Dyslexia

September 6, 2005 8:19 AM

Dyslexia - Myth?
posted by Pretty_Generic (64 comments total)

It's ont a thym, it's earl!
posted by fleetmouse at 8:24 AM on September 6, 2005

Background...
posted by fluffycreature at 8:24 AM on September 6, 2005

That always annoyed me the dislexic kids getting more time to do exams than I did at school.

I mean my maths ability was never that great, but slowly but surely I could work through - but I always had less time than the dislexic kids and that always annoyed me.

Plus I cant spell dislexic...
posted by 13twelve at 8:38 AM on September 6, 2005

You just wait, they'll disprove ADD next. Think of the poor high school kids, who have to find another source for the drugs they sell out of the back of their Jeep Wrangler.
posted by selfnoise at 8:45 AM on September 6, 2005

Dyslexics of the world untie!
posted by Pollomacho at 8:53 AM on September 6, 2005

As a donating member of D.A.M. I would like to say that we, the Mothers Agianst Dyslexia, are offended by this article.
posted by Mach5 at 8:55 AM on September 6, 2005

An interesting piece at the Guardian. I didn't go through the whole comment board at TES, but I'd like to read the article in the TES (which doesn't seem to be online). This kind of thing is never easy to tease out because people invest quite a lot in these sorts of diagnoses, and, on the other side, in their careers.
posted by OmieWise at 8:55 AM on September 6, 2005

Man, it's rimshot after rimshot when reading this thread.
posted by OmieWise at 8:55 AM on September 6, 2005

wyh?
posted by PenguinBukkake at 9:07 AM on September 6, 2005

:: mirtosh ::
posted by fleetmouse at 9:09 AM on September 6, 2005

You mean there isn't really an insomniac agnostic dyslexic staying up all night wondering if there really is a dog?
posted by clevershark at 9:10 AM on September 6, 2005

If I'm read this correctly, the argument is that is that people with high IQs who trouble reading are dyslexic whereas everyone else who has trouble reading is merely stupid. Therefore people with high IQs and reading trouble are really just stupid when it comes to reading.
First, i've never heard that dyslexia was limited to high IQs and second whether you call it dyslexia or stupidity, it's still a condition causes afflicted individuals to have trouble reading. Seems like this is probably more about educational funding than a clinical discussion.
What i want to know is why, at the age of 42, i still can't tell right from left?
posted by doctor_negative at 9:10 AM on September 6, 2005

...and why do I leave whole words and syllables out of posts..
posted by doctor_negative at 9:11 AM on September 6, 2005

It's fun to joke but not fun to hear. Actually, it's quite upsetting. Once again, what some of us have to live with is treated as not real, as if it is some kind of joke.

To suggest there is emotional disturbace behind dislexia is just absurd. We've brain imaging, genetics, reliable metrics that have been used for quite some time that show that this condition really exists.

Saddest thing about this thred's main link - the article shows no real science, only opinion. These same areguments - overdiagnosis and emotional problems - are the hallmarks of the 'movement' to stop learning disabilities from being taken seriously.

Oh, and by the way . . . dyslexia isnt just letter reversal. That's become a real hackneed joke. For some of us, dyslexia works, in part, like this: The text we're reading suddenly stops being language alltogether. Try getting through school when that happons!
posted by johnj at 9:20 AM on September 6, 2005

As a dyslexic person, please allow me to state that all of your smartass comments and jokes about this serious affliction are greatly appeciated.

fcukers... ;)
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:20 AM on September 6, 2005

Point taken johnj. While mine was diagnosed many moons ago, it has, for some reason, gotten better with age. Now its just my eyesight thats bad). I read the linked article awhile back and pretty much dismissed for the same reasons you do.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:24 AM on September 6, 2005

13twelve said:
That always annoyed me the dislexic kids getting more time to do exams than I did at school.

I'm dyslexic and I share your annoyance. IMHO The problem is that dyslexia has become a "sexy" affliction.

