Here's a question for people who either have kids or work with kids. Back when I was at school, we had maybe 1 or 2 people in a class of 30 who were diagnosed dyslexic - still I remember many kids struggling with spelling (and naturally, getting worse marks for that).
Now, from my friends who have school-age kids, I understand it's much more common these days, with about 20-30% of kids getting diagnosed with dyslexia meaning that if they misspell something in a written paper, they don't get their marks reduced etc.)
So a question here is - how real is this, or how much of it is just parents trying to get their kids an "easy mode" pass through school?
No clue how real it is, but there's certainly an incentive to fake it. At my university dyslexic students were allotted double the normal amount of time to take all examinations.
I have never encountered special rules for dyslexic people but then I'm an old coot.
There are certainly always people willing to take advantage of the system, but dyslexia itself is very real.
Quote from: Jaron on July 18, 2009, 05:06:20 AM
There are certainly always people willing to take advantage of the system, but dyslexia itself is very real.
That's not what I meant, sorry. I do not question the existence of dyslexia as a handicap, I am just asking how real is the frequency with which it is being diagnosed, i.e. how many of the people who claim to have it really have it, and how many are just lazy/dumb and can't spell properly. :P
Most things are overdiagnosed nowadays. Its easier than accepting that some people are just born crazy. :P
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2009, 04:09:40 AM
So a question here is - how real is this, or how much of it is just parents trying to get their kids an "easy mode" pass through school?
Thing is, dyslexia is a little more concrete to diagnose than, say, ADD or Asparagus Syndrome or any of the milieu of possible personality disorders that may or may not exist in a kid as an excuse to jack him up on Ritalin because Mommy and Daddy don't want to deal with him.
Dyslexia is a bit easier to recognize. Either the little shit can recognize letters and write, or he can't.
Back in elementary school, I remember a classmate I had in third grade named Mark; motherfucker wrote everything upside down. Wrote perfectly, just had to do it upside down. Now that brother was dyslexic. Can't fake that shit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2009, 07:42:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2009, 04:09:40 AM
So a question here is - how real is this, or how much of it is just parents trying to get their kids an "easy mode" pass through school?
Thing is, dyslexia is a little more concrete to diagnose than, say, ADD or Asparagus Syndrome or any of the milieu of possible personality disorders that may or may not exist in a kid as an excuse to jack him up on Ritalin because Mommy and Daddy don't want to deal with him.
Dyslexia is a bit easier to recognize. Either the little shit can recognize letters and write, or he can't.
Back in elementary school, I remember a classmate I had in third grade named Mark; motherfucker wrote everything upside down. Wrote perfectly, just had to do it upside down. Now that brother was dyslexic. Can't fake that shit.
Yeah, but then there are little shits who are all "OMG man Im teh dslyectic lol so u cnat do anything 2 me if I rite like these, lol."
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2009, 07:44:18 AMYeah, but then there are little shits who are all "OMG man Im teh dslyectic lol so u cnat do anything 2 me if I rite like these, lol."
Those get figured out pretty quickly.
There's a difference between dyslexia and laziness, just like there's a difference between Tourette's and a really bad mood. Or Narcolepsy and being a black person.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2009, 07:47:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2009, 07:44:18 AMYeah, but then there are little shits who are all "OMG man Im teh dslyectic lol so u cnat do anything 2 me if I rite like these, lol."
Those get figured out pretty quickly.
There's a difference between dyslexia and laziness, just like there's a difference between Tourette's and a really bad mood. Or Narcolepsy and being a black person.
:lol:
Or Asperger's and being an asshole.
I've moderate dyslexia. Apparently Einstein did too even (checking up though this is challenged). Its pretty common and doesn't really stop you if you're capable, its only a slight hindrance.
The dyslexic kids at school who got a lot of special treatment seemed to have a lot of other things wrong with them too, they would have been bottom of the class even without it.
Quote from: Jaron on July 18, 2009, 05:51:56 AM
Most things are overdiagnosed nowadays. Its easier than accepting that some people are just born crazy. :P
I find that I agree with my Calimexican friend here.
Nowadays, being slow and being stupid earns you an ADHD diagnose.
I am all for equality and opportunity for all, but even here in Socialist Paradise, we should at some point realise that not all children will become prime ministers.
Quote from: Jaron on July 18, 2009, 05:51:56 AM
Most things are overdiagnosed nowadays. Its easier than accepting that some people are just born crazy. :P
"Not all children are smart and clever, got that? Kids are like any other group of people: a few winners...a whole lot of losers."--G. Carlin
People just have different profiles. The sum of talents is constant.
Overdiagnosed, and used overmuch as an excuse. I've got a similar issue with numbers transposition, but I just go back and recheck everything I wrote down to make sure it matches and 99 times out of 100, I catch the mistakes.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 18, 2009, 08:30:54 AM
Overdiagnosed, and used overmuch as an excuse. I've got a similar issue with numbers transposition, but I just go back and recheck everything I wrote down to make sure it matches and 99 times out of 100, I catch the mistakes.
