BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Dyslexia does not exist, says professor

 
 
lord henry strikes back
11:22 / 02.09.05
This article appeared on the Guardian web site today. I'm not quite sure how to take it. I guess I have always believed that dyslexia exists as a genuine condition, but this got me thinking. I can't spell for peanuts, and in the past I have claimed to be dyslexic (which as far as I know I am not, though I have never been tested) to explain it away. I know I'm not the only one to do this and I'm pretty sure I see people do it quite often. So does this guy have a point? Is dyslexia nothing more than a big middle class excuse for poor reading and writing? Or can someone direct me to some solid scientific evidence that backs up dyslexia as a bona fide condition?
 
 
grant
13:56 / 02.09.05
Man's a loon.

Neurological differences:

In the present study, we investigated differences between dyslexic and normal reading children in asymmetry of the planum temporale area in the upper posterior part of the temporal lobe and dichotic listening performance to consonant–vowel syllables. The current study was an extension of previous studies in our laboratory….
However, while the right planum temporale area was similar for the dyslexic and control groups, the left planum temporale was significantly (one-tailed t-test) smaller in the dyslexic group….
The relation between planum temporale and dichotic listening asymmetry showed a significant correlation for the dyslexic group only, indicating a positive relation between brain structure and function
in dyslexic children.


And treatment:

...There are many indications that inaccuracy in word reading is related to phonological deficits and recent reading intervention research has demonstrated that direct intensive training in phonemic awareness can improve decoding and word identification in poor readers. These interventions, however, have yielded only minimal gains in reading fluency....

Recent studies of both Hebrew and English native readers indicate that young and adult developmental dyslexics can read faster than their self-paced reading rate under experimental manipulation. Moreover, when reading at an accelerated rate, decoding accuracy and comprehension significantly improve compared to self-paced reading (“acceleration phenomenon").


(Italics mine.)
 
 
astrojax69
22:33 / 04.09.05
yes grant, the man is a loon.

don't you love such quotes in these type of articles as "Experts have failed to agree what it is? 'experts' can't agree... 'they' say ....

'experts' don't agree on an exact definition of, say, autism either, but no-one refutes there is a psychopathology explaining the behaviour we label 'autism'...

silly man. when will the media be more critical of phrases like these and point them out in their reportage, not just parrot an 'expert' becasue he/she has a vaguely coherent article? sheesh!

this [initial] is an excellent article to give to a primary school, or early secondary school philosophy class and have them untangle the logical conundrums in it!
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
07:48 / 05.09.05
It's also fairly offensive- a dyselxic friend of mine had heard about this guy on TV or somewhere, and, not being a follower of the latest scientific thinking (much like the majority of the population) was really worried that this guy, being an "expert", was going to be influential enough to dismantle years of understanding and help for those afflicted.

And of course hearing this come from an "expert" will no doubt have that kind of effect in the minds of many people hearing it. ("No, you're not dyslexic, you're just stupid... I heard an expert say it on telly").
 
 
All Acting Regiment
11:18 / 05.09.05
One has to wonder what the point of "refuting" dyslexia would be. It's not as if there's loads of money going into it that would be better spent elsewhere- in fact it's often said by people who work with dyslexic kids that there's not enough funds for them.
 
 
Ganesh
11:47 / 05.09.05
In the UK, it's often said by people who work with [insert any learning/developmental/psychological disorder adjective here] kids that there's not enough funds for them. That's the nature of finite resources.
 
 
lskajdhflakjsdhflkjahsdf
20:49 / 05.09.05
Is dyslexia nothing more than a big middle class excuse for poor reading and writing?

I don't think so, but the extent to which dyslexics are catered for by schools can often seem a little out of proportion.

For example, an acquaintance of mine, who experienced very mild dyslexia, was still afforded an extra forty-five minutes time in a three hour exam - exactly the same amount of extra time given to those who had serious problems.

Cases like this, I think, have led to a negative response from many towards the diagnosis of and support for dyslexics; after all, how can someone who occasionally inverts letters in a few words justifiably be given 25% more time in an exam?
 
 
Smoothly
21:10 / 05.09.05
One has to wonder what the point of "refuting" dyslexia would be. It's not as if there's loads of money going into it that would be better spent elsewhere

I suppose it might be because a particular group of people are given assistance and compensations where others are not; a matter of fairness.