Someone I know got himself assessed as dyslexic, went back to college a few years ago and took thousands in special needs grants. I don't think he really needed them - I've known him for twenty years. If he is dyslexic, I'm an astronaut. It really kind of offended me, because my dyslexia was identified somewhere around grade one/grade two. Some of the teachers were understanding, but I never got any extra time for anything or "special help" (this was circa 1970). Around grade ten, I got pulled in for testing again because of my lousy marks. Once it was determined I wasn't "retarded" they stuck me back in class. Some more understanding would have been really nice, but in the end It didn't hurt and probably helped me. I got my education, I even worked as a mechanic for a while before college. (If you mix up right and left, fixing stuff can be really trying. It was a challenge.)

the point of this whole rant, posted amid all the jokes?

this: If we could just split the difference between today and 1970, people wouldn't be so eager to be diagnosed dyslexic. - a little compassion, but not so much help. if you're truly dyslexic making extra allowances can hurt you. - The real world won't make any.
posted by login at 9:29 AM on September 6, 2005

Dyslexia: anagram for "daily sex." See if you get any sympathy for suffering form that.
posted by A-Train at 9:31 AM on September 6, 2005

I learned to tell left from right by feeling for the writer's callus on my middle finger. I can't spell worth a damn (thank the dog for spell check). School was a struggle every day. Am I stupid, no. Am I dyslexic, maybe, maybe I just had some language problems. Regardless of diagnosis, I survived and now I make stupid jokes to relieve stress.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:33 AM on September 6, 2005

FUCK.
THE.
WHAT.
MATT??
posted by joe lisboa at 9:33 AM on September 6, 2005

Sorry to harp on the jokes earlyer. The jokes can really help and I should not have been so fast to critisize. Hay, if I had flyer miles for every time I turned left and kept going instead of right I'd have enough to fly to Mars by now!
posted by johnj at 9:44 AM on September 6, 2005

johnj writes "Saddest thing about this thred's main link - the article shows no real science, only opinion."

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that there isn't science behind the article. It was, after all, a newspaper article. That's why I'm curious to see the TES piece. It, too, might be a piece of shit, but maybe not.
posted by OmieWise at 9:49 AM on September 6, 2005

very good stuff in this AskMefi thread

posted by matteo at 9:51 AM on September 6, 2005

Just a quick aside: Pollomancho, you have rocked my world. I'm terrible at telling left from right (or reversing directions for that matter), and now I have something a little more subtle than extending my thumbs and seeing which hand makes an "L". :)
posted by kalimac at 9:54 AM on September 6, 2005

No doubt the documentary will be BitTorrented somewhere after broadcast on Thursday. I'll look out for it.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:59 AM on September 6, 2005

In the programme, which looks at the causes and treatment of poor reading, at least three academics call into question the value of separating those with difficulty in reading into dyslexics and "ordinary poor readers", when the treatment is the same for both groups.

For me, this is the main point.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:04 AM on September 6, 2005

Actually a fairly large number of people seem to have left/right issues, which I think is interesting in itself.
posted by clevershark at 10:08 AM on September 6, 2005

"Pollomancho"!
posted by matteo at 10:08 AM on September 6, 2005

Wear a ring on one of your hands.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:09 AM on September 6, 2005

What if you put the ring on the wrong hand (as I've started to do with my wedding ring before doing a callus check)?
posted by Pollomacho at 10:20 AM on September 6, 2005

Oh, and by the way, don't you usually wear rings on your fingers?
posted by Pollomacho at 10:20 AM on September 6, 2005

Fingers are an intrinsic part of the majority of hands
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:23 AM on September 6, 2005

100% of fact
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:23 AM on September 6, 2005

jonj: Oh, and by the way . . . dyslexia isnt just letter reversal. That's become a real hackneed joke. For some of us, dyslexia works, in part, like this: The text we're reading suddenly stops being language alltogether.

Joke: I get that all the time when I read mefi.

Serious: It seems to me that the debate seems to be more about diagnostic and construct validity, rather than saying that there isn't a neurological basis behind some types of reading problems.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:43 AM on September 6, 2005

IMHO The problem is that dyslexia has become a "sexy" affliction.

