Lazy writing on the forum?

I would almost be willing to put money down on there being a large portion of non-dyslexic dyslexics. At least, in the American schooling system we are quick to label anyone who has more trouble than a teacher can provide in the class room (with upwards of 20 other students to contend with) with ADD/ADHD/Etc.

I am very much of the opinion that we all learn in different ways. In that vein, some people certainly do have disabilities like dyslexia. On the other hand, some people who just don't learn in the traditional bookish way are very likely labeled dyslexic and handed 'special assistance.'

In my opinion, this only hurts their case. Having been through a 'special assistance' phase at one point, I can tell you it's not very helpful. Much of what I encountered was a teacher trying to read to me, and write for me. There was little emphasis on improving my ability to read and write!

It turns out, years later, that it was a confidence problem that no one cared to notice. I didn't trust my ability to read and write. I wasn't getting one-on-one help from the schooling system to improve my confidence. I was just showed the rules and thrown head-first into the problem.

 

daisy...
why don't you just turn off the auto-check feature, if it's so bothersome?

 

BUT THEN I'D TYPE LIKE THIS WHICH IS LIKE SO TOTALLY COOL.

Uh, no thanks.

Agreed.

And agreed too. Schools tend to mostly go with the textbook and/or slide slow presentations which doesn't engage and make it easy to understand for some people. If schools varied the way they taught more by having a more practical approach half the time, I think it would make a difference.

 

A proper clinical diagnosis of dyslexia (as opposed to a parent's glib excuse) is about far more than just difficulties with reading and writing. And dyslexia isn't an on-or-off thing: there are people who are mildly dyslexic, people who are severely dyslexic and all points in-between. The person who is mildly dyslexic probably could learn to spell well with some effort, but that doesn't mean they're not dyslexic and is little consolation to those who are severely dyslexic. (My son is so severely dyslexic the local school authority had to move him out of mainstream education into a specialist school, and it certainly isn't from want of trying that he can't spell.)

 

Dyslexia is really hard to diagnose, there really is no one way, and that's because there are many types. It's tough for kids to describe things because of their limited vocabulary and because they've been experiencing something weird for us, but normal for them. So, it boils down to asking via the Socratic Method.

The classic problem is the letters that reverse at random, but I learned about another interesting kind where the light page black letter contrast causes the page to become animated. I can't wear pin stripes because they appear to move and give me a headache, so it's like that. Anyway, a treatment that works for some is to place a colored sheet, like red, and read through that. It cuts the contrast and the strange illusion of movement.

 

Absolutely. The (UK) definition is (paraphrased) that the person is average intelligence or higher but with significant impairment in reading and writing, but it is rarely just reading and writing, and some skills have to be particularly good just to bring their overall intelligence back up to "average or better". That gives a whole raft of possible profiles.

That seems to be the sort my son has. Dark blue on yellow is a bit better for him than black on white, but we've never found a combination that works really well. He's also only able to hold two or three items in his short term memory, which has knock-on effects on various things such as organisational skills.

 

I'm not a big fan of IQ tests because they rely heavily on aquired knowledge and if you can't read well it's tough to aquire knowledge. Thus, scores on the popular tests are skewed toward those who can read and/or come from an intellectual household. Many people are stuck on labels and once they see a certain score on something that's it.

Years ago I was trying to figure out if this girl I was working with had dyslexia or what and it was super tough. She had the short term memory problems you mention but couldn't describe her experience to me. If I'm presented with a problem I will work to figure it out, and I couldn't figure her situation out. I even suggested she get tested for lead poisoning (common in poor parts of Philly). Anyway, there's no "test" for dyslexia and unless the person can tell you what's going on, you can't invent a strategy.

Anyway, I wish your son luck.

 

The tests for dyslexia are not just the simple IQ one based on Eysenck's ideas; as you say, they're too limited. They measure ability across a vast range of verbal and visual tasks.

 

The WISC is like that, but the Information section (aquired knowledge) affects the test score heavily. For instance, I became disgusted with the test after giving them to inner city poor kids and they couldn't tell me what "Lumber" was what news papers exist and what to do with a found wallet, and it would sink their scores. Anyway, there's a bunch of tests out there and each has pros and cons.

 

I would be forced to agree. Any test that attempts to uncover someones IQ should steer clear of morally inclined questions. Especially on children, who typically ascribe to a self-oriented set of morals until taught otherwise.

 

This thread has lost all relevance to the topic