Talk:Dyslexia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Regarding edit moving dyslexia definitions

Arm,

Excellent revision! It really helps focus the overall article.

smoran 12:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

hi the sub type section is completely wrong. it is using two words not used in thre wider internatiuonal community so if to be included there need to be a wiki entry for the so that others can understand their derivation such as Dysphonetic, and Dyseidetic. these come fom unkown sources. pleae expand to explain to the wider community. and from the contents of their narrow definitions they do not include the wider issues that can cause dyslexiasuch as ADD. And because there is no agreed international workin model regarding the task of reading then it is not possible to limit the potential causes to just these issues, neat and tidy asd it appears it does not represent the full set of complex issues that can cause dyslexia.

best wishes dolfrog 12:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dolfrog, I am sorry you are mistaken -- in the first place, I did include a source, check my footnote. Right now I'm not posting anything statement to the article other than an introductory sentence unless I have a book or journal article to cite to go along with it. The Boder system is a widely used and well-established system of categorization for dyslexia-- as far as I know it is the most widely accepted of any. It has been widely used at least since the 1980's. Check the source I cited- or try Google -- I got 970+ results from a search for "Boder dyslexia". I am sorry that you seem to disagree with the most conventional and widely-held definitions about dyslexia -- but I would like to see the wikipedia article be useful to people with questions about dyslexia. I have run a web site for dyslexia for a dozen years, and one of the most commonly asked questions I get again and again is an explanation of the dysphonetic vs. dyseidetic subtypes. Google shows 989 results for "dyseidetic dyslexia" and 575 results for "dysphonetic" dyslexia.

I understand why you feel that the theories should come before the definitions, but I happen to disagree because I am thinking in terms of usefulness of the article to people who come looking for information. It is likely that many individuals and parents of dyslexic children will be looking to understand a diagnosis they have received, and the diagnosis isn't going to be talking about theories -- it is going to begin with definitions. I think you did a great start with the theories, but I do think it was confusing and also it seems to overlap a lot with the "biological" and "physiology" sections, so I think that all needs further organization. Armarshall 13:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The theories define the researcg regarding dyslexia and all parents need to understand the basic theories which have to be first, this is not complicating issues for anyone. These theoris are all corect, and then the parents can have a better understanding of what the nature of the problems really are. The Definitions section only has definitions provided by self interested agencies of various nationalities who do not include all of the theories in their perscribed definitions, and these definitions may not even match the current diagnostic structures used in their respective countries. These organisations are not scientific researcher based they have their own internal funding based agendas which mat not be in the best interests of open dyslexia debate and information discussion. They only promote the research that agrees with their own internal agendas which is not the same thing as thew best interests of real dyslexics. So scientific research theories must come before the definitiopns created by wind bag organisations.

Hi

never heard of Boder not used in the uk never heard of it. nor Dysphonetic, and Dyseidetic, but this is just more technobabble because ceretain systems are used in the USA or UK does not mean they have international recognition or acceptance dolfrog 13:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You say all are looking for information, not all are parents many are adults trying to find out about their problerms which are best defined in the theories of dyslexia than they are in the sanitised agency definitions. these are only third hand and mostly dacades out oif date definitions based on the internal needs of those organmisations and have very little meaning to rweal dyslexics. so you still just wanmt to make it pretty for the new viewer and not present a scientifically based and well researched article. This could bring into question your independance as you may have an interst in one of these oirganisations internal agendas and less interested in providsing the research information which is what most reallky need to understand themselves and their diagnosis. there are many who prefer not to be diagnosed because of the false stigma created by the false promotioin of dyslkexia by the media and and lack of full information from the listed support organisations due to their own internal funding agendas.

dolfrog 13:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a reference for you: "The neurological basis of developmental dyslexia" http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/123/12/2373

It's an article written by a French researcher and published by Oxford Univ. Press (UK)-

"However, the distinction between surface and phonological forms of dyslexia has not replaced the old empirical terminology of dysphonetic versus dyseidetic types (Boder, 1973Go), which remains widely used."

That looks "international" to me --which is irrelevant in any case, since there is no requirement for Wikipedia that everything be "international". Armarshall

Regarding requirement that articles be "international"

Arm,

Sorry, but you would be incorrect on this one -- Wiki articles should reflect international differences if there are any. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. The relevant section is:

Anglo-American focus

Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?

Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them are online. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them. A special WikiProject has been set up to deal with this problem. This is not only a problem in the English Wikipedia. The French Language Wikipedia may reflect a French bias, the Japanese Wikipedia may reflect a Japanese bias, and so on.

smoran 17:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

14:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC) the article is dated 2000 and much newresearch has followed. and if you read further you will see reference to the terminloogy of 2000 was "speech descrimination deficit" and "visual perception impairment" which are much more comprehensible terms and more in line with theresearch of 2007 thasn the terminology of 1973 you prefer. science has moved on rapidly since 2000, so could you provide amore recent citation.

dolfrog 15:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

and if you read the paper further there are cited questions as to the basis of these suib grouping definitions. so it could be said that these sub group definitions were widely acceptedd before 2000, but prior acceptance does not mean present day acceptance as research has moved on and the sub groupings were being questioned in 1999

dolfrog 15:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dolfrog,

You claim that there is newer research that supersedes the 2000 references. Fine. But because Arm's sources are verifiable, you have the burden of proof that there is newer, contradictory research, and therefore you need to find and cite the newer sources. You have yet to show that your information is verifiable.

Even if you do show that your information is verifiable, I repeat, ALL views of a topic that are verifiable and published by a reputable source, even minority views, must be included in Wikipedia articles.

Then, if the information is supported only by a minority of researchers in the US, we label it as such. If a view was mainstream in the US but has come into question because of some new factor, such as brain research or whatever, then we say something like:

"In the US, the xxxx view was generally held by most scholars until 19xx but recently came into question when Dr. Sssss Ttttt showed using multiple controlled studies that yyyy. The results of these studies provide significant evidence that contradicts the previously mainstream view. The larger community of scholars have not yet come to consensus on this subject." Or whatever.

If there are different, verifiable views held by scholars in different countries, then we say something like:

"In the UK, blahx blahx blahx blahx. In the US, blahy blahy blahy blahy ."

I am not making these guidelines up. Read Wikipedia:About to see what Wikipedia says in its introductory information for Wiki Newbies. Here are links to the policies cited in the Newbie article:

1. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not summarizes what Wikipedia is, and what it is not.
2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia's core approach, neutral unbiased article writing.
3. Wikipedia:No original research what is, and is not, valid information.
4. Wikipedia:Verifiability what counts as a verifiable source and how a source can be verified.
5. Wikipedia:Citing sources sources should be cited, and the manner of doing so.

Please, let us agree to stop trying to censor verifiable, research-based information that we don't happen to agree with.

smoran 17:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

ok sami

then the dyslexia sub propfiles are a north american issues and not used in the UK the Boder system is not used in the UK and most of my research has been post 2000 and i have so far found a reference to it in UK based research. I think you will find that Michel Habib is from French Canada, North America best wishes dolfrog 02:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi sami if you look at the research paper fom which the theories of dyslexia were taken from "Theories of developmental dyslexia: insights from a multiple case study of dyslexic adults" Franck Ramus1,5, Stuart Rosen2, Steven C. Dakin3, Brian L. Day4, Juan M. Castellote4,6, Sarah White1 and Uta Frith1 1 Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2 Department of Phonetics and Linguistics, 3 Institute of Ophthalmology and 4 MRC Human Movement Group, Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK, 5 Laboratoire de Sciences Cognitives et Psycholinguistique (EHESS/ENS/CNRS), Paris, France and 6 Universidad de Valencia, Cheste, Spain

You will see that this is a European dyslexia project of 2002-2003 which defines and compares all of theories of researched theories of dyslexia at that time 2002 there is no mention of the Boder terminology nor reference to Boder, which seems to have disappeared from use by such an international group of dyslexic scientists when discussing all dyslexic issues in a research paper. Or could it be that the Boder system is regional to North America.

