Concerning Dyslexia

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?

do you accept people with down syndrome?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

do you accept people with down syndrome?

---

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

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

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

What are you getting at here HT?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caravel

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Inability to do maths is associated with girls.

---

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

Quote:

---

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'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Maybe in your chauvinistic socialist paradise...




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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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?

Quote:

---

First of all: loved the scientlogy referance :beam:

---

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