Re: CHAT: dyslexia

On 30 March, Amanda Babcock  wrote:

>On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 06:48:32PM +0300, Dan Sulani wrote:
>
>>     In other words, the term "dyslexia", IMHO, is just a cover-term
meaning
>> "trouble with reading".
>
>If that's true, then why is it characterized by structural differences in
>the brain, and by very specific differences in the way sounds are heard?
>If I recall correctly, dyslexics could not distinguish between two sounds
>occurring very close together, where most people could.

    IME, lots of disorders are characterized by structural differences in
the brain. Problems with the way sounds are heard (auditory perception) can
also be found among people characterized as "aphasic", among others.
    The question in my mind is: just how clinically precise is the
definition of "dyslexic" which is being used. As a general term, it is
useful as a "cover-term"  to point one in the general direction of the
problem.
But I would sure hate to receive a client, about whom all I know is that
someone calls him/her "dyslexic" and without further ado, be expected to
proceed straight to treatment. By itself the term just doesn't contain
enough information.
    It's sort of like saying that "browsers" don't do a good job showing web
pages. There is no such thing as "browsers". Which kind: Explorer?
Netscape? Other? Which version: 1.0? the latest? something inbetween?
What plug-ins are being used? Which ones are not? And what versions
of those? On what operating system? On what type of computer: 80288?
the latest Pentium? Non-Intel altogether? And what other programs are
running in the background which might interfere? Etc. Just saying "browser"
doesn't give enough information.
    "Browser" as a "cover-term" does serve a purpose: to differentiate the
program from non-internet games or word processors for example.
In the same way, IMHO, the term "dyslexia"  serves the same purpose,
differentiating this particular problem, in general, from other language
problems.
     Also, I am bothered by a lot of "research" on language dysfunction.
I have seen way to many articles starting out: "I studied 3 dyslexics..."
or "I studied 2 stutterers..." and proceed from there to "profound"
generalizations! As case studies, perhaps, but not representative of
everything
included in the disorder. But even given a statistically
significant number of subjects, without stating exactly
which cognitive skills in each subject were disabled to which extent, and
without making sure that the subjects' sets of disabilities ranged
throughout
the whole possible range of sets of disabilities generally included under
the term "dyslexic" or "stutterer" etc., I find it difficult accept the
generalities
based upon infomation which is so variable. If the research stated that "we
studied
a group of "dyslexics" all of whom suffered from mild to severe loss of
skill X
and severe dysfunction of skill Y", I might derive something useful with
which to help my clients. "Research" which begins "A group of dyslexics
was studied and it was found..."  just doesn't tell me a whole lot.
    Of course, I'm coming from a clinical/need-to-know-details perspective.
I don't expect everyday use of the term to be that involved. I merely wished
to point out, in my original post, that more in-depth considerations do
exist with respect to the term "dyslexia".


Dan Sulani
--------------------------------------------------------------------
likehsna rtem zuv tikuhnuh auag inuvuz vaka'a.

A word is an awesome thing.