Yeah, like those goddamned left handers. Fucking bastards think they're geniuses 'cause they smudge all their chickenscratch. They should have pens and pencils stapled to their right hands until they submit. SUBMIT, DAMN YOU!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:00 AM on September 6, 2005

Pretty_Generic writes "In the programme, which looks at the causes and treatment of poor reading, at least three academics call into question the value of separating those with difficulty in reading into dyslexics and 'ordinary poor readers', when the treatment is the same for both groups.

"For me, this is the main point."

This is the same sentence that caught my eye.
posted by OmieWise at 11:12 AM on September 6, 2005

>> pens and pencils stapled to their right hands until they submit.

CD: The schools used to force lefties to use their right hands, because the left is you know - sinister.

Mom was hit on the hand with a ruler every time she used her left hand, both at home and at school (Grandma was a teacher, and well versed in the science of the day - "smack therapy") As a consequence, 50+ years later she can write with either hand... yay for smack therapy.

As far as me calling dyslexia "sexy" I really think it's seen as a "good" diasability. - nothing to be shamed by - IE smart folks tend to dyslexia, so "Johnny's can't read cuz he's so smart..."
posted by login at 11:20 AM on September 6, 2005

It doesn't help that dyslexia (like ME) appears to be suffered disproportionately by middle class people. In my 22 years teaching, I only ever came across dyslexia in middle class students who had demanding parents.
posted by bobbyelliott at 11:23 AM on September 6, 2005

The question at the bottom of this argument is this: Can two people, both with the same genetic or brain scan basis for diagnosis, have dramatically different reading ability?

If that's the case, then Dyslexia is bunk. If some people have the problem, but not the symptoms, then the two aren't related.
posted by ewkpates at 11:27 AM on September 6, 2005

dyslexia has become a "sexy" affliction

Asperger is the Paris Hilton of cognitive disorders.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:47 AM on September 6, 2005

Dyslexia is a measurable, biological phenomena, and there are specific, scientific, effective treatments for many who suffer from it. For example, from this page:

1999-10-06: Dyslexic children use nearly five times the brain area as normal children while performing a simple language task

2000-05-25: Treatment Helps Dyslexics Significantly Improve Reading, Shows Brain Changes As Children Learn

Or here: Computer-generated speech that slows and enhances specific sounds in language can help children with one type of dyslexia advance as much as two years in their language comprehension skills with just one month of training.
posted by WestCoaster at 12:21 PM on September 6, 2005

WestCoaster: You haven't addressed (understood?) my concerns or those of OmieWise.

A problem is demonstrated by cataloging symptoms and establishing a causal relationship between the two.

Not only are the symptoms being questioned (among them 1) brain activity; 2) reading difficulty) but the causal relationship is also being questioned.

There is little doubt that some people have difficulty reading, and that difficulty occurs in the brain, and that there are cognitive processes which improve reading ability.

Does this add up to dyslexia?
posted by ewkpates at 12:27 PM on September 6, 2005

Of course it's a myth! Just like global warming and evolution!
posted by delmoi at 12:27 PM on September 6, 2005

I grew up with dyslexia and dyspraxia, both undiagnosed. My schooldays were mostly miserable, though like anyone who survives coming up the hard way I wouldn't want it any different: you learn more about yourself and how to cope. My 11-year-old son is also dyslexic and dyspraxic; clear diagnosis and better teaching methods, plus my awareness, are helping him, though he doesn't have it easy. Dyslexia is a learning difficulty, and schooldays are centred on learning: ergo, it's going to be difficult. To watch him becoming more confident about his creativity, developing his eye for images and his mimicry, while many of his (neurotypical) peers are trying to shed every creative urge in their compulsion to conform... that's a joy.
posted by MinPin at 12:53 PM on September 6, 2005

Dyslexia is a measurable, biological phenomena, and there are specific, scientific, effective treatments for many who suffer from it. For example, from this page:

From what I understand from reading the article, the program doesn't actually say that the neurological differences that cause dyslexia are a myth, rather that there isn't as much of a distinction between the differences that cause dyslexia and the differences that affect other "poor readers" and that the placement of certain poor readers into one of the two groups may be based more on emotion than on science. Not saying I agree with it but I do think it raises interesting questions.

