Dyslexia - how real is it?

[grumbler]

*Currently* science doesn't really back up dyslexia. The way dylexics are "diagnosed" is by assessing their ability, not by taking a piss sample, or whatever. For this reason, to believe in dylexia is more similar to believing in creationism, than it is not to believe in science.

When you say that *currently* science does not "really back up dyslexia" I cannot tell whether you are weaselling, or simply writing poorly.  Certainly, the medical community recognizes, diagnosis, and provides accomodations for dyslexia.  If you are arguing that they are doing so without "*current..* science" you need to provide some citations, because I find that difficult to believe given that, for instance, the Mayo Clinic appears to be unaware of this.

This is why I don't "believe" in dyslexia. I just can't understand how people's brains can make them perceive words jumping across a page, etc... plus there is no actual scientific proof besides testing ability (perhaps people who can't dance have a learning difficulty too?).

What you believe has as much utility is what creationists believe.  You beliefs may be real to you, but that is a wholly subjective reality.

I think a lot of illnesses are just extreme forms of things which we all have to some extent. For instance, dyslexia and poor spelling, OCD and being tidy, bipolar and having mood swings. The extreme ends of the spectrum are offficial diseases/illnesses/disabilities. I can believe in a spectrum which we are all on in some degree.

This is almost certainly true, and is what the diagnosticians are looking at.  A great deal of dyslexia diagnosis is involved with ensuring that the symptoms of what could be dyslexia are not caused by other factors.  Nonetheless, I have seen highly successful diagnoses and treatment/accommodations that have changed the lives of dyslexic students, so I happen to agree with the overwhelming majority of medical and educational professionals who consider it not only "real," but "treatable."

[swallow]

aks ofr naal.

Ask for Lana? 

[Ed Anger]

aks ofr naal.

Ask for Lana? 

Ask for anal

[DontSayBanana]

*Currently* science doesn't really back up dyslexia. The way dylexics are "diagnosed" is by assessing their ability, not by taking a piss sample, or whatever. For this reason, to believe in dylexia is more similar to believing in creationism, than it is not to believe in science.

This is why I don't "believe" in dyslexia. I just can't understand how people's brains can make them perceive words jumping across a page, etc... plus there is no actual scientific proof besides testing ability (perhaps people who can't dance have a learning difficulty too?).

Saying all of that...

I think a lot of illnesses are just extreme forms of things which we all have to some extent. For instance, dyslexia and poor spelling, OCD and being tidy, bipolar and having mood swings. The extreme ends of the spectrum are offficial diseases/illnesses/disabilities. I can believe in a spectrum which we are all on in some degree.

You've mostly described how the criteria for diagnosing within the DSM IV work, and it's actually one of the biggest criticisms against it.

The brain has got its "moving parts", just like any other functioning part of the human anatomy- you're assuming that all brains are created and function equally well.

The question is not whether or not there is room for deviation among human behaviors, but how much variation is acceptable before it needs to be corrected for a person to function independently and in society.

[Barrister]

*Currently* science doesn't really back up dyslexia. The way dylexics are "diagnosed" is by assessing their ability, not by taking a piss sample, or whatever. For this reason, to believe in dylexia is more similar to believing in creationism, than it is not to believe in science.

That's nonsense.  There are a wide range of diseases and disorders that we don't know the mechanism for, can't do a test for, but we can only assess by assessing their results or ability.

Pretty much every single mental disorder in the DSM IV can't be assessed by a pee test and can only be assessed by assessing the ability of the subject, but that doesn't make things such as schizophrenia or depression any less real.

There are disorders where the interpretation is very subjective and diagnosis is very hard to independently confirm (or is very easy to fake).   Chronic pain syndrome or fibromyalgia come to mind as examples.  But just because something is hard to independendtly diagnose, or is easy to fake, doesn't make it any less real.

[grumbler]

You've mostly described how the criteria for diagnosing within the DSM IV work, and it's actually one of the biggest criticisms against it.

The brain has got its "moving parts", just like any other functioning part of the human anatomy- you're assuming that all brains are created and function equally well.

The question is not whether or not there is room for deviation among human behaviors, but how much variation is acceptable before it needs to be corrected for a person to function independently and in society.

