now though. Thus, hypocrisy.

And you yourself labeled a whole group of people "dumb" just a few posts ago. But you object to people taking one aspect of your person and calling you dumb. Again, hypocrisy.

[Beskar]

That is what I'm arguing against. I didn't see you offer any perspectives of why we should label these people dumb and strip them of their rights. You're all up in arms now though. Thus, hypocrisy.

Why is it hypocrisy when I never posted about why we would strip people of voting rights, and if anything, I believe we shouldn't?


And you yourself labeled a whole group of people "dumb" just a few posts ago. But you object to people taking one aspect of your person and calling you dumb. Again, hypocrisy.

Where? You are saying the example where I am saying people are behaving stupid and therefore, would be permitted to be called stupid for acting like such? That is a choice of theirs to do, not something innate. They could simply read other news resources and not just stick to Fox news.

[HoreTore]

Why is it hypocrisy when I never posted about why we would strip people of voting rights, if anything, I believe we shouldn't?

"...and then, said the old man, the young Tiaexz discovered that neither the world, nor this thread, was about him specifically. He then went on to slay many more dragons and rescue his fair share of maidens, learning something new with each step he took." And that's the end of that tale, young ones, now go to sleep. ~:)



Where?

Here:

"people who simply are too lazy to check the validity of sources and pigeon-hole themselves in the conservative bubbles such as FOX news, reading only the headlines which makes them 'stupid'. "

I mean, all dyslectics are just lazy people who should just sit their behinds down and study, right?

[The Stranger]

Can someone pass me the popcorn. And where is Fragony when you need him, this thread needs one of his enigmatic posts!

[Beskar]

"people who simply are too lazy to check the validity of sources and pigeon-hole themselves in the conservative bubbles such as FOX news, reading only the headlines which makes them 'stupid'. "

I mean, all dyslectics are just lazy people who should just sit their behinds down and study, right?

Sure, and black-people can just use skin-whitening creams.

False equivalence.

Doing a stupid action and being called 'stupid for it' is different to an impairment or being fundamentally stupid. There is no hypocrisy in the slightest.

[HoreTore]

Sure, and black-people can just use skin-whitening creams.

False equivalence.

Doing a stupid action and being called 'stupid for it' is different to an impairment or being fundamentally stupid. There is no hypocrisy in the slightest.

Ah, yes... It's stupid to write words incorrectly, so anyone who writes words incorrectly are stupid.

It's fun to just stay at the surface instead of making an attempt of figuring out why people do the things they do, isn't it? Mix in a taste of elitism and namecalling, and you have a meal worthy of a king!

[TinCow]

Doing a stupid action and being called 'stupid for it' is different to an impairment or being fundamentally stupid. There is no hypocrisy in the slightest.

Indeed. Some of the stupidest people I have met have been highly intelligent.

[Furunculus]

good debate horetore, controversially put but then the subject is sensitive.

speaking personally, i struggle with abstract numbers, though nothing so serious as requires a clinical diagnosis.

a good friend has mild dsylexia, and he is remarkably capable in his training as a biologist, a skydiver, a diver, a marksman, a pyrotechnics expert, and a professional cameraman.

i would never consider him dumb, but i accept the general term of the argument presented by hore, i.e. it meets the definition of reduced capability, albeit in a unhelpfully narrow definition of total ability.

[The Stranger]

Sure, and black-people can just use skin-whitening creams.

False equivalence.

Doing a stupid action and being called 'stupid for it' is different to an impairment or being fundamentally stupid. There is no hypocrisy in the slightest.

I don't understand why you get all upset by this poor (in both senses of the word) attempt at trolling by HoreTore. His assumtion that everyone, or society (whoever that may be), does not accept it that some people have trouble with performing certain tasks or solving certain problems due to (cognitive) disabilities is just false.

Also the supposed hypocricy he is talking about, which he derives from a thread about voting is also based on a wrong analogy. A more logical analogy would be the following, and I'm not saying I agree, but setting aside the notion of being stupid for a second here, if you know someone has the disability to write properly you do not ask him to write a long and complicated story on paper. If you know that someone has the disability to understand politics you should not ask him to give his opinion about politics...