Yeah, me the same, with the same solution. My grand dad used to have to do exactly the same and still managed to be an accountant. I'm not sure, however, about people faking it as an excuse though - I thought in England that the reading age had to be under 9 to be diagnosed as nneding official help with duslexia - and that would be average reading age rather than normally bright 9 year old age
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2009, 08:16:59 AM
Quote from: Jaron on July 18, 2009, 05:51:56 AM
Most things are overdiagnosed nowadays. Its easier than accepting that some people are just born crazy. :P
"Not all children are smart and clever, got that? Kids are like any other group of people: a few winners...a whole lot of losers."
--G. Carlin
George knew the score. :cry:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2009, 08:16:59 AM
"Not all children are smart and clever, got that? Kids are like any other group of people: a few winners...a whole lot of losers."
--G. Carlin
:lol:
I have that routine on CD. Its great.
I haven't heard much about dyslexia used as an excuse or overdiagnosed, but unlike ADD (which I agree with you completely on) there isn't a convenient pharmacological treatment, so there's less motivation for overdiagnosis from the doctor's perspective. Parents claiming their kid has dyslexia is a different story.
As for the Asperger's thing, aside from our high profile former member I haven't heard much about this disorder being used as an excuse. In fact, from what I've found the rate of official diagnosis for Asperger's is less than that for full-blown autism.
I never thought I was dyslexic until I started working with inventory and catching my own transpositions of numbers over and over.
I don't believe in it, though that is likely because I don't understand how it can possibly exist (letters and numbers move on a page :huh: !?!?).
I will say that when I was a kid, I'd be reading music and the lines and notes really did start to shimmer and then zig zag up and down the page. It was a very real physical thing. It also made me better at music because I had to read ahead and that gave me the time to interpret the music rather than just read and play the notes.
Quote from: vonmoltke on July 19, 2009, 11:40:07 PM
I haven't heard much about dyslexia used as an excuse or overdiagnosed, but unlike ADD (which I agree with you completely on) there isn't a convenient pharmacological treatment, so there's less motivation for overdiagnosis from the doctor's perspective. Parents claiming their kid has dyslexia is a different story.
As for the Asperger's thing, aside from our high profile former member I haven't heard much about this disorder being used as an excuse. In fact, from what I've found the rate of official diagnosis for Asperger's is less than that for full-blown autism.
From what I've seen, it seems to mostly be parents and school districts looking for government leniency in poor academic performance. It's another fad disorder in that kids who get in arguments or don't pay attention get ADD/ADHD pushed on them, and kids that don't perform well in math or reading get dyslexia pushed on them.
I'm going to second what swallow says, though. I've found the "read-ahead" effect to be pretty helpful- I tend to keep sharp on arithmetic by making it a game and racing cashiers/fellow students with calculators.
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2009, 04:09:40 AM
Now, from my friends who have school-age kids, I understand it's much more common these days, with about 20-30% of kids getting diagnosed with dyslexia meaning that if they misspell something in a written paper, they don't get their marks reduced etc.)
Dyslexia is very real.
Kids get diagnosed with huge amounts of crap these days though to explain why they goof off in school. When these kids become adults they will magically no longer have dyslexia, ADD, whatever anymore even though that should be impossible :P
In college I dated a girl who had dyslexia (her emails made Tim & Berkut look like typing tutors). Frustrating as it was for her, it was probably a net benefit overall, because it pushed her to be an overachiever. Kind of the same way Patton's dyslexia helped motivate him.
Quote from: derspiess on July 20, 2009, 09:54:37 AM
In college I dated a girl who had dyslexia (her emails made Tim & Berkut look like typing tutors). Frustrating as it was for her, it was probably a net benefit overall, because it pushed her to be an overachiever. Kind of the same way Patton's dyslexia helped motivate him.
aks ofr naal.
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.
Quote from: grumbler on July 20, 2009, 10:16:29 AM
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.
*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.
Can't you just listen to their bodies?
Quote from: Palisadoes on July 20, 2009, 10:38:37 AM
*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.
Well in the future when we understand the brain better it may be possible to diagnose simply by a brain scan of some sort.
Quote from: Valmy on July 20, 2009, 10:41:09 AM
Quote from: Palisadoes on July 20, 2009, 10:38:37 AM
*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.
Well in the future when we understand the brain better it may be possible to diagnose simply by a brain scan of some sort.
Yeah, it is a possibility, though far from a certainty.
Quote from: Palisadoes on July 20, 2009, 10:38:37 AM
*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.
QuoteThis 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.
QuoteI 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."
Quote from: Palisadoes on July 20, 2009, 10:38:37 AM
*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.
Quote from: Palisadoes on July 20, 2009, 10:38:37 AM
*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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 20, 2009, 11:28:17 AM
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.
Quote from: Palisadoes on July 20, 2009, 10:38:37 AM
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
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on July 20, 2009, 11:36:03 AM
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.
:D 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.
Quote from: Palisadoes on July 20, 2009, 10:38:37 AM
*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...
Quote from: grumbler on July 20, 2009, 10:16:29 AM
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.
Quote from: Palisadoes on July 20, 2009, 10:38:37 AM
*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.