the other issue here is that dyslexia is a cultural issue duee to the variations of types of language adopted by each culture. each culturehas its own sound based language structures, and this is further complicated by different forms of visual notation of these Sound based languages. or put another way, each culture has its own structures of speech and if these cultures have developed a visual notation of speech then the form of this notation of speech will also vary between cultures and in our Western culturewe call this visual notation of speech text. And those who have problems with their cultures form of visual notation of speech are in our culture called dyslexic. Each culture has a group of individuals who have problems with their cultures adopted form of visual notation of speech, so each cultures group of dyslexics will face different problems. Not all cultures have developed a phonetic format for their visual notation of speech, such as the chinese and much of Asia so their dyslexic have more visual processing issues as their charactrers are more whole word based. So to discuss these issues properly and have an international perspective we have not only consider our own national experts and systems but those of other countries and cultures as the Wiki suggests. best wishes dolfrog 02:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC) hi Arm A Google search on a specific topic and the number of references it produces can not be shown to demonstrate proof of anything. it only shows that that item has been mentioned that many times on either a web page on various internet forums or sometimes emails. You could even put my internet name dolfrog into Google and see pages of nonsense that come back.

best wishes dolfrog 02:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding a google search not being proof of anything

Dolfrog,

I think you misunderstood what I was saying with regard to "burden of proof."

In an earlier post, you said "... the article is dated 2000 and much new research has followed...." and "science has moved on rapidly since 2000, so could you provide amore recent citation."

My reply was, "You claim that there is newer research that supersedes the 2000 references. Fine. But because Arm's sources are verifiable, you have the burden of proof that there is newer, contradictory research."

In that comment, I was suggesting that since the claim of newer research is yours, it is up to you to provide a citation of newer research, not Arm. Thus, in context of my post, the standard for "burden of proof" I suggested was not proving that there is newer research that is correct, but that there is verifiable research that is newer than 2000. I also never said anything about a google search. Not all research is necessarily available on the Internet, so it's quite possible that you (or anybody) could find newer, verifiable research elsewhere, for example, in a university library.

Hope that clarifies my post.

Best,

smoran 15:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding dyslexia in cultures with different orthographies

Dolfrog,

Even some of the pictographic writing systems have a phonological component. For example, most dialects of Chinese have at least 8 (except one dialect has only 4) different tones used to vary both vowel sounds and semantic content. To learn to speak, read and write correctly, you need to be able to segment words into sounds and blend sounds into words (sounds pretty phonological to me). Also, the writing system is a combination of pictographic and syllabic --- that is to say, most characters represent a single syllable (another phonological element), which is also about the equivalent of a morphemic unit (which takes us in the direction of semantics).

One of the errors this particular blend of phonology/orthography in the writing system is similar to the kinds of errors made with homophones in English. There is also the issue in mainland China that they begin to teach children to read using an alphabetic representation of the language, called pinyin, which they then use to assist the children in learning the characters. Interestingly, dyslexia manifests itself in Chinese speakers differently depending on whether they began to learn to read using characters or with pinyin!

I have two points here. First, I'm very aware that dyslexia has both phonological and orthographic aspects; there are also semantic aspects of dyslexia (and not just in Chinese) that we haven't gotten into yet. I'm also aware that these aspects vary depending on the language and writing system.

Second, I agree 100% that the article should ultimately cover all of these aspects, at least in Wikipedia:Summary style. One of our biggest challenges will be figuring out how to do this in a coherent manner.

What I keep objecting to is what seems like a tendency to eliminate verifiable, research-based information just because we don't happen to agree with it personally.

Best,

smoran 21:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think if you read The Magnocellular Theory of dyslexia as described in the research paper we have been using from 2003 you will see that it includes both Dysphonetic dyslexia and Dyseidetic dyslexia in the one theory. and as most of my original dyslexia research was done to lobby for APD research in the UK i did not go futher back than 2000 if i could help it.

proves my point, put the theories first before the organisational and agencies comments. Researchers are scientific. organisations and agencies are political.

best wishes dolfrog 03:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with Dolfrogs suggestions in relation to the use of terminology here. The use of (predominantly US) American - centric terms that carry a lot of baggage do not seem to be helpful at all, other than possibly perpetuating misconceptions and indirectly pushing a narrow view. Rather than using the particular terms coined by someone, it might be better to use less biased words/names. Something LIKE;

Recognized Subtypes:
"speech discrimination deficit"
xxxxxxxxxxxx
"visual perception impairment"
xxxxxxxxxxxx

With a note in the description of each mentioning related terminology (Dysphonetic, Dyseidetic, Surface, Deep, . I am not suggesting the use of "speech discrimination deficit" and "visual perception impairment", simply "Visual Dyslexia" and "Phonological dyslexia" might be better?

As to Armarshall's point of popularity of the terms... Dysphonetic gets 562 hits, and Dyseidetic 1,010 hits. These are extremely low numbers for a google search. So that can not be used as a reason for the acceptance of the terms. Might be more useful as reasons NOT to use them. At the very best, it means nothing for the use. Also "Visual Dyslexia" gets 14,700 hits and "Phonological dyslexia" 17,500.

On a side note, Google searching "dolfrog" results in = 39,400 hits, first 5 pages ALL about this particular dolfrog. He gets a lot of hits!! ;)

Edit: Wrote this long before I posted(now just read article again and saw the changes), so it might be slightly defunct, although in relation to terminology in some areas it may still be pertinent.

Orbidsku 08:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dolfrog, with all due respect, I think you are confusing the issue of scientific research into the possible causes of dyslexia, with diagnostic categories based on symptoms. The definitions and words like "dysphonetic" or "dyseidetic" all come from measuring or categorizing patterns of symptoms. These terms are used by educators and diagnosticians and are done generally as a first step toward arranging educational remediation. These terms are generally tied to the tests used to measure level of difficulty. Usage of these terms can be found in recent publications -- example:

• 2003, Australia: Milne, Nicholson,Corballis; Lexical Access and Phonological Decoding in Adult Dyslexic Subtypes, Neuropsychology Vol 17, issue 3, http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/FileGet.cfm?ID=1989b6aa-a725-44a8-bded-539b898515e8

"Within the dyslexic sample, 11 dysphonetic dyslexic and 10 dyseidetic dyslexic participants were classified on the basis of spelling patterns."

It is true that different diagnostic tests and different labels are used in different parts of the world -- which is a reason to ADD more info to the "types" section, not to eliminate what is there. In any case, I've tried to rewrite it to remove the emphasis on any one system of classification.

But again, this is different than the "theories" section -- no one goes for testing and gets diagnosed with "magnocellular deficit" because that an emerging (and somewhat controversial) theory, and the brain scan machines like MRI's used in research are generally not available or accepted for diagnostic purposes. In any case, the researchers generally need some sort of "diagnosis" first before they can do their research, because they need a way to define the group that they are doing the research with. Armarshall 22:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC) hi arm the problem you fail to recognise is that unless you can define the underlying cause of dyslexiaa then you can not begin the recommend a remedial program, and educators have been getting it wrong foir years because they do not understand the theories that define these underlying causes. and your types of dyslexia section reads asd if it is written by someome who has little understanding of the basic theories of dyslexia let alone the complex new ones you seem to be living in the 1970s 1980s 1990s concepts of dyslexia and swolowed the propaganda of the program US providers who now call themselves the International Dyslexia Association, easy to chane a name, it is still just a US organisation.