If anything this thread should be about education, do we really need to require of people to know the basics all these things we now ask them to know the basics off. And perhaps within the education system dyslexia has been getting more attention than other disabilities, but not to the extent and nature that Horetore has been stating.

[Montmorency]

It's fun to just stay at the surface instead of making an attempt of figuring out why people do the things they do, isn't it? Mix in a taste of elitism and namecalling, and you have a meal worthy of a king!

My words exactly.

[Beskar]

Indeed. Some of the stupidest people I have met have been highly intelligent.

I agree. I have done 'stupid' acts myself!


It's fun to just stay at the surface instead of making an attempt of figuring out why people do the things they do, isn't it?

Sure, but the reason they do it is from group-polarisation effect, where values they hold find themselves aligned to a certain direction then skewed significantly due to the extremist elements. This 'risky-shift' in turn, makes their own opinion more extreme and through the 'Groupthink' effect and social categorization. There is a desire to maintain group-membership and when countered by conflicting information (which is then dismissed by Fox or by one of Fox's evil out-groups) they tend to alienate themselves from it, resulting in the hypothetical conservative bubble as shown by research in similar situations that people within these environments tend foster simplistic perceptions and more positive self-references/reinforcement.

The solution to this is actually to keep your mind fresh with other alternative sources, which allows people to form more independent and group irrelevant positions, without falling victim to these phenomena.

[Husar]

It's fun to just stay at the surface instead of making an attempt of figuring out why people do the things they do, isn't it? Mix in a taste of elitism and namecalling, and you have a meal worthy of a king!

I told you he is on a communist lefty rant trying to prove that no person is responsible for their actions and everything we do is somehow decided by outside factors which is why we should make everyone equal. Everybody who agrees with him might as well kiss a picture of Stalin!

[HopAlongBunny]

I think he's getting at more the social construction of definitions and labeling. We make the slots and grossly simplify our relations/perceptions of people based on placement in those slots.

"It's fun to just stay at the surface" says it all really.

[HoreTore]

good debate horetore, controversially put but then the subject is sensitive.

speaking personally, i struggle with abstract numbers, though nothing so serious as requires a clinical diagnosis.

We all have areas with reduced ability to learn. For me, I guess it would be visualization. That doesn't make the entire human population "dumb" though, and I reject the notion that some people are "dumb" because of X. The kid in my class who struggle with the nuances of public debate isn't dumb, the dyslectic kid isn't dumb, and the kid who can't read a graph isn't dumb.

The kids who have a fancy name for their inability learn are treated differently from those who are not, however. That rubs me the wrong way. The dyslectic kid is rarely made fun of. The girl who can't understand politics is fair game, however.

I have a brilliant quote from the first day of my second practice period:

We were doing a "mathathlon" to practice doing calculations without writing. The students were divided into teams. Each team got a bunch of papernotes with a math problem on it. The student was then supposed to solve the problem, and run to a sheet with different answer on it, place the paper with the problem on the correct answer, then run back and the next student does the same. Anyway, it was the turn of a boy who wasn't good at maths. He oicked up the note, and then just stood there looking at the paper. Soon, the girl behind him began helping him, while two other boys started snickering. How did the girl respond? She turned around, and said in a very assertive voice:

"Everyone has a problem with something, this is his problem, mind your own business!"

Now, if the world could only be like that 13-year old girl....

[Beskar]

The kids who have a fancy name for their inability learn are treated differently from those who are not, however. That rubs me the wrong way. The dyslectic kid is rarely made fun of. The girl who can't understand politics is fair game, however.

Nonsense.

No child actually cares about politics so it would never even be brought up (infact, knowing about it makes you 'pathetic'), and those with dyslexia and other disabilities are relentlessly ridiculed and it is not just some 'fancy name'.

[HoreTore]

No child actually cares about politics so it would never even be brought up

That couldn't be more wrong, so I think I'm finished with this particular part of the discussion.

[Beskar]

That couldn't be more wrong, so I think I'm finished with this particular part of the discussion.