I have to say, I do feel a bit sorry for stupid kids these days. Consider the students who are, say, slow to comprehend things, poor at conceptualising or articulating ideas, weak at recognising connections and intepreting relationships. I'm confident that these prople would achieve better GCSE results if given more time in exams (I dare say anyone would), but as I understand it, suffering from any of those disabilities doesn't come with a free computer and an automatic pass on spelling.
 
 
sleazenation
23:17 / 05.09.05
Well personally I'm waiting for someone to 'refute' epilepsy, another one of those conditions 'experts' don't agree on...
 
 
Loomis
09:26 / 07.09.05
Another article in the Guardian today. Pertinent bits:

At the root of this, says Elliott, is the widespread misconception that an inability to read and write and use language effectively is linked with IQ. "In fact, reading isn't something that requires a high level of intelligence," he says. "Amongst children who struggle to read, you find some with a high IQ, some in the middle and some with a low IQ."

. . .

And crucially, Elliott goes on, there's now evidence from research at York University that shows - contrary to what you might have expected - that children with a low IQ can be helped just as much with reading problems as children with a high IQ, providing it's the right reading programme and providing it's implemented in the right way. What you might have expected is that children with a low IQ wouldn't progress as quickly as children with a high IQ: but what these studies in York have found, he says, is that they do.

And what that means is that it's misguided as well as unfair for resources to be concentrated amongst just one group of poor readers rather than across the group as a whole. According to academics interviewed in the Dispatches programme, there is now an overwhelming body of evidence to prove that it's intervention as early as possible in life that pays off: in particular, a programme pioneered in Cumbria has produced extraordinarily successful results, raising the reading age of children by eight or nine months after just a 12-week intensive course - a result that is, apparently, seven or eight times better than other conventional programmes for dyslexics. The bottom line is obvious: resources should be taken away from the expensive and time-consuming process of identifying dyslexics, often when they're well into primary or even secondary school, and sunk instead into a top-notch early intervention catch-all scheme that targets all poor readers as early as possible, and deals with them efficiently at the point of diagnosis and not years down the line, and only then if their parents manage to get a statement of special needs.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
10:59 / 07.09.05
I guess the real point here is that the situation is a bit more complicated than "Dyslexia does exist" vs "It doesn't"- it's just that a lot of ignorant people use actually quite ambiguous scientific statements such as the ones reported here to build up their nasty little prejudices. I'm not saying it's dangerous or immoral for this guy to publish his findings, mind.
 
 
grant
17:20 / 07.09.05
a dyselxic friend of mine

Stoatie, it's OK, you're among friends here. And your "friend" was in the right to be offended -- specially since it seems like the whole deal was a misrepresentation.

The bottom line is obvious: resources should be taken away from the expensive and time-consuming process of identifying dyslexics, often when they're well into primary or even secondary school, and sunk instead into a top-notch early intervention catch-all scheme that targets all poor readers

See, this is substantially less loony. Actually makes a good bit of sense.
Seems like the fellow needs a press agent or something.
 
 
Smoothly
19:09 / 08.09.05
An edition of Dispatches on this has just started on Channel 4, for any interested UK Lithers.
 
 
Smoothly
20:54 / 08.09.05
That was interesting. His basic thrust is that if dyslexia means anything, it means poor reading. Traditionally, it seems, while dyslexia has generally been diagnosed when higher IQ children presented comparatively poor reading skills, they exhibit exactly the same problems as low-IQ poor readers, and can be treated in exactly the same way just as effectively. Basically, the resources go to the high-IQ set of poor readers and the low-IQ poor readers go without. It's basically like I said above: it sucks to be stupid. Decent summary here

What I found particularly interesting about the programme was the attachment parents had to the dyslexic label. The programme maker, David Mills, seems to think that this is just fear of the stigma of 'thick', but it made me wonder if there's perhaps another level to it. I kept getting the feeling that parents (and even teachers) thought that resources should be focussed on the high-IQ poor readers for basically elitist reasons, that it's just not right that the smart poor readers *of all people* should be held back by reading difficulties. And, god, maybe there's something to that. But it wasn't talked about explicitly, and I wonder if anyone else who saw it got the same sense.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
12:45 / 10.09.05
I can't remember which newspaper report I read, probably it was an issue of the Independent, which I'm sure couched things in much less absolute terms, and seemed to be suggesting that there were genuine dyslexics and kids which were just called dyslexic, it seemed to suggest the situation was much like calling kids hyperactive and giving them Ritalin or diagnosing mental illnesses and giving them other drugs, when it was found out that if you changed their diets they calmed down of their own accord. I'm sure it wasn't as absolutist as this Guardian report makes it out to be, but then I missed the Despatches so maybe I'm misremembering...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
14:12 / 10.09.05
I think there's almost certainly a problem with over-diagnosis, but that's hardly unique to dyslexia, surely?