I would suggest you read the full research paper "Theories of developmental dyslexia: insights from a multiple case study of dyslexic adults" http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/126/4/841 then you may begin to understand the real world of dyslexia and stop regurgitating this nonsense It was you who said that most readers will be parents yet you still do not provide sound explanations of the phonological causes of dyslexia. please get a good grip of the topic you are trying to discuss do your scientific research and use present day research next you will be citing articles saying the earth is flat. you haver to know more than the so called government agencies if youy ar going to write this properly to see underneath their political aims, motives and agendas. So why are there 3 political definitions of Dyslexias from th USA.

best wishes

80.43.158.247 23:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with most oresent day testing is that it does not provide a clinical diagnosis of all of the possible disordrs that may cause the dyslexxic symptoms in one hit. they do not even refer yopu to the other specialists required to carry out these various diagnostic tests. like you friend Satabishara whose neurologist suggested that he may have some auditory processing issues. If that neurologist was truely professional, and not looking after his/her own finacial interests then Satabishara should have been referred to an Audiologist (the only profession legally allowed to diagnose APD in the USA) for a full APD assessment to find out which of the models of APD affected Satabishara and the severity of each type (one of these models you have recently introduced as a new theory of dylexia and I thought you had a good background knowledge on dyslexia) So unless you go through all of the full assessments for all of your underlying causes of dyslexia which are still being researched and defined how can you begin to suggest any typeof remedial program that suites your underlying cause(s) of dyslexia. When I started out researching APD in 1998 I had to read dyslexia research papers to find references to auditory components of dyslexia so that I could lobby the UKs government funded research organisation to think about running anbd fundind APD research in the UK, so I had to know my facts to pursuade them and many were still researching dyslexia. It took me 6 years of lobbying and talking to research professionals to get to the research program in place. why did I have to do this, well because the established dyslexic agencies did not want to help my sons overcome the underlying causes of dyslexia because our underlying causes did not fit in with theie definitions of dyslexia which were set by their fundraising and program recomedations and those pages of dolfrog Googling are part of the internet history of that campaign so if you want to assume the rioght of editor of this article yoiu stil have a lot to learn. I have other responsiblities running a UK non profit organisation, especially its tewlephone help line so i can not spend much more time editing this article, but i must be a true representation of modern day dyslexia and not the agenda of a political organiastion or the confusding definitiond of the past.

best wishes 80.43.158.247 23:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitions do not derive from theories

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)

no you got it wrong the science is defining the definitions of dyslexia, the old definition were based on the research of the day. or the theories of the day based on the observations of the day. so when the scientific theories change they change the definitions

sorry you have that wrong first you have observations then youu develop a theory you test the theory and if the theory is proved you have a definition.

who else could you prove your definition is correct.

or may be your way is the way things work in the USA but not the rest of the world

best wishes

80.43.158.247 23:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you look up the definition of the word "theory". Armarshall 00:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are more concerned about you book sales if the wikipedia does not agree with your books contents based on your hometown knowledgwe rather than the concerns of the dyslexics in the wider international world. a financial interest or would you have to re write yoiur book to bring it up to date where did you learn your mathamatics and science, or may be you prefer to have a product or program and then find scientific theories to justify it. i would suggest you learn to do proper indepth internationsl research before trying to edit an international information article

80.43.158.247 01:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Help

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)

Brain wired up wrong

Could editors stop making theories up about dyslexia being false true or whatever, as a suffer i found it hard to follow the bull shit the most of the non suffers who were staging that dyslexia was a fairy tale. Dyslexia and other problems such as Tourette syndrome are mainly due to the wiring of the Brain. To state any BAD or negitive option about dylexia without suffering from any of this problems are wrong and should be damned then removed from both the article and talk page such as "The Dyslexia Myth" the person Julian Elliott, a psychologist at Durham University in the UK who states that parents dont want to see their children as lazy is wrong what qualification or medicial degree or right to state that dyleixa is a Rich Parent cover up story for their stupid lazy child. As it has been documented that Albert Einstein was listed as stupid and lazy and then he made up work that everyone relays on whether they know it or not. The same can be stated about the new FAT Gene that FAT people are happy that they dont eat to much - 20 course meal - yes thats the reason its your DNA not the fat fact that you eat too much.Craig7006 12:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Craig7006 please read WP:SOAP in regard to your statments in this discussion. If you have issues with somethig in this article please state exectly what is wrong, use quotes to show what you mean, then maybe suggest something that would remedy the situation. I don't see how the editors have made up theories as to how dyslexia is "...fasle true or whatever..." in a way that has negativly impacted on the article. WP:SOAP

You also may misunderstood what Julian Elliott has said, yes he did say that some people use it how you said, but his point was not that dyslexia is a myth, but that it is real, but that a lot of people missuse the term. I agree that his comments are unhelpful as they give the wrong impression to the uneducated (in relation to dyslexia) public. But that may be due to the reporting of and contextual meaning of his comments. As they have been reported grossly out of context at times.

--Orbidsku 13:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

New navigational Template:Dyslexia

I've created a new navigational template, which I think would be a first step toward breaking this article into a series and also eliminating some of the bulk. For example, we could eliminate the list of "Related Conditions" if all items on the list are contained in the template. Obviously this is a work very much in progress, so anyone who is familiar with editing templates should feel free to make changes. (Reasonable changes to the color scheme are fine with me, too). Armarshall 15:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You can not eliminate the related conditions as many are the underlying causes of dyslexia. you are very well intentioned, but intentions are no substitute for knowledge. you really must start to do your researchon dyslexia so that you have an realistic understandiung of what dyslexia is at this point in time you are not qualified enough to carry on editing this article there are too many gaps in your knowledge. I just wish you would take the time to do prper research from an international perspective which isalso the wiki perspective and stop ramming US only theories down our throats.

80.43.130.147 15:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:80.43.130.147,

There are statements in some of your recent posts that sound very much like personal insults. I'm hoping that this was not your intent, in which case you may want to apologize to Arm for statements you have made that were unintentionally insulting.

Rosmoran 17:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If Arm would stop insulting my intelligence and the intelligence of researchers outside of the USA then may be i would stop reacting to her haste and lack of understanding of the international research community. she seems to have appointed herself as editor in chief of this article as until she can stop acting like that and start discussing the real isdsues at some length and over a reasonable time period then she has set her self up for such comment. I am only seeking good open discussion from many contributors regarding the many coimplex issues that are involved whewn discussing dyslexia , and to include thos like me and others who are dyslexic you need to do this ovwer a period of time. currently this whole procedurer has been rushed and ill considered and not enough time has been taken for all contributors to follow up on wide range of Internationsl research papers on dyslexia. If you want this to be the USA Dyslexia Article. and make it yoou own parochial version then proceed asyou have been, but to be a wiki Dyslexia article you have to have a full understanding of all the international research andf issues. unfortunately Arm seems to be choosing to ignore international research unless it supports her own pet theories of dyslexia,(which she has probably included in her book on dyslexia see her profile, I have not read the book)So far she has shown a complete lack of understanding of the theoris of dyslexia that have been prominent in Europe and does not appear to read research papers in full but takes to using useful phrases out of context from the main discussion of the paper, especially to support hert own theories.

I had to research UK research papers to enable me to lobby UK research professionals regarding APD, and it took 2 years or more to work through. So that I could talk toi the researchers about APD on level terms. Becuase of my own specific interests in ALL of the symptoms of APD, I have to try to understand the auditory causes of dyslexia which are many of the PHONOLOGICAL issues of dyslexia, there are many visual, attention and other issues thast cuase dyslexia that Iam aware of but not sufficiently expert in, So I rely on others who have these issues to advocate their range of problems and research papers etc. But from my limited knowledge of these issues i can see when some one is trying to bullshit their views on to the detriment of everyone else. Becasuse of my brokrn right arm typing is a frustrating task especially on Wiki with its peculiar systems, I loose so masny contributions into cyberspace, and thepace being set by Arm just magnifies that frustration which does not allow for considered discussion of very complex issues.

best wishes

17:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dolfrog,

From your response "If Arm would, .... then .....", am I to understand that you are deliberately insulting people on this talk page?

Rosmoran 21:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

how many real dyslexics editing this article

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)

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)

Definitions

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)

Too. Much. Information.