Citing personal experience and that of my family members (nephews and nieces) who are at different stages of the school system. Greatest one being my 14 year old nephew looking at me as if I just got dropped off from another planet by even mentioning the word. I am fairly safe in assuming there has been no significant changes. Might be different in the utopia of Norway where no discrimination exists, but that is the reality here.

[Kival]

I told you he is on a communist lefty rant trying to prove that no person is responsible for their actions and everything we do is somehow decided by outside factors which is why we should make everyone equal. Everybody who agrees with him might as well kiss a picture of Stalin!

Are you trying to replicate HoreTores "poor attempt at trolling"?

[Strike For The South]

I managed to get into grad school and apparently have had dyslexia and ADD my whole life

My parents were neglectful

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"Dyslexia" is a misnomer, it implies the person has a problem learning language - they don't, they have a problem learning to write.

By contrast, if someone has a problem understanding politics they have a problem understanding human interactions.

In the previous thread someone said Dyslexics have trouble learning languages, but that's not true either, they just have trouble learning to write them.

[Husar]

Are you trying to replicate HoreTores "poor attempt at trolling"?

It's not necessary to troll him, he has obviously given up debating me anyway. ~:)
That the Stalin thing was a joke should've been obvious after I put a joke into almost all my posts here.

[HoreTore]

It's not necessary to troll him, he has obviously given up debating me anyway. ~:)
That the Stalin thing was a joke should've been obvious after I put a joke into almost all my posts here.

No worries Husar, your posting is much appreciated ~;)

[Kival]

In the previous thread someone said Dyslexics have trouble learning languages, but that's not true either, they just have trouble learning to write them.

Just to clear it up: I didn't say that. I only said, that I know one person with Dylexia who also has problems learning languages and I wasn't claming this to be a general link. At least I hope, I didn't claim that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just to clear it up: I didn't say that. I only said, that I know one person with Dylexia who also has problems learning languages and I wasn't claming this to be a general link. At least I hope, I didn't claim that.

You did imply that - but I won't hold it against you.

[Kival]

You did imply that - but I won't hold it against you.

Oh, yes, I meant to imply it as a possible link. What i didn't mean was that I *knew* that there is a link.

[Tellos Athenaios]

"Dyslexia" is a misnomer, it implies the person has a problem learning language - they don't, they have a problem learning to write.

By contrast, if someone has a problem understanding politics they have a problem understanding human interactions.

In the previous thread someone said Dyslexics have trouble learning languages, but that's not true either, they just have trouble learning to write them.

To read, as well. It's a visual pattern matching thingy, seems to be a discrepancy between how you visualise letters and what the letters actually (should) look like. For instance mentally flipping some letters "upside down".

Which is where it does become a bit of an additional challenge when learning new languages: written word is the quickest and easiest way to practice (for example subtitles on tv).

[Papewaio]

So being humans we fear, get angry with and ridicule the unknown.

Before dyslexia was figured out the children with it where made fun of even by their teachers. I'm sure more then one of them was made to wear a dunces cap and made to stand in the corner to be made an example of.

Now that we have an understanding of it and a label we are much more compassionate. Not totally so, but improved.

So I've no problem with our better understanding of some learning disabilities. I cannot figure out the logic in being angry in figuring out one issue and not resolving others such as political inability. Seems rather a non productive attitude to have.

[caravel]

By contrast, if someone has a problem understanding politics they have a problem understanding human interactions.
Probably the vast majority of people don't understand politics... it's not in the interests of the ruling classes to have a politically savvy electorate.

[HoreTore]

So being humans we fear, get angry with and ridicule the unknown.

Before dyslexia was figured out the children with it where made fun of even by their teachers. I'm sure more then one of them was made to wear a dunces cap and made to stand in the corner to be made an example of.

Now that we have an understanding of it and a label we are much more compassionate. Not totally so, but improved.


A good summary.


So I've no problem with our better understanding of some learning disabilities. I cannot figure out the logic in being angry in figuring out one issue and not resolving others such as political inability. Seems rather a non productive attitude to have.

Ah, don't get me wrong, I'm very happy that dyslexia is figured out, and I'm very excited about the growing recognition specific math problems(dyscalculi) is getting.