When I was in school, it seemed, and I stress seemed here because this is all wildly anecdotal, that the middle class and wealthy kids who had problems reading were dyslexic and the poor kids who couldn't read were just "remedial readers". And I often wondered why. There really did seem to be a diagnostic dividing line between the haves and the have-nots.
posted by LeeJay at 1:20 PM on September 6, 2005

There is little doubt that some people have difficulty reading, and that difficulty occurs in the brain

I think that the primary cause of 'dyslexia' in intelligent people is not in the brain at all, but in the eyes; their eyes don't scan right, perhaps because of less fine motor control. Without scanning, edge detection is inferior and thus recognizing symbols is more difficult.

The words 'dyslexia' and ADD (etc) are used to cover a set of symptoms, rather than a set of causes. So, those words are too watered down to use as a diagnosis.
posted by Osmanthus at 1:57 PM on September 6, 2005

It doesn't help that dyslexia (like ME) appears to be suffered disproportionately by middle class people.

Oh please! What you really mean is that it's disproportionately diagnosed amongst the class best placed to realize the nature of the problem when they see it.

In my 22 years teaching, I only ever came across dyslexia in middle class students who had demanding parents.

The cheek of these middle-class parents, actually entertaining great demands of their offspring; and if most parents of lower socioeconomic status don't happen to even know how to pronounce the word "dyslexia", let alone what its symptoms are, that must clearly mean that it doesn't exist among their own progeny, right?

I sense a great deal of class resentment in your comments, as if you seem to think parents have no place taking a keen interest in the academic performance of their children. Would you really rather that they didn't care or something?
posted by Goedel at 4:18 PM on September 6, 2005

Goedel: I think that's the whole point ... how do you distinguish between an 'undiagnosed' kid with reading problems and a kid with dyslexia?
posted by daveg at 4:45 PM on September 6, 2005

My mother was dyslexic. Had her father not been a pediatrician, she would not have been diagnosed. (Consider the state of things in the 50's). It doesn't surprise me at all that folks with more access to medical care have a higher rate of diagnosis.

Me, I don't have dyslexia, but I do have the left-right thing. When I was a little girl, my first grade teacher wanted to have me sent out for counseling. You see, she'd asked me which was my right hand and which was my left, and I said "I don't know; I'm wearing tights." (That statment probably makes more sense if you know that I have a birthmark on my right knee...)
posted by Karmakaze at 5:16 PM on September 6, 2005

We can start distinguishing between kids who have dyslexia, and kids who have trouble reading for some other reason, by, for example, screening every kid in a mixed-income school using third-party psychologists who don't know the kids or their socioeconomic background beforehand. If it were possible to create a double-blind study, I'd require that too. If multiple psychologists independently come up with similar numbers for different classes and educational backgrounds, then that goes some way toward answering the "overzealous middle-class parents" theory of dyslexia.

Maybe someone's done it already; I don't know.
posted by skoosh at 5:17 PM on September 6, 2005

When I was a kid, my mom was active in DAM: Mothers Against Dyslexia.
posted by mullingitover at 5:21 PM on September 6, 2005

I don't know about this: my father is quite obviously dyslexic in the classic sense, although he's never been tested. Despite being beaten almost weekly (for 'laziness and failure to apply himself') in the grim Dotheboys Hall boarding school he was sent to, Dad never became comfortable with academics.

I have some but not all of his symptoms, but I'm an obsessive reader, so I've 'worked around' them. I'm also an English professor, my PhD is from Canada's best grad school, I'm published and I spend most of my time reading and analysing texts. I don't think that I'm either stupid or 'just a weak reader'. I've never been diagnosed either -- but I can't spell, have difficulty maintaining focus, etc, etc.

I guess I should cancel all my book contracts and quit my job. I must just be stupid, just like my Dad.
posted by jrochest at 5:27 PM on September 6, 2005

This is a message from my husband, who is learning disabled, and currently doing a Ph.D. thesis at Cambridge. If he writes by hand, it looks like the writing of a six year old. He cannot remember what 7 x 6 is. But he can read and write complex analysis of historical events, including designing his own database.