This article gives me sensory overload - and not in a good way. There is way too much detail here - an encyclopaedia article should summarise, not give every single detail available, ever, anywhere, on a topic. I think the history section could be cut to a couple of paragraphs, there is no need to list multiple definitions that aren't significantly different to each other, and the scientific research section can go completely - signposting external links would be more appropriate than the level of detail currently provided, and the language in that section is difficult and murky. I also think the characteristics section could be summarised in one or two paragraphs.

Although I'm sure there is plenty of great information here there is just way too much of it. A good article should summarise the most important points and provide links to further information - this one just overwhelms the reader. My first instinct upon reading it is to start slashing - cut out everything between 'overview' and 'variations', add a definition to the overview then add short, succinct paragraphs about the history and characteristics - but as the banner notice requests I've brought this to the talk page. I think the Wikiproject mentioned above is a good idea, but for now the article's main problem is more basic - there is too much of it!! Cutting the article in half should be the first point on the to-do list. Natgoo 14:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Natgoo,

I doubt that anyone who's been working on this article recently would disagree. In fact, if you take a look at posts on and around June 10 from Arm and myself, you'll see that there is a plan for breaking the article up. Based on group consensus, I went off to try to set up a child WikiProject, but we still don't have enough interested editors to qualify. As a result, I proposed using the low-overhead "Task List" approach --- there is an example at the top of this Talk page. I asked for feedback, but have received no responses.

I'm not sure what happened or why people disappeared. There was some acrimony on the Talk page a few weeks ago, and people may just need a break from the page. I haven't followed up with anyone for this reason. They've probably had enough time at this point! I'll check in with a few folks on their personal pages.

If you would, take a look at the proposed organizational breakups above, and also at the task list. Would love your feedback on the plan and any suggestions you might have.

Best,

Rosmoran 09:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There are too many controversial theories included. It's good to have an overview, but it should be stated more clearly what's based on research and what's not... or whether a hypothesis has already been undermined. I've been editing the article on Davis Dyslexia Correction and I can't see why Davis's ideas are presented here just as if they were based on science. Just to name one example. The section about tinted lenses hardly belongs here either. The article does give a good idea about the world of chaos and mythology around dyslexia research, but if you look more closely at the research, there are hypotheses supported by it, possible alternative hypotheses, and unscientific hypotheses. These should, at least be given their own headlines (controversial theories etc.). --Piechjo 11:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Piechjo,

I couldn't agree with you more. I was appalled that the Davis information was included in the page at all, and even more so when I saw that neurolinguistic programming was included in the regular body of the article. After that, the Irlen information seemed mainstream by comparison.

I hope that you will continue to monitor the article and weigh in with your opinions, or better yet, actively contribute to the development of the content. There has been a great deal of acrimony on the Talk page, largely due to the biased agendas championed by 1 or 2 people. There are a couple editors who are very knowledgable about dyslexia (the facts and the research, not the snake oil) participating, but it would be very helpful to have other knowledgable editors chime in.

Stay tuned, or jump right in!

Best

Rosmoran 23:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation :) I will first revise the end of the history section on the basis of David W. Collins & Byron P. Rourke: Learning-disabled Brains: A Review of the Literature (published in Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 2003, Vol. 25, No. 7, pp. 1011–1034) and I will remove any information that doesn't belong there. Later, I will establish a new category on Controversial theories and treatments for learning disabilities where I can collect a list of LD pseudoscience from Sunflower therapy to many of the treatments now mentioned in this article. I will use material from IDA as my primary source for this. I hope to finish these this week, but we'll see how it goes. --Piechjo 15:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi All

I was part of the earlier efort to get things changed. I had to leave becuase i broke my arm, which presented some movement restrictions, and decreases my ability to cope with my APD problems, which causes me both stress and a lack of sleep, and this frustration was begining to show in some of my comments about some of the changes being made. I am still having some stress related problems due to this injury so this can only be a one off reply.

The big problem you have already identified, in that there is no internationally agreed definition of dyslexia. So we have to please each societies definition of dyslexia which appears for the USA in the history, and the sub types of dyslexia, for the UK and Europe the Scientific Theories of developmental dyslexia, which explain the various University based Scientific theories of what dyslexia is, and Australia the Davis Theories and the work of Mears Irlen. So to be an international encyclopdeia you need to have an understanding of all of these issues, if not more because we have not even touched on the different sets of issues faced by Chinese and Asian nor Arabic dyslexics. What you are asking for is a simple answer to a very complex and culturally differing set of issues. A simple definition of dyslexia could be based on a post from thread on a UK adult Dyslexia Forum by an Australian researcher which i will paste below. ________________________________________________

The human Brain is extremely complex and the Brain has a wide range of different ways of processing information. The problem arises, when Cultures define a particular model for defining and recording language visually. Where any particular model that is developed; will be biased towards one or more of those same particular ways of processing information. So that to be born within a culture that uses a model that is not compatible with ones model of processing, inevitably creates difficulties. Yet the same person born within a culture with a compatible model, the person would have no difficulties. (The Chinese script doesn't use phonemes for example.) So that what Dyslexia really defines, is that a persons style of processing information, is not fully compatible with the style adopted by their culture? So that essentially Dyslexia highlights the fact that different ways of processing information is not recognised by that culture. Would curing Dyslexia, really mean eliminating different ways of thinking and processing information? The disability is with the cultural models of language, not with the people who are forced to use them. It is the Cultures that fail to recognise differences

http://www.beesthewrongwayround.com/dyslexia_forums/phpBB2/ (this forum has been experiencing some technical difficulties just recently but the main web site is at http://www.beesthewrongwayround.com ___________________________________________________________

The real problem is defining the underlying causes of dyslexia so may be a further wiki page is required for the developement of the Scientific Theories of dyslexia. Another reason for the inclusion of these scientific theories is that they they go beyond the political defintions of dyslexia that appear in the General Definitions section which are about what governments and other organisations will accept as being dyslexia to best suite their own internal agendas. Most of which have a financial overtones.

What is needed is for the international Scientific community of Dyslexic researchers to come to gethewr to create an internationally acceptasble definition of dyslexia as happened with Auditory Processing Disorder 2000 - 2005, and therefore create a more unified appraoch to the problems of dyslexia. Unfortunately there are too many who have a vested interest in the status quo, so it will take a minor revolution to sort things out, and it could start here.

My interest in all of this, I am diagnosed as being dyslexic, and I am also daignosed as having Auditory Processing Disorder (APD). APD is the main underlying cause of my dyslexia, I am also a Visual-Spatial Learner, which is my other underlying cause of dyslexia. I have three sons all of whom are dyslexic but each has a different set of underlying causes of their dyslexic symptoms, and each requires a different type of support to work around their dyslexic symptoms and their underlying problems. So I am looking for dyslexia to be defined as as set of symptoms that once identified should then lead on to further more indepth investigation into the real underlying problerms which may have more serious implications that just the dyslexic symptoms. So I see a diagnosis of dyslexia as a beacon to indicate the posibility that one or more underlying issues require further investigation.

best wishes

dolfrog

Hi all

further to the above io thought i could offer a few radical editing suggestions.

1)Keep the over view

2) new article for the History of Dyslexia (which is very important contextually) could be "The Developemt of the Dyslexia Concept" 3)first part of dyslexia defintions to stay, but the Genaral defintions to go as most ore from orgnisations with a specific vested interest and i include the one from the UK as a prime example. (may ber worth having a seperate article to deomostrate the various international defintions of dyslexia, in an attempt to get these people to help generate a unified international definition of dyslexia)

3)Sub types of dyslexia should be deleted and shouyld be replaced by a description of the various current Scientific Theories of dyslexia, which realte the real underlying causes of the dyslexic symptoms.