But still, I can't be happy about a society who calls my students stupid and makes them feel like they've failed life because they can't do X. I can't accept that.

[Husar]

Are you also sorry about a society that allows a little zebra to die just because it can't run away from a lion?
Life is harsh, deal with it!

[Ironside]

Just a few weeks ago, there was a thread here about how people who don't understand politics should be treated as second-class citizens and stripped of their voting rights.

That is what I'm arguing against. I didn't see you offer any perspectives of why we should label these people dumb and strip them of their rights. You're all up in arms now though. Thus, hypocrisy.

And you yourself labeled a whole group of people "dumb" just a few posts ago. But you object to people taking one aspect of your person and calling you dumb. Again, hypocrisy.

There's a few key differences. One, politics as a school subject is a comparativly small. Dyslexia is basically that something makes them fall behind compared to the numbers of hours spent on learning it, usually because a brain center isn't working at the capacity that's considered normal.

By comparision politics would probably fall under advanced human interactions that's not really a single center in your mind. It's also not studied enough in school to fully comprehend, so that's something you'll do on your spare time. So diagnosing dyspolitixia (or whatever) compared to general disinterest in politics aren't really possible on a large scale. That would be someone who has red all platforms, significant data on the issues and still doesn't even feeling of getting something of it.
That's the flaw in your argument.

The flaw in the rants on the other hand... When buying a new car, you will of course create a weighted 20 (cars) x10 (important factors) matrix and calculate which the best car will be, don't you? Or maybe you'll identify some key factors and go with those. Or simply be going by your guts. That's because we're built that way to handle complex problems. And usually your guts are quite good at handling it and leaves you satisfied with the buy.
Of course education will certainly help, but that ignorance and simplification will remain anyway and if also present among those who has been studying the political platforms.

[HoreTore]

Are you also sorry about a society that allows a little zebra to die just because it can't run away from a lion?
Life is harsh, deal with it!

Why would I be sad at the sight of a happy lion, Husar?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To read, as well. It's a visual pattern matching thingy, seems to be a discrepancy between how you visualise letters and what the letters actually (should) look like. For instance mentally flipping some letters "upside down".

Except that Dyslexics don't have trouble with pattern recognition - Dyslexia is a very specific problem with matching glyphs to sounds, then putting the glyphs together to make words.


Which is where it does become a bit of an additional challenge when learning new languages: written word is the quickest and easiest way to practice (for example subtitles on tv).

The quickest and easiest way to practice is to talk, which is how children learn.

[The Stranger]

So being humans we fear, get angry with and ridicule the unknown.

Before dyslexia was figured out the children with it where made fun of even by their teachers. I'm sure more then one of them was made to wear a dunces cap and made to stand in the corner to be made an example of.

Now that we have an understanding of it and a label we are much more compassionate. Not totally so, but improved.

So I've no problem with our better understanding of some learning disabilities. I cannot figure out the logic in being angry in figuring out one issue and not resolving others such as political inability. Seems rather a non productive attitude to have.


no one has that attitude, horetore just made that up. he cant specifically point someone out who has that attitude except maybe children, but children will ridicule someone for having a weird name if they cannot find something else or if that kid doesnt have a weird name, they will make a weird name up for him. they can also be very understanding ofcourse, like that 13yo kid from horetores example. now lets turn that into a social critique.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Except that Dyslexics don't have trouble with pattern recognition - Dyslexia is a very specific problem with matching glyphs to sounds, then putting the glyphs together to make words.
Well colour me confused, especially as the few dyslectics I know tend to mention the upside-down stuff -- confusing a p for b that sort of thing.


The quickest and easiest way to practice is to talk, which is how children learn.
Yes, except that you need people to talk to in that language. For instance, it is hard to practice your classical Latin by talking to people. Those guys are dead, they don't talk back so you don't learn much through the normal feedback loops.

Closer to home, it would be difficult to teach yourself French in this manner without a suitable supply of Frenchies to practice on. Yet that is more or less what is asked of cohorts and cohorts of middle/high school students.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well colour me confused, especially as the few dyslectics I know tend to mention the upside-down stuff -- confusing a p for b that sort of thing.