The same thing seems to happen with allergies... I've known people who have gone on and on about being "dangerously- ooh, I'll die and everything!" allergic to stuff which I've SEEN them eating stuff that has "it" in...

...but I've also seen people having REALLY BAD, as in immediately life-threatening, reactions to allergies. The fact that one group is clearly talking shit for effect or attention, or has mistakenly interpreted two separate events (eating something and being ill) with a chain of cause-and-effect, doesn't make the problems of the second group any less real.

(Not that I was implying that that was your suggestion, Lady...)
 
 
Tim Tempest
17:08 / 10.09.05
I think that Doctor is full of parc.
 
 
Smoothly
13:43 / 11.09.05
Hahahahahahahahaha. Very good.

Why?
 
 
quixote
00:09 / 06.10.05
Dyslexia is real and it's not just poor spelling. I know a dyslexic who has trouble spelling "that" (it tends to come out "thet" and it's hard for him to see the error when proofing). However, give him a word like hippocrepiform, or acyltransferase, and he's fine. Go figure.

Studies have shown [I know, that's like "experts don't agree," but, dammit, they have shown] that dyslexics brains are wired differently, as commenters above have said, and they've also shown that for dyslexics, letters reverse themselves and variously jump around in print. Everybody's had this experience on some occasion, especially when tired or reading tax forms, but for them it's all the time.
 
 
nameinuse
09:20 / 06.10.05
Right, this is my first post - I've been lurking for a while, so hi, nice to be here, sorry for transgressing the unwritten rules I'm bound to, etc...

I commonly call myself dyslexic, though ever since I was diagnosed I've known I'm not, I'm dysgraphic. The best way to describe that is a thought experiment:

Think of the place where you live.

Do you see a picture of it? I don't, though one must be there because I can describe details of it, I just can't get access to it with my minds-eye, as it were. All of my thinking is done in words, sentances, and ideas. I imagine for a dyslexic it's the reverse.

What's different between a dyslexic (or a dysgraphic) and someone who doesn't have the facility at all is that with a dyslexic the ability is there, but the concious link is not. Many notable dyslexics are well-compensated; that is they use other bits of their brain more than normal people to make up for the fact that one interconnect isn't working as it should.

I think this is probably what gives some people an "advantage", given the disproportionate number of successful dyslexics (though the converse also seems to be true, given the amount of reading/writing problems in the prison population). If anyone can shed light on which parts of the brain might make up this compensation, if it's similar in most cases, I'd be really interested.

I'd be surprised in any professor really believed there was no such thing as dyslexia - however, I'd be the first to agree that it's an over-applied, oversimplifed label for a broad range of cognitive problems. It's probably easier to get a grant for your research with such a headline-grabbing propposition, though...
 
 
quixote
03:05 / 08.10.05
I find your point about missing, sometimes well compensated, interconnections very interesting. It explains both extremes: the successful dyslexics are the ones who've compensated so well, they're actually better. The ones who end up in prison may not have managed to compensate at all.

I also agree with the point that it's an overused label. It's pretty easy to tell when someone's just a slacker, though. Dyslexics just reverse letters. Slackers can't think.
 
 
nameinuse
16:03 / 08.10.05
I wouldn't go so far as to say compensated dyslexics are "better", but there are jobs (and they tend to be well-paid and/or prestigious jobs) where thinking in a different way from the majority of people is a definate advantage. Science, art, and entreprenourism obviously spring to mind.

In fact, thinking about my opinion of day-to-day work (I get bored quickly, I really struggle to do a cog-in-the-machine roll), it might well be that the things that make some dyslexics successful is exactly the same thing that ends up with some of them in jail.
 