4) Sientific Research to become a seperate article possibly "International Dyslexia Research" sub sections "nuerological" "genetic" "Physiology" "cultural (language orthography)"

5)Characteristics first part should remain as is fairly general for most of the underlying causes of dyslexia The Speech Hearing and Listening sub section should should be summarised as an early sign of dyslexia as early speech development som,etimes associated witrh APD and other hearing and motor issues can predict later dyslexic symptoms, and there should be links to APD, other hearing related articles and motor issues such as dyspraxia.

6)the reading and spelling sub section is very confusing and needs some clarification especially inrelation to the various underlying causes that may create these problems examples needed.

7) wtirng and motor skills just needs some more clarification.

8) the mathamatic sub section should only include " they might have difficulty with word problems (i.e., math problems that rely on written text rather than numbers or formulas)." the reest should bve deleted as it is more to do with the underlying causes of dyslexia which can be share as underlying causes of dyscalculia.

9)variations and related conditions sub section should become just realted conditions or potential underlying causes, may have to re word the introduction paragraph.

10)Remedial Programs the first paragraph should remain and then just list to links ofr either external or wiki links for each program, there are so many programs none of which work for all dyslexics and some that only work for very small groups of dyslexics. So just adda public disclaimer to statew that no program is specifically recommended, and that independent professional advice should be sought prior to purchasing any of these expensive programs.

11)Assistive lenses should be added to the Scoptic sensitivity/ Asfedia pages as part of those related articles.

12) Facts and statistics sectionm provides some of the best defintions of dyslexia on the whole web page, so delete the first para about USA stats and then re work ther content here in the first defintion section

13)Legal and educational support issues requires simplification of the Phelps case which is key for UK law,the UK disability Discrimination act requires all schools to have a Disability Access policy inplace by 2008 which will underl a continual 3 year review, and dyslexia is mentioned to describe possible reasons of disability. there is a link to a governement web site that clarifies this but this could change with the new Governement administrations re structuring of the governement department responsible for eeducation in the UK. Support organisations should be listed in externalinks possibly with country sub divisions or qualifications.

14) Controversy the topic in this section should be included in the Scientific Research section. this is about UK dyslexia scxientitsts trying to get the UK dyslexia establishment out of their 1970s / 1980s thinking regarding dyslexia and to look at dyslexia from the research of this centuary. Some of the coments may be a bit extreme but they are coments not resarch papers. Basically they are saying that dyslexia is a reading disability, and the real medical issues are the underlying causes which require further investigation. What they are really saying is that there is no one thing that can constitute dyslexia, there are too many variables, and that all of the scientific theories have some truth and only a theory that includes all of the others can really provide a real answer. But no one dyslexic will have all of the problerms included so you have find out which parts of these theories best suite your dyslexic symptoms.

15) Also see should be as is

16)references will vary according to the new content.

17)External links Historical and Research Papers to their respective new articles mentioned above.

Regional associations and organizations to include support agencies.

Remedial program providers to include a similar or diffeent disclaimer that this is not a recomenmdation of any of these programs but just to demonstrate that these programs do exist.

just a few ideas

best wishes

dolfrog

The Real Question is

Do you want the wiki article to be Dyslexia in the USA or do you want the article to an international dyslexia article. It has to be one or the other, but they are not one and the same thing. The USA is just one Country, and to assume that what is right for the USA is right for everyone else is wrong. So they choice is yours Do you want an internatioanlly acceptable Dyslexia wiki article or a USA dyslexia article, based around yopur own USA definitions and opinions. From waht you and others have said ius that you want a USA version in which case the article needs to called "Dyslexia in the USA" so that others of the international community understand waht your contribution is about.

Most Countries use an international system of peer reviewed researsh to base their science on. Peer review means trhat sceienific research papers are reviewed by scientific peers ans more recently international scientific peers Prior to the final publication of these scientific research papers, so there is discussion and editing dome before publication.

Some of the editors of the dyslexia article seem not to personally like some of the Internationally peer reviewed science I have contributed because it does not fit in with their popular beliefs regarding dyslexia. Well Science is not about popular beleifs of the wishes of program providers, or education systems, or authors, it is about the search for real understanding the nature of our world however uncomfortable that may be.

best wishes

dolfrog 17:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sami

I have left you a rely to your recent reply to me regarding this topic, nad here ia a link for others to follow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Dyslexia#The_Real_Question_Is

best wishes

dolfrog 16:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dolfrog,

I left you a message on your personal Talk page, but perhaps you missed it. Here's what it said:

"I'm not trying to create a USA only template. Quite the contrary. What would need to be included in the template to cover the areas you think have been left out?"

What I keep hearing from you is an Either/Or --- either the article is USA-centric OR the article is international. The reality is, the article has to reflect at least the major ideas, theories, therapies, etc, of English speaking countries, and not just the areas in which most of the researchers in the different countries agree with each other.

This means that, when there is something that is generally accepted in the US but not in the UK, we must craft text that expresses what is accepted and what is controversial in which countries. There are many areas where the majority of US researchers have established consensus -- converging evidence from longitudinal studies, duplicated in multiple locations by different researchers, research findings peer reviewed and published in well-respected journals. It isn't reasonable to exclude that information if for whatever reason it hasn't been peer-reviewed and published in the UK (or Australia, New Zealand, etc). The converse is also true.

The thing is, I don't know what is considered conventional (research-based) wisdom in the UK. Likewise, I presume that you may not know what is considered conventional (research-based) wisdom in the US. When I insert text that reflects a USA-specific perspective, I have to depend on people like you to point out the specific section of text that is problematic. Then we, as collaborators, work together to address the areas of difference. The converse also applies.

So, Frogman :-), I invite you to point out which specific items in the current article are USA-specific -- don't give me a tirade or a dissertation. Just a brief list of the areas where there are differences that need to be addressed. Then, let's figure out how to integrate both the UK- and USA- specific info so that they are both there and both given due weight.

Best,

Rosmoran 00:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And here is a copy of my reply:

Hi Sami

From what I understand of the position in the USA is that there is no unified government recognised research regarding dyslexia(I could be wrong) , which is why in 2006 your National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded the Florida State University' Multidisciplinary Learning Disabilities Center a $6 million 5 year dyslexia research program. Because there is no unified approach to dyslexia in the USA. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-07/fsu-ntt071106.php

So when I contributed the European Research peer reviewed research paper of 2003 which outlined the current existing Theories of Dyslexia, I was surprised by your reaction and the rweaction of others from the US. All that talk of Hypothesis etc. I have folders of peere reviewed resaefh papers from thew UK countries in Europe, but not much from the USA. So please could you provide some US Peer reveiwed scientific research papers so that we can havwe a sensible discusion. The first thing we need to do it to determine what we mean by dyslexia so that we have an agreed defintion of waht we are talking about. From my position the only thing we can be talking about is having problems with using text, so problems with reading, reading writing and spelling. All the stuff regarding memory and oranisational issues are due to coping with underlying cause of dyslexia and are shared symptoms fro some dyslexics. So we have to define dyslexia on the Peer Reviewed Scientific research from the perspective of dyslexics and not from the perpsective of remedial program providors or self interested diagnostic professionals or the internal agendas of some supprt agencies.