D and B are common too - but it's not actually the letters they are confusing, it's the letter-sound relationship, especially as "p" "b" and "d" all look very similar for a reason - your mouth make a very similar sound when doing "p" "b" and "d", that's why the letters are similar, and that's why dyslexics get them confused.

It's important to stress that "Dyslexia" describes a specific neurological condition, not a general difficulty with writing. Dyslexics generally score well on IQ tests, so anyone who scores low on an IQ test and has trouble reading probably has a different problem.


Yes, except that you need people to talk to in that language. For instance, it is hard to practice your classical Latin by talking to people. Those guys are dead, they don't talk back so you don't learn much through the normal feedback loops.

Closer to home, it would be difficult to teach yourself French in this manner without a suitable supply of Frenchies to practice on. Yet that is more or less what is asked of cohorts and cohorts of middle/high school students.

Right - you want to learn French? You go live with bi-lingual French people patient enough to talk to you in French. Once you know what "yes" "no" "up" "down" etc. are you can be taught the language, rather than reading it. Granted, having a Grammar will help, but not as much as more practice.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Right - you want to learn French? You go live with bi-lingual French people patient enough to talk to you in French. Once you know what "yes" "no" "up" "down" etc. are you can be taught the language, rather than reading it. Granted, having a Grammar will help, but not as much as more practice.

Sure, but the idea of "every student of the French language his own personal French tutors/guinea pigs" is not scalable. There simply aren't enough French people to go around. And even if it were, we'd have to somehow fix our labs so that either us can all up sticks and move to France (they already complain about immigrants there despite the country being rather empty), or the French are willing to move here.

More seriously, though, I refer you back to my earlier example of the high & middle school students: in such a situation you'll find that stand fare is learning using a textbook (augmented with other materials and usually a teacher to be sure, but the textbook stuff is important not just because it provides reference material but also because it includes a lot of practical real-world French with some measure of quality, quantity and diversity).

You might say that dyslectics do worse because they have trouble with reading rather than with the language itself. Probably true enough, but the end result is all the same: in this situation without reading you develop less of the vocabulary and a "sense" of how the language flows/works, and without *that* you simply do not learn as much about that language and we have a bit of positive feedback here (as language is usually taught in incremental steps).

You are right that the single best way to learn a language is to "live it", but apart from your native tongue that is not usually how you wind up learning your second/third etc. language.

[Fragony]

In a lot of countries in Africa they speak perfect French, but people there can't read it at all. If they have to have an academic standard fine, I can't compete, my english and french is ok but reading or writing it isn't all that easy if you really want to be good at it. I make mistakes when writing in Dutch and I live in the Neds

[HoreTore]

In a lot of countries in Africa they speak perfect French, but people there can't read it at all.

....not to mention that everyone learns to speak before they learn to read or write...

But still, dyslexia is the inability to learn how to do it, not the inability to do it.

[Kival]

....not to mention that everyone learns to speak before they learn to read or write...

I didnt learn to speak greek or latin but only learned (some) reading. Even spanish I learned only to read some of it (but forgot most of it...) before I learned to speak some of it (but...).

[The Stranger]

but there is no way you couldve and wouldve done that if you hadnt learned to read and write german first and you only couldve done that by learning how to speak/understand german first.


i mean try to learn to read and write chinese without anyone translating it into speach or into another written language. you wouldnt achieve it in a hundred years i think.

[Papewaio]

i mean try to learn to read and write chinese without anyone translating it into speach or into another written language. you wouldnt achieve it in a hundred years i think.

Incorrect, the characters can be understood without reading out loud. It is normally considered a sign of a learner when they silently open their mouths as they read.

Also using Chinese written words as your argument is particularly weak. Because which language are you going to speak? Chinese written is used for many spoken languages. A Mandarin movie is subtitled in Chinese for Cantonese speakers, a Cantonese movie is subtitled in Chinese for Manadrin speakers. Different pronouciations, different number of tones, different languages, yet the same Chinese characters 99% of the time.

You also on top of that have Traditonal Chinese character set or Simplified Chinese, both of which have the same pronouciations in Mandarin or Cantonese yet are written differently.