 
Smoothly
23:43 / 09.10.05
Studies have shown [I know, that's like "experts don't agree," but, dammit, they have shown] that dyslexics brains are wired differently

Only insomuch as the parts of the brain associated with reading aren't as well developed. But the evidence of Prof Elliot's research is that while it is the high-IQ poor readers who generally get labelled 'dyslexic' (parhaps the reason behind a large proportion of 'dylexics' turning out to be high-achievers, nameinuse), they can be treated in exactly the same way, with exactly the same chance of success as low-IQ poor readers. In other words, it's not really meaningful (and certainly not useful) to distinguish between 'dyslexics' and poor readers, unless you just want to divide the set of poor readers into high-IQ and low and give the first group a special name.

letters reverse themselves and variously jump around in print

According to the experts consulted for the Dispatches programme mentioned above, this is a complete myth. So if you can cite some evidence to the contrary, then that would be interesting.
 
 
nameinuse
07:40 / 10.10.05
The Dispatches expert is right in the pure sense, but either doesn't know his whole subject or has an angle on the full picture.

Scotopic Sensivity Syndrome is the thing that makes letters move around the page, and lines cover other lines. It's most easily fixed with coloured filters over the page to read (I find that blue works best, but many people find purple, green, and red to be better for them - only way to find out is to try).

SSS is not actually part of dyslexia, but there are alot more dyslexics with SSS than in the general population at large, as far as I know (there aren't many studies on this at the moment - maybe that would be a better subject for a paper than "dyslexia doesn't exist").

The flaw in the "poor readers should all be taught the same" aurgument is, well, me. As a dysgraphic, I read very well (aside from minor SSS), but I share many learning problems with conventional dyslexics. Those learning problems are not inherant in the way I learn, but in the way I'm taught (this is called the Societal Model of disability). The way the brain is wired affects the entire person, and the entire way they learn, not just the way they read. Therefore putting dyslexics with other poor readers still teaches them in a way that's inadequate for their way of learning, but it teaches them slower. It would be far better to teach them in a way that suited the way they learn, at full pace, rather than saying everything really s-l-o-w-l-y.
 
 
Perfect Stranger
17:22 / 10.10.05
I've been told a lot of things about dyslexia over the years; the basic test in UK schools is whether ones written IQ is lower than your verbal IQ. This I think leads to a lot of mis-diagnosis if you were looking for a medical condition as it would obviously include intelligent lazy people. Whether you think this counts as a 'scientific basis' depends upon whether you consider IQ tests as scientific.

I've also participated in physiological experiments on dyslexics where they were attempting to show that dyslexics are especially good at some things. In this particular test we were asked to think of as many uses for a piece of cloth as possible in 60 seconds. They were hoping to show that dyslexics think of roughly 3 times as many uses in the first minute as a 'normal' person.

I've been told that dyslexics have less connections between the two lobes of the brain, instead of too many as with epileptics. This can apparently lead to dyslexics going into mild trances, staring vacantly into space.

They say Einstein’s brain had very furry dendrites, BTW he left explicit instructions that he did NOT want his brain dissected, but hey.

So what’s my point, hmm well I once knew somebody with a brain very similar to my own in some respects, she was also called a dyslexic. I didn’t really realize how different I was until I meet somebody who was actually like me, you just think everybody feels that way. I don't know if we are dyslexic, schizophrenic, sociopath, neurotic, lazy, just bad or perhaps geniuses. What is clear is that some people have very different minds to those of others. I mean we like to think in the 'Grey's Anatomy' version of medical science, the idea that the human form and function can be described with reference to a standard form. However, I think our understanding of physiology, psychology, pharmacology et cetera, will have to encompass the fact that there are in fact a variety of genotypes and phenotypes of human out there. We differ in both nature and nurture, this has implications in our mental and physical development which cannot be ignored. Furthermore these variations are not a deviation from the norm, they are the norm. There is no standard human form, I mean we range from 3" to 8" in adult height, we have between four and seven digits on each extremity, we come in several different colours. There are even people out there with 3 kidneys, horns, multiple nipples, webbed feet, vestigial gills, full body hair and the inability to perceive the colour green, although not usually all at the same time. There are even people out there with deadly allergic reactions to prawns, the bloody freaks!

So what I'm getting at is sort of in answer to some questions raised by this thread;

Does everyone diagnosed with dyslexia in education share a common pathology? No, almost certainly not.

Could some kids use an alternative way of learning literacy and numeracy? Almost certainly yes.

I hope that makes sense, all this thinking about my brain is giving me a headache.
 
  
Add Your Reply