Dyslexia is not just an English speaking culture problem so to get a full understanding of the all of the issues we need to include the problems faced by dyslexics who have other cultural backgrounds, which should be very important to you in the USA as you have a a great diversity in your multi cultural mix. Reading has to be learnt, it is not a natural human skill, some cultures have have different time exposure to using a visual notation of speech, and in the cultures that have had developed a visual notation of speech, there have even been very diverse variations of the notion developed; this will mean that any genetic evolution development to using any visual notatiuon of speech will also be an unknown varyalbe. So first we need to talk about the basics before rushing in and writing articles about anything regarding dyslexia. We need to seperate the science from what various lobby groups want you to hear, and beleive, and the biggest lobby groups are the remedial program providers from Orton Gillingham, FastForword, DDAT(Dore), Lindamoode Bell, etc and their various supports which includes some of the so called national Dyslexic Associations. Another Group to be wary of are the diagnostic professionals who baisccaly after repeat referals to maintain their incomes, which happens in many ways everywhere. What is required is a set of scientific defintions for all of the various underlying causes of the dyslexic symptoms, so that all who have a diagnosis of dyslexia can then investigate fully all of their underlying problems which require assessments and dsiagnosis from the relevent specialist diagnostic profession. With the underlying causes of an individuals dyslexia indentified it will then become possible to identify which if any of the multitude of remedial programs may offer the correct type of support for any specific set of underlying causes. So the Program makers and providers would have to stipulate for which underlying causes of dyslexia that their programa could provide some remedial support, and also for which underlying cause of dyslexia their programs would not provide any benefit, or could caused harm. Nearly all of the programs listed so far help some dyslexics the problesm is defining which dyslexic that they help, and prevenmting the program providers from claiming that their program helkps all dyslexics, which noe of them can claim due to the diversity of the underlying causes of dyslexia.

So if you want to do this properly then each part of the new set up at wiki needs to be discussed by the editors and not have editors just go off and do their own thing. So the task force idea is a good one, but it will require a team effort, and open discussions especailly allowing for the members of this task force have differing sets of underlying causes of their own dyslexia.

In answer to your assertian that I only make critisms i havce made some constructive comments on the various new wiki pages which you or others fail to reply to so it works both ways.

best wishes

dolfrog 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi sami

you have a very confusing statement here "The reality is, the article has to reflect at least the major ideas, theories, therapies, etc, of English speaking countries, and not just the areas in which all the countries agree"

Your reality is so superficial, the article can only reflect waht we can agree on, anything else is purely waht is accepted in one country and not another. So you apear to be saying even in your own posts that you prefer a US based article because that is what you and others in the US understsnd, which is not waht WIKI is about. The international apprach is to only publish what all can agree on after due debate. So what arte you trying to say. That the USA position is tyhe international position which would be very arrogant, or that you do not have the time nor inclination to properly research dyslexia on an international basis which is the WIKI requirement. you must stop contradicting yourself in the same sentance.

best wishes

dolfrog 16:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Dolfrog.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "Your reality is so superficial ...." I did not say that "the article can only reflect what we can agree on." I most definitely did not say that the USA perspective is the international perspective.

I will try to restate more clearly:

• A worldwide perspective does not mean that we are obligated to exclude any information where researchers in different countries disagree.

• Peer-reviewed and reliable does not requre that peers from 10 different countries, or even 2 different countries, have reviewed and signed off on research findings before publication. Peer reviewed and reliable inside an individual country is sufficient for inclusion in a Wikipedia article and fair coverage, provided that where conflicts arise each is given due weight.

• Where reliable information from one country conflicts with reliable information from another country, both should be included and the conflicts pointed out clearly.

• The relevant Wikipedia standard is from: WP:NPOV

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should each be presented fairly."

I would like to work with you to address your issues so that the article presents these conflicting perspectives fairly. Are you interested in trying to do that?

Best,

Rosmoran 17:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in that.

The main difference of research in thew USA and elsewhere is that in the USA you tend to define dyslexia from the Phenome level, and eclude the visual processing issues that can also cause dyslexia. For reasons that some could argue is becvause certain remedial programs in the USA like Orton Gillingham Lindammod bell and others have a vested interest in there only being Phenome level of dyslexia becausde their products do not cater for other underlying causes of dyslexia, and that thewe companies amin aim is to have their roduct as the only type of product as a remadial program for dyslexics. This would exclude the valuable work done for dyslexics by Helen Ilen and others regarding dyslexia. Dyslexia is about having problems with the visual notation of speech, so there has to be a visual element dyslexia, to exclude any visual cause of dyslexia is pure nonsense, or science done to support marketing, like that done on behalf of the tabacco industry to demonstrate that cigarettes did not cause cancer or dammage your health. So the denial of visual causes of dyslexia is peculiar to the USA for what ever commercial reasons but this needs to reflected in the WIKI article.

best wishes

dolfrog

Hi, Dolfrog.

Good. I'm sure we can incorporate the reliable research from however many languages we have information about.

You are right that there are a number of organizations in the US that have focused exclusively on the phonological processing issue. However, there have been a few researchers all along who continued to investigate the visual issues, and in the last few years there has been a great deal more research in this area. There's an increasing body of data in a number of areas related to vision: a few examples are visual processing effiencency; how the magnocellular function (a key component of visual processing) can impede the reading process; the relationship of the magnocellular pathway with visual attention; deficits in the size string of letteres/words the eyes can process; relationship between the parvocellular and magnocellular processing as related to reading difficulty; various potential issues in how the visual cortex processes information, both alone and in combination with other brain processing; how visual memory affects word recognition; etc etc.

There are other issues that are getting more attention, for example, in addition to deficits in rapid naming, there are issues beginning to be recognized in overall timing, both auditory and visual, that affects fluency, and also begins to offer a possible explanation of overall processing speed deficits that often occur in dyslexics, as well as the coordination issues that are also often seen.

As for the various popular intervention methods in the US, there are certainly programs that take a self-serving approach in their interventions. I have to protest about classifying O-G and O-G based programs in with those, because the hallmark characteristic of O-G programs is simultaneous, multisensory instruction, including carefully coordinated instruction alternating the auditory, visual and kinesthetic instructional approaches as primary with the other senses as secondary, in which the secondary senses reinforce the sense that is being focused on at the time.

Anyway, my point is merely that there is a lot more research going on in the US regarding vision and dyslexia than you seem to be aware of. So, we may have more in common than you think.

Let's talk more.

Best,

Rosmoran 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. There has been lot of research in USA on Dyslexia that has nothing to do with phonological issues. I agree that the organizations need to focus on the visual processing issues of Dyslexics and not just the phonological,auditory processing issues of Dyslexics. However, it seems that most common people think of Dyslexia as only visual processing issues including especially visual reversals. Not all Dyslexics have those issues. Most laymen don't know about auditory,phonological Dyslexics. There are visual dylexics who think that all dyslexics have visual processing issues. There are auditory,phonological dyslexics who think that all dyslexics have their issues. I knew a condescending,patronizing dyslexic who referred to me as mentally retarded for having both speech and reading problems. He didn't even believe that Dyslexia can be comorbid with other issues. He had purist views. There were visual dyslexics who talked down to me and told me that dyslexia is only visual stuff. Auditory reversals and speech reversals aren't recognized like visual and writing reversals are, but they do exist. I was found to have speech reversals and auditory reversals when I was 4 years after getting my speech and hearing tested. I got early intervention special education therapies that corrected those issues that those issues haven't existed. I was mainstreamed from a special education to regular classroom 4 years before they predicted. Obviously, the special education therapies worked for me. My auditory memory issues/ input lags and cluttering that I have are like residue from the issues that I had in childhood. Dr. Levinson's 3D Auditory Scanner testing confirmed that I had abnormal auditory processing issues which the neurological and neuropsychological testing also confirmed. I also had visual processing issues that were confirmed by abnormal electronystagmography results from testing with Dr. Levinson,and those were confirmed by the neurologists. I definitely have a history of coordination issues like many Dyslexics do. Dr. Levinson diagnosed me as having cerebellar vestibular dysfunction,and the Veteran Affairs government neurologists confirmed that I have abnormal cerebellar system. They confirmed my Dyslexia and Dyspraxia. Its possible that my Dyslexia is caused by cerebellar vestibular dysfunction. I also feel that my highly imaginative,visualizing thought processes are a factor too. I am also concerned that if Dyslexics don't fit the views of specialists who have certain views of Dyslexia, they could get misdiagnosed as AD/HD and other psychiatric disorders and be put on medication. I am well aware that a lot of people with auditory processing disorders are mistaken for having AD/HD. I also believe that a lot of people with visual processing issues can be mistaken for AD/HD. When I had LD/ADHD assessment, I was tested with a computerized continuous performance test called the TOVA which tests for AD/HD. I had monitor a rapidly blinking dot all over the screen. It made me dizzy that I felt like the ground was moving - vertigo. I closed my eyes,turned my head away,and put my head down. My eyes couldn't keep up with the screen because of the coordination and sensory integration issues. That all resulted in me having scores that suggesting attentional disorder. I don't believe that TOVA is a good test to test ADHD. I feel that people with sensory integration issues and poor eye coordination can have problems with that test and end up misdiagnosed ADHD. I do recognize that I have inattentive type ADHD along with my Dyslexia and Dyspraxia.