Same as blood pressure, "crime," taxes, eyesight, or a thousand and one other things.  Nearly all physical, psychological, or social manifestations are a matter of degree.  Not birth and death, I suppose.

[garbon]

This is why I don't "believe" in dyslexia. I just can't understand how people's brains can make them perceive words jumping across a page, etc... plus there is no actual scientific proof besides testing ability

[DontSayBanana]

Same as blood pressure, "crime," taxes, eyesight, or a thousand and one other things.  Nearly all physical, psychological, or social manifestations are a matter of degree.  Not birth and death, I suppose.

Preaching to the choir; I was aiming to point out that diagnoses shouldn't be viewed as boolean "you have it or you don't" questions.

Swallow sounds like a more severe dyslexic than me, but still mild overall. A certain former poster I'm friends with IRL is *definitely* dealing with Asperger, but is mild enough to function- and on the flip side, I have a cousin who's so severely Aspergic that he's barely able to function alongside his brother and sister. The "sliding scale" is always present and always needs to be considered.

[Josquius]

*Currently* science doesn't really back up dyslexia. The way dylexics are "diagnosed" is by assessing their ability, not by taking a piss sample, or whatever. For this reason, to believe in dylexia is more similar to believing in creationism, than it is not to believe in science.

This is why I don't "believe" in dyslexia. I just can't understand how people's brains can make them perceive words jumping across a page, etc... plus there is no actual scientific proof besides testing ability (perhaps people who can't dance have a learning difficulty too?).

Saying all of that...

I think a lot of illnesses are just extreme forms of things which we all have to some extent. For instance, dyslexia and poor spelling, OCD and being tidy, bipolar and having mood swings. The extreme ends of the spectrum are offficial diseases/illnesses/disabilities. I can believe in a spectrum which we are all on in some degree.

Are you a scientologist per chance?
I just have to ask as you do seem to really have it in for psychology...

[crazy canuck]

Knowing something about the disorder, how it is manifested, diagnosed, and compensated for, I find this, like many other languish discussions between the "armchair experts," wildly funny.

Mart, to answer your original question, dyslexia probably is not more common today, but it is diagnosed more because the science is more advanced and so more subtle forms of it are being recognized in the testing.

If the Polack school system allows students to avoid being marked off for mis-spelling just because they say "OMG man Im teh dslyectic lol so u cnat do anything 2 me if I rite like these, lol," then I would say your problem is with Polacks, not dyslexics.  I have taught maybe 100 dyslexic students through the years, and none were excused for mis-spellings (though some had accommodations that allowed them to type papers and use a spell-checker, or to use the Kerzweil machine and have tests and whatnot "read" to them using the machine).

As for those who "don't believe" in it, what can I say?  there are people who don't "believe in" all kinds of science.  Go visit your intellectual cousins in the creationist movement.

Glad you weighed in before I got to this thread.

Learning disabilities are very real.  The reason why they are becoming more prevalent is an interesting area of study.  Grumbler is certainly on the right track when he says the tools that have been developed to identify learning disabilities have become better.

Also, as a parent of one child with a learning disability, I agree with the sentiment that poor work product should not be excused.  The trick is to find a way to accomodate the disability so that the child can learn methods to overcome it.  Not simply be exused from doing the work properly.

As an aside I have a client who is profoundly dyslexic.  He could not spell properly if his life depended on it.  But in this new world of text speak he can communicate perfectly well because the text shorthand makes sense to him.

[crazy canuck]

*Currently* science doesn't really back up dyslexia. The way dylexics are "diagnosed" is by assessing their ability, not by taking a piss sample, or whatever. For this reason, to believe in dylexia is more similar to believing in creationism, than it is not to believe in science.

The psycho-educational tests which are conducted to test for dyslexia (and other learning disablities) are themselves tested scientifically to create standard ranges etc.  It is pretty easy to detect if someone is faking - part of the test is designed precisely for this and even if a person was to fool that part of the test the result would be that the person is stupid rather then disabled since the test looks for differences in testing outcome that can be explained by the disability.

You should read a bit more about the testing regimes which are used before you make sweeping statements like that.