Talk:Dyslexia/Archive 2

message: It's the other way around -- the definitions of dyslexia subtypes derive from observation of symptoms.  The definitions and subtypes are then used by the researchers as a starting point in figuring out how to do the research.  Historically, the definitions came first. The theories are being developed to explain of validate or invalidate the existing definitions. Armarshall 22:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest you look up the definition of the word "theory".  Armarshall 00:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions do not derive from theories 

message: As a person who suffers from Dyslexia I am not "dumb" or Stupid I have always got higher grades then my "non-Dylexias" couterparts in class.  In High School I asked to be tested for Dyslexia just to be told that the 11+ Key Stage 3 are set up to test for learning problems such as dylexia - more like the school needed the money on a new football kit.  As soon as I when to college I told the class co-ordinator about problems I had in High school and would it be possible to test me.  Within Days the Test was arranged and I was Tested - Yay I am Dylexia not stupid need i have to point out the Churchhill and the greatest scienist who formulaed E=mc2. So right away after the report had been given to all my teachers I had a meeting with the Learning Support Co-ordinator who applied for Text to Speech software known as textHelp Gold and IBM Voice.  later I got a reading pen not so good as they dont have the processing power of a computer.  Then when I was studing for my HND in computer i applied for help again to be told that now i will be intitled to a laptop, scanner, printer (which i already had top spec items any way) so to take what i was intitled to i asked for a Tablet PC and got it ofcourse we had to order it ourselves.  It shows the difference between State schools and Private Schools (college).Craig7006 12:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help

message: just interested to know hoiw many who have made editorial contribitions or frequent contributions to the discussion are actually dyslexic i have located the Dyslexic Wikipedians and have found two so  far Nate1481 and myself dolfrog.
there are many who try to understand what it is like to be dyslexic from books written for the most part by others trying to understand what it is like to be dyslexic from what a sample of dyslexics have told them or from some form of research. Many believe the mythical definitions pumped out by self interested support agencies who have their own political agendas or governmemts who are advised by these ill informed agencies.
so if you are dyslkexicplease register as a  Dyslexic Wikipedians so we can identify the real dyslexic here who can identify with the variuos theories and definitions or not, so that those who can only assume or guess what it is like to be dyslexic can begin to use their lack of deficit to represent the true nature of our disability, and stop promoting their favourite guess.
best wishes
dolfrog
18:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the article looking for information, not a recount of the experiences of people with dyslexia - and to be honest I didn't even get that as I gave up trying to wade through the dense, quicksand-level detail. What you're suggesting is against no original research and neutral point of view, and is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Natgoo 15:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: how many real dyslexics editing this article

message: I removed the paragraph about the DSM-IV from the "Definitions" section because the DSM-IV does NOT define "dyslexia" or use the word dyslexia. Rather, DSM IV 315.00 defines "Reading Disorder".  Given the controversy about whether dyslexia is or is not the same as a simple reading disorder, discussed in other parts of the article, I don't think it makes sense to provide a definition which does not use the word "dyslexia". Armarshall 18:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions 

message: Please do not unilaterally delete whole sections.  There is a history to this page of discussion of major changes among the editing team -- you will note the template on the top of the article "Please read the discussion on the talk page before making substantial changes." - and Rosmoran's To-Do list at the top of this page.  If you want to make a change, then post a note in the talk section so that it can be discussed first.  I do not think your creation of a non-encyclopedic article labeling all therapies you don't like as "controversial" and then moving stuff there and merely listing it  is an appropriate edit -- it undermines the Wikipedia standard of providing multiple points of view within an article.  Armarshall 11:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to use an ad hominem argument, but I know you, Abigail Marshall, have a vested interest in this article, and that you represent an unscientific view of learning disabilities, as can be seen from your book. You are also a major proponent of Davis Dyslexia Correction, an idiosyncratic, expensive commercial therapy. You are actually the webmaster of www.dyslexia.com, a website that gives an uttermost peculiar view of the topic - with no relation to the current research - and that appears for some reason as no. 1 hit on my version of Google. I wonder if your interest here really is keeping up the Wikipedia standards or gaining more visibility for your little website. --Piechjo 13:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is nothing undisclosed here - unlike many others I post under my real name and provide autobiographical information in my user profile. All you have to do is check my profile, go to the site listed there, and click "author bio".  For what it is worth, I am actually the webmaster for multiple sites, including some that could be deemed to advocated competing therapies to the Davis program -- they simply don't happen to be as prominent -- but I would say that I am a web designer and writer who specializes in web sites /topics related to education & learning disabilities.  My agenda is to encourage complete and accurate information -- I am very happy to see other points of view represented, I just don't like the idea of people arbitrarily excluding those they disagree with. Armarshall 03:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: But you are assuming there is a medical problem to be diagnosed -- while at the same time you recognize that dyslexia is a man-made problem caused by difficulties using a man-made system. If it is merely a cognitive difference: i.e., a brain that is wired in a way not particularly well-suited to using the man-made communication system -- there may be nothing to diagnose medically for many dyslexics. That doesn't preclude a medical diagnosis for some -- but that doesn't meant that dyslexia has a medical etiology for everyone. Armarshall 06:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Piechjo 

message: "multiple causes of dyslexia Visual-Spatial Learners are dyslexic as well, and this is a conflicting learning style"
Hi Arm
you wrote back in #51 New definition - introductory paragraph
about the theories of west/davis
It was the davis connection i missed.
I would descxribe this as being a Visual-Spatil learner. And my other cause of dyslexia is due to me being a Visual-Spatail Learner.
you wrote
Another example: dolfrog sees APD as being separate and apart from dyslexia, but an important cause. I respect that point of view, and I 100% agree that APD is very important to discuss, but I see it differently: I think they both APD and dyslexia stem from the same causes and are essentially different/overlapping manifestations of the same thing. That's because I personally agree with the Davis/West theory that dyslexics are right-brained, picture-thinkers who have to go through an extra mental step to process words, whether those words are read or heard. I think that there is a cause(the way the brain processes info) that is separate from the symptoms (the habits that have developed or been learned as a result of the way the brain processes info, which vary depending on individual experience.). 
This has been researched in the USa by Dr. Linda Silverman, and Australia by Dr. Lesley Sword.
have a look at the following and i think you may see the similarity.
The Power of Visual Thinking (there are two web pages here to look at)
Teaching Reading to Visual-Spatial Learners
A Visual-Spatial Approach to Spelling
and lastly
Visual Spatial Children: Learning Disabled, Learning Disadvantaged or Learning Differently
Now where do you find all of these articles by different authors, and the last of which includes a few references to West, All of these articles are to bew found on the APDUK web site (which is edited by me), in our Learning Styles section. And part of the reason for theier inclusion is that my youngest son is a visual-spatial learner, which causes him to be dyslexic, but also because as a visual spatial learner he displayed very similar initial symptoms in the education systam as his older APD brothers.
So it is all about defining all of the potnetial underlying causes of dyslexia that is the real difficulty so that you can begin to work out the best form of support.
best wishes
dolfrog 06:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The books you two have read must be very fascinating, but they are based on new age ideas and not research. If you did some serious studying on the subject, you would know (I can recommend you some real sources if you're really bothered). This article should be based on science, but there can be other types of articles with, for instance, new age or alternative views as these have shown to be very popular among laypersons. This particular article should be informative and useful for everybody. I'm sure everyone's got their own opinion about dyslexia, even though no one really knows what it's all about. That's exactly why we have to lose the personal POV and concentrate on what science, such as neuropsychology, knows about the issue. A couple of points to consider:
*Just as being short-sighted doesn't mean you're a specialist of myopia, being dyslexic doesn't mean you're a specialist of dyslexia. Instead, you have personal experience of it.
*There is a featured article on intelligent design. Please (actually) read it to find out how Wikipedia biology editors have coped with a similar problem. The ADHD page is also a lot better than this article. Please read it, too, to see what this page should rather look like (but don't destroy it...).
*Please express yourself briefly and to the point. More typing means less weight. We have to keep this page readable, too. --Piechjo 11:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple causes of dyslexia