I don't believe that Dyslexia is just phonological,auditory processing issues and visual processing issues. I believe that it can be tactile processing issues too. There are blind people who have problems reading braille which include reversals and left/right confusion. They could be considered Braille Dyslexics and tactile Dyslexics. Therefore,I don't believe that Dyslexia is just problems with visual notation of speech. The concept of Dyslexia is more complexed than that. I also believe that blind people can have auditory dyslexic issues and deaf people can have visual dyslexic issues. People can have multiple sensory impairments. Helen Keller was both blind and deaf. I can't see why a sensory impaired person can't have processing issues that aren't related to sensory issues that they don't have. Deaf people and blind people can have problems with memory which can affect their ability to learn as well as left/right confusion. With many Dyslexics and Dyspraxics having left/right confusion, I wonder if corpus callosum dysfunction might be involved. After all, corpus callosum is part of the brain that enables the right hemisphere and left hemisphere to communicate with each other.

I agree with the O G and O G-based programs are not selfserving programs because they are multisensory teaching methods.

Here is stuff on braille dyslexics. I found it very eye opening. It suggests that Dyslexic issues can be tactile. Interestingly, Dr. Levinson devised not only 3D Optokinetic Scanner to test visual processing issues and 3D auditory scanner to test auditory processing issues,but he also devised a 3D Tactile scanner to test tactile processing issues. I think that the 3D Tactile Scanner could be used to help assess braille dyslexics.

http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=braille+dyslexics&fr=yfp-t-427&u=www.icevi-europe.org/cracow2000/proceedings/chapter04/04-11.doc&w=braille+dyslexics+dyslexic&d=OF6-8OrnO0dk&icp=1&.intl=us Satabishara 05:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sami

Thank you for the detailed clarification above. In the UK and probably in the USa as well thee are agencies advertising online dyslexic diagnosis, , we have remedial program providers providing dyslexia daignosis, via the educations system we have Educational psychologists able to diagnose dyslexia (this is not a good as it may firest sound there are politicla issues involved), and we have Dyslexia action whichj is an off shute of the main UK University research program to provide independent assessments. Much of the diagnosis is not a detailed as it could be, again for political and financial reasons, and many dyslexics only find out about the true nature of all of their problems when they are adults, and out of the educationbs system, again political. I will try to explain the political issues later. The educational input regarding dyslexia in the UK has skewed how dyslexia and the realted disabilities are percieved, and this has been made worse lack of understanding of the causes of reading problems in general. First, there is no agreed working model to define the task of reading, and definbe the skills required to perform the task of reading. And there is no understanding of how these slills interact when perfroming the task of reading(there are models but not scientifically agreed working models). When i first heard this last year i could not believe it, but i came out suring a discussion on a Specialist Needs Teachers forum I have been on for some years now. So these professionals are using best guesses about how we learn to read, and the skills we reequire to perform the trask of reading. Unfortunately when we humans first developed reading skills we did not write a manual, so this is having to be done retrospectively. And this is a problems becaue many leaqrnb to read at a young age and are not able to describe how thye have aquired these skills in great detail.

So this lack of understanding of how to perform the task of reading causes more problems when some who are dyslexic have problems aquiring these skills, which are not prperly defined etc. So more best guessing goes on in schools basd on what has demosntrated to work for many in the past, orprovide some improvement. This is all very hit and miss and not rigorously scientific. Especially as we can not accurately define the skills we are trying to acquire. So this causes a problem in defining dyslexia, and why there as so amny different remedial program that can help small groups of dyslexics. The big problem arises when for cost purposes educationalists and the public ingeneral looks for one defintion of dyslexia, a single remedial program, and on the other side marketing men who like to claim that their product is the cure for dyslexia. Oh that it were that simple. Dyslexia is only the top set of symptoms, and the complex sets of of individial underlying causes and then the multiple comorbidity packages that can cause the dyslexic symptoms mean that there are multiple options that may help anyone dyslexic. So we need to have to widest definitions to included in the various Scientific theories of dyslexia, and syndromes that include dyslexia as a symptom. Basically most are sensory and / or motor information processing deficits or disorders, other issues include conflicting leawrnign styles, as text is an auditory based communication system so it is the preference of Auditory learners, and not so much in varying degree the Visual and Kineasthetic learners, who can also be dyslexic.

So until the scientists can develop the technology to improve our understanding of these issues we can only use the infrmation available, which improves all of the time, and provide the best information that best describes a problems that we call dyslexia. At this point in time we do not have the technology nor full understanding of the workings of the brain to provide the definitive explanation of waht dyslexia is, so all we can do it try to provide the best information avaialble.

best wishes

dolfrog 01:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

To Piechjo

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)

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)

Hi Piechjo

I could always detected a hidden agenda, thank you for letting us know. So in some of my previous posts here the words "ignorance" etc should be replaced by "undisclosed personal vested interest"

dolfrog

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)

My internet ID dolfrog has been the same for almost 9 years now, and it provides me with some personal security. Its use as my internet ID came about by accident, and before i could do anything to stop it. So like it or not i became dolfrog. My real idea is not hidden and can be discovered quite easily by those willing to do a bit of research.

Niether is my motivation hidden from others. My prime concern is for a greater understranding and public awareness of APD, so that all who may have APD have the opportunity to have their issues assessed and the opportunity of a clinical diagnosis.

There are many issues that stand in the way of achieving this aim, some are related to the APD diagnostic tests themselves, and in the Uk having professioanals able to perform these tests. But one of the biggest barriers are the myths and misunderstandings that surround the concept of dyslexia and other umbrella terms(the other major umbrella term is the Autistic Spectrum). These are tick box diagnosis based on observation diagnosis. They are the top layer or first observed problems.

APD is just one of many either sensory or motor processing issuers that can contribute to causing dyslexiasome layers below.

But until dyslexia is defined in realisic terms as the man made problem cause by having difficulties using a secondary man made communication system. It will be practically impossible to identify and seperate the real underlying problems so that then become possile to recomend a develop realistic remedial programs and strategies that match each individials set of underlying causes of their dyslexic symptoms.

The primary man made communication in this instance is speech, which was developed by using our sound motor (output) systems and auditory sensory(receptor or input) systems which we call speech. (APD is a problems with the auditory sensory system) we then developed a visual notation of speech as a secondary communication system which in our cultures we call text.

And dyslexia is all about having problems reading, writing and spelling text.

Before we developed the visual notation of speech there was no dyslexia.

But there were sensory and motor information processing problems, which are the underlying causes of the dytslexic symptoms. So my only interest in dyslexia is for greater scientific clarification of what dyslexia is, and both clarificationa and identification of all of the various underlying cause of the dyslexic symptoms (including APD).

Once this artificial barrier of mythical conditions and cure all programs is purged and replaced by a realistic understanding of all the scientifically researched internationally peer reviewed issues are accepted and published, then I can then go back to concentrate on my main interest APD and hopefully understanding what the real underlying causes of APD are.

The last thing i want, which some appear to believe i want, is for APD to be the only cause of dyslexia, Far From it. I want all who are diagnosed as being dyslexic to have the opportunity to have all of their potential underlying causes identified amd medically diagnosed, so that others in the education, employment, and care systrms casn have a full picture of all the problems each dyslexc may face on a daily basis and this can only happen if further medical assessments are made after an initial diagnosis of dyslexia is made.

I do not want to exclude anyone, but i do want to exclude all of the unscientific nonsense that has become associated with dyslexia.

Dyslexia is as a set of symptoms is first recognised or identified in the education system, but full diagnosis of the medicla issues should be done by the medical profesionals, and the educatioanl professionals will have to understand and work with the medical diagnosis and their implications.

best wishes

dolfrog 04:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Arm

What iam saying is that dyslexia is a man made problem, but it serves as a beacon to highlight the existance of many diiferences some medical in nature such as the sensory and motor information processing issues and some as a different natural or adopted way of thinking or learning style.

Which ever option or combinination of optionseach individual may have will require further investigation because the big issue is that we now depend on this man made communication system more than ever, and those who have problems accessing the communication system are becoming more disadvanted. So we need to have a better understanding of all the underlying issues before we can begin to identify any possible ways to remedy the problems.

An example of possible remedial conflicts is the difference between the coping strategies favoured by some who have APD as a mjor underlying cause and those who have the coresponding visual processing issues as an underlying cause. Those who have the visual underlying causes may prefer to use auditory or phonics baserd coping strategies, which obviously would not work for some one who has APD (APD is a about having listening problems) And correspondingly some who have APD prefer to use visual coping strategies suchg as the use of multi-coloured text, as we have demonstrated on the APDUK web site. These coping straties could increase the problems face by an individual who has visual issues as the underlying cause of their dyslexia. (The whole APDUK web site has been designed to demonstrate various coping strategies that adult APDs have found useful Except out Information sheet section which conforms to rules for those who have visual processing issues)

So there are practical reasons to fully investigate all of the possible underlying causes of your dyslexia so that you can begin to work out the best support programs you may require. (especailly as some can be so expensive). There are also many easy to develop coping strategies as well, which the program researchers and providers do not like to talk about, because i may mean that you will not buy their program or use their suport systems. These are the coping strategies we develop automatically and subconsciously. We all try to find ways around the problems we face. And waht is increasing coming to light is that some ofd the so called recommended remedial programs can conflict with the individuals own existing coping strategies, and in some xases the severity of the conflict can cause long term harm. So this is a new area of investigation, what coping strategioes has the individual dyslexic already subconsciously developed, and would the recommended program either conflict or damge these existing self mafe strategies, and are there potential long term resulting problems. These programs claim to be correcting something, in many cases there is nothing to correct but instead there is a need for the acceptance and understanding of a differrnt way of thinking.

just some food for thought

best wishes

dolfrog 20:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple causes of dyslexia

"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)

I have and read Linda Silverman's UPSIDE DOWN BRILLIANCE book. What she wrote about visual spatial learners is very similar to Ronald D. Davis' theories. The only thing that I didn't like about her book is her generalizing ethnic groups as certain types of learners. I am multiethnic Black,White,Hispanic,Native American , and I definitely don't fit neatly into ethnic group stereotypes. I don't fit the male stereotypes either with my high estrogen levels and my index fingers longer than my ring fingers which is same pattern that Bath male scientists with strong visual spatial skills are found to have. I have and read Thomas G. West's IN THE MIND'S EYE which is about Visual thinkers,Gifted People with Dyslexia,and other Learning Difficulties,Computer Images and Ironies of Creativity. I also read RIGHTBRAINED CHILDREN IN A LEFTBRAINED WORLD,and that's about visual spatial learners too. I didn't like how they generalized Dyslexics as people with visual processing issues and grouped phonological/auditory Dyslexics as ADHDers. That didn't seem right to me. I like how they pointed out that IQ tests aren't good tests to measure rightbrained people and that they are more for leftbrained and wholebrained types. There are studies that show that Matrice tests are better Intelligence tests for nonverbal autistics because they are nonverbal test. Autistic Dr. Temple Grandin wrote the book, THINKING IN PICTURES and it describes her autistic thought processes as well as what it is like being autistic. Both Ronald D. Davis and the authors of RIGHTBRAINED CHILDREN generalize ADHDers as picture thinkers, but there are ADHDers that don't think in pictures but think rapidly in words. One ADHD woman told me that she doesn't think in pictures but thinks rapidly in words.

Linda Silverman lists the identifying characteristics of visual-spatial learners.

• Are Visual,Not Auditory
• Are Spatial,Not Sequential
• Are Holistic,Not Detail Oriented
• Are Focused On Ideas,Not Format
• Seek Patterns
• Are Divergent,Not Convergent
• Are Sensitive and Intense
• Display Variable Asynchronous Development.

That's all me too. Every one of my problems,symptoms,strengths in the past and present fall under her characteristics of visual-spatial learner. I am definitely a visual-spatial learner. The things that she described fit into characteristics that many Dyslexics,Dyspraxics,ADHDers as well as APDers have. Heck...it seems like she groups Dyslexics,Dyspraxics,ADHDers,and APDers into Visual Spatial Learner category. They also fit with highly sensitive,artistic,and/or creative people too. I am a highly sensitive,artistic,and creative person. I even scored high as artistic personality on an occupational psychology test,and the traits seem like ADHD stuff. I am also an INFP (Introverted Intuitive Feeling Perceiver) according to Myers Briggs and Kiersey tests. INFP's are very sensitive,empathic,and idealistic. During neuropsychological testing, I showed that I am a very visual thinker when I scored above average on block design including time bonus points on the final,most difficult design. The psychologist was amazed at how quickly I did that last design. She told me that I am definitely a visual thinker and told me that I should look into studying to be an engineer. She recommended hobbies for my strong visual spatial skills which is why I do magnetic mandala mozaic puzzles,tangrams,and digital photography. She even noted in my neuropsychological test report that people with strong visual spatial skills who lack comparable verbal facility may find difficult expressing their ideas in a highly verbal society, and that's true for me.

Ronald D. Davis book, GIFT OF DYSLEXIA is similar to Linda Kreger Silverman's UPSIDE DOWN BRILLIANCE. I have and read both books too. Also Ronald D. Davis' stuff on disorientation/confusion is similar to the inner ear symptoms too which Dr. Harold N. Levinson wrote in his books, SMART BUT FEELING DUMB and A SOLUTION TO THE RIDDLE DYSEXIA. I believe in their theories too. I could really relate to them. I don't push my views onto people. I respect others' views. But when people attack me and put me down,I defend myself. I don't like people trying to label me and tell me what I have and don't have because of their views. It's no different from a Christian telling me that I am a bad,immoral person,and going to hell because I am Unitarian Universalist,Neopagan,New Ager. I believe that it's possible that neurodivergent people were victims of religious zealots in the past. I am glad that we live in modern times. BTW...In my opinion, Abigail wrote one of the best books on Dyslexia. She doesn't just write Davis stuff. She notes a lot of stuff. She did write about visual spatial learners. She is aware of the visual spatial learning styles of Dyslexics. She noted numerous therapies,programs for Dyslexia too. She wrote about certain theories about Dyslexia even controversial ones like Dr. Levinson's which I do believe in. I have his books, and he made a lot of sense to me. He helped me understand myself and helped me realize that the psychiatrists saw my cluttering speech as psychotic speech. It was his testing that got the Veteran Affairs neurologists to test me and confirm my Dyslexia and Dyspraxia. They did tell me underlying problems which I have already explained. I had already had testing,diagnoses and early intervention therapies in early childhood,and so I am a corrected/compensated Dyslexic,Dyspraxic. My problems are a lot milder than they were in childhood and mistaken for psychiatric problems by psychiatrists. That's why I went through testing in the 2000's in my 30's. I can't stress more the importance of early intervention. I feel sorry for people who were diagnosed late and didn't get early intervention. It's never too late to get help though. Any ways..I felt that I had to defend Abigail. Just because she is a strong believer in Davis' work doesn