I think the main problem in dyslexia discourse, expecially in the UK, is the extreme focus on taxonomy to the detriment of generalised understanding.  What I mean is this: British researchers and educationalists seem tied to the notion that there will be only a few, distinct types of dyslexia.  They seem frustrated by the fact that these patterns are not emerging clearly enough and this frustration, perhaps, is why some people are proposing that the entire concept be given up as a bad job.  Part of this is possibly to do with the term dyslexia itself (originally it was one of a series of related conditions such as dysgraphia and discalcula, but the word has become a more generalised catch-all).  Dyslexia implies problems with reading and, as a result, UK dsylexia discourse focusses very much on reading and language problems specifically.

But there is an alternate model, a much more successful model, whichseems to be in wide use in Canada.  This defines dyslexia (the localterm is 'learning disability') 'specific, narrow, congnitive deficits'.

An explanation: if you give most people a battery of psychometrictests, they'll usually score pretty much the same in any givencognative skill.  Some people will be good at test A and not so good attest C, but the difference won't be all that significant in comparisonto the differences between people.  People who are smart tend to besmart accross the board, people who are dumb tend to score low in everytask.  However, there is a subset of the population, the dyslexics, whoscore much lower in certain, specific, tasks than they do in most ofthe tests you give them.  So a dyslexic might be in and around the 70thpercentile for most of their scores but on one or two tasks they arearound the 10th.

What are the advantages of this model?

1) it is rigerously defined and undeniably present in the population. Using such a test, dyslexics are relatively easy to spot and relativelyeasy to distinguish from people who are developmentally disabled. Furthermore, this cuts out many of the problems with over-diagnosisnoted in this thread.

2) it is data driven.  Rather than coming up with this theory thatthere's something called a 'functional-proces dyslexic' and going outand trying to find people who fit your hokey model and gettingfrustrated when it doesn't appear, you can actually measure people'scognative abilty and try and spot patterns in the real world as theyreally exist.  This is the right way round to do the taxonomy.

3) it gets rid of the language bias.  Using this model, we readily observe that people who have trouble with language specific tasks are actually a subset of a much wider group who have trouble with tasks of all different kinds.  There may be interventions that help both people who have trouble spelling and people who have trouble solving mazes or recognising sequences.

4) it recognises the real-world implications of dissability.  Somebodywho is good at everything but only average at certain specific tasks isalso dyslexic and is probably being held back by that dyslexia relative to what they could acheive and contribute to society, even if theyaren't actually severely functionaly disabled in any area.  Dyslexia interventions may help these people too.

5) it seems to have positive social implications.  In my experience, dyslexia interventions are much better developed in Canada than in theUK.  Because the debate is about what interventions work best, rather than what the diagnosis process should be looking for, intelectual energy has been freed up for helping people.

posted by jb at 7:21 PM on September 6, 2005 [1 favorite]

By the way, learning disabled is the Canadian term for dyslexic. But my husband has never had any trouble reading, which is one of the reasons he was never diagnosed in Britain. There are many different kinds of learning disabilities - his most obvious is his inability to form symbols as easily as most people do - he cannot write letters without conciously "drawing" each letter.

Also a correction - he tells me he knows "7 x 6 = 42". But he has no idea what 9 x 3 is.

Sorry about the spacing problems - this came from an email. I thought I had caught them all.
posted by jb at 7:26 PM on September 6, 2005

Next thing you know, they'll be saying that the Autism epidemic is a myth.
posted by seanyboy at 11:41 PM on September 6, 2005

jb- Thank your husband for that note. It was informative.
posted by LeeJay at 1:11 AM on September 7, 2005

Thank you jb. As a first year Law student at a respected school I have not accomplished quite what your husband has but I have been on the wrong side of assumptions about Dyslexia and ADD.

We, the properly diagnosed, are getting tired of both sides of the debate. Dyslexia is not a myth and it is not true that 20% of the population is Dyslexic. Replace "Dyslexia" with "ADD" and the above sentence still works.