So yes, you can learn characters and not know how to speak them. I can read more Chinese characters then I can pronounce and the ones I can't I auto translate to English. Things like water, exit and entrance I can pronounce, but I read the characters as English.

[The Stranger]

ofcourse u can learn to read without learning how to speak a language but not if it is the first language you learn. no person learns how to read before speech as his first language.

[Tellos Athenaios]

ofcourse u can learn to read without learning how to speak a language but not if it is the first language you learn. no person learns how to read before speech as his first language.

Except that body language is the very first you'll learn which will be mostly visual, and people who are born deaf will probably always have to make do with visual languages alone. You are missing the fact that what this all boils down to is just recognition of patterns and assigning semantic meaning to them.

Our brains are just a self-learning pattern matching machine, so if you cared to do so you could get babies to learn a language visually (i.e. read) before being able to speak. We do that with bonobo's and other apes already (teaching them how to read and write).

[The Stranger]

im not missing that, all i meant to point out to kival was that his example of learning to read a language without or before learning to speak it was only possible for him because he already knew a different language.

you are right that body language comes first, you could undoubtly learn someone to read without teaching them how speak otherwise deaf people could never learn how to read which ofcourse they can but only by visual means. i may have not phrased accurately enough,

[Husar]

What do you mean by body language comes first?
IIRC babies already adapt to the tone and sound of their mother language in the womb. They won't hear exact words but it influences their language learning later on since they already know some general patterns of their mother tongue.
Can you say a deaf person learns the same language? What does a sign language have in common with a spoken language? You can compare the writing and teach the same writing but does that mean that the brain of the deaf person has the same language concept as a hearing person in the end?

[Papewaio]

ofcourse u can learn to read without learning how to speak a language but not if it is the first language you learn. no person learns how to read before speech as his first language.

"No person" is a pretty big statement.

Helen Keller isn't the only deaf mute who has learnt to communicate...

[Fragony]

ofcourse u can learn to read without learning how to speak a language but not if it is the first language you learn. no person learns how to read before speech as his first language.

Interestingly enough children who are raised in a bilangual enviroment can naturally distinguish the two languages. I don't think this has ever been fully understood.

[The Stranger]

im raised bilingual, 3 if you take my unhealthy exposure to american television and games into account :P i do not understand what you mean exactly tho, you mean from birth?

anyway i take back what i said, it was too general, i mainly just meant kivals example of latin.

[Papewaio]

Interestingly enough children who are raised in a bilangual enviroment can naturally distinguish the two languages. I don't think this has ever been fully understood.

My son is bilingual. I speak English to him and my wife Mandarin. I asked him when he was four if he could teach me Mandarin his reply was that I had the wrong face so you might have a clue there.

Some languages have fairly strong gender definitions for objects. So like learning these rulesets learning a new language when young might be a factor.

I'll ask my wife as her business is teaching Mandarin and she is doing her Masters in Linguisitics. I've seen a fair bit of her course work focuses on bilingual children.

[Fragony]

im raised bilingual, 3 if you take my unhealthy exposure to american television and games into account :P i do not understand what you mean exactly tho, you mean from birth?

Yes, they can distinguish it naturally when learning to talk. Pap's explanation sounds plausible. Would be interesting to have the aspect of facial expression removed but I doubt anyone will agree such an experiment is a very good idea.

[Ironside]

Interestingly enough children who are raised in a bilangual enviroment can naturally distinguish the two languages. I don't think this has ever been fully understood.

I suspect it has to do with the rytm and sound. Every language got an unique combination. It doesn't take much practice to hear the difference between say Spanish and Portugese even if you aren't understanding any words from it. The bilanguals probably have this incentrically, every words with rythm A is that language, while the words with rythm B is another.

[Fragony]

I suspect it has to do with the rytm and sound. Every language got an unique combination. It doesn't take much practice to hear the difference between say Spanish and Portugese even if you aren't understanding any words from it. The bilanguals probably have this incentrically, every words with rythm A is that language, while the words with rythm B is another.

Probably, but it's also true for languages that are very similar like Dutch and German, you would expect that those languages would merge into a hybrid of sorts when both are spoken from day one, but that is not the case. I think it's really interesting.