The overdiagnosis actually casts a shadow of doubt on the remaining correct diagnoses. If Ritalin was not an "upper" for people who did not need it, kids would not abuse it and I could get my prescription without being looked at funny by the pharmacist. If only real Dyslexics were given the extra time on exams I would not be too ashamed to claim the right. Instead the extra time option is used by the opportunistic who are looking for an edge or a way to achieve what their I.Q. would not have otherwise allowed.
posted by BeerGrin at 6:12 AM on September 7, 2005

Interesting, while I'm gossiping about my husband, he's in the 90-something percentile for maze-solving, but the 2nd percentile for face recognition. Which means that whenever I'm doing a maze (slowly, agonisingly), he can just glance over and solve it in a few seconds. But I have to constantly remind him who people are. Learning disabilities aren't all just about school.
posted by jb at 8:41 AM on September 7, 2005

I think that if everyone defined dyslexia this way then there would be fewer issues. Unfortunately, the current varied definitions lead to over-diagnosis and suspicions about the condition.
posted by bobbyelliott at 2:17 AM on September 8, 2005

bobbyelliot - that is how Canadian psychologists and educators define it. I don't know why the British establishment is so different. My husband had a battery of tests in grade school, and again in university, which showed those patterns.

One thing that causes confusion is their use of "learning disability" where Canadians would say "developmental disability". It does make for fun when I tell Brits my learning disabled husband is doing a Ph.D. He's very special.
posted by jb at 9:35 AM on September 8, 2005

Anecdotal evidence:

I was once working with a college professor who is dyslexic. I had sketched out some plans in a spiral notebook, which, because I'm left-handed, I was using back-to-front. (Because the spiral gets in the way otherwise.)

At one point she borrowed the pen and pad to add some notes to the diagram -- and after a word or two we both realized she was writing backwards, mirror-image style, because the reversed notebook had disoriented her. She actually had to turn the page upside-down before she could write forwards again.

So, overdiagnosed, sure. But myth? I don't think so.
posted by ook at 12:40 PM on September 8, 2005

From the programs home page:
There were numerous small revelations: ranging from the discovery that dyslexic children do not reverse their letters any more than younger children reading at the same level, to the discovery that the Government has so far introduced no fewer than 650 different initiatives in primary schools.

Then there were even more dramatic discoveries: poor readers with high IQs, usually seen as dyslexic, respond in exactly the same way to help with their reading as poor readers with low IQs who are rarely labelled as dyslexic.

The biggest shock was that the 'dyslexia myth' story which sounded so controversial when I first started the research, turned out not to be controversial at all to the experts. The idea that the common understanding of dyslexia is a myth was startling when I first heard it. Yet I found it was a view shared by every academic that I talked to.
posted by Lanark at 2:09 PM on September 8, 2005

The Dyslexia Institute in the UK pretty much agreed with the conclusions of the Dispatches program and seemed to want to shift their focus from just helping those diagnosed with dyslexia to helping all children with reading difficulties.

Dyslexia affects individuals regardless of IQ, socio-economic background, sex, race, geographical location

We welcome the Channel Four documentary Dispatches, The Dyslexia Myth as another opportunity to raise awareness of dyslexia and literacy problems in the UK. We do not feel that the title is helpful. Our understanding is that the programme exposes a scale of reading problems among British children that is much greater than had been realized. We welcome the opportunity to be part of a campaign to raise awareness of this problem and to contribute to its solutions

Whatever you call it, the program showed there are real solutions available to this problem but the industry which has grown up around dyslexia may be preventing these solutions from being implemented.
posted by fullerine at 2:48 PM on September 8, 2005

Good summary of an excellent programme Fullerine. It made a very strong case for dropping the "dyslexia" label. The evidence it presented relating to the similarities between "dyslexic" children and "ordinary" chidren with reading difficulties was very convincing. It was fascinating to hear that reading is not a high level cognitive skill (demonstrated by a Downs Syndrome child who was an excellent reader) and that reading problems are not linked to IQ.

But there's an entire industry around dyslexia that will not happily vote for its own demise.
posted by bobbyelliott at 3:39 PM on September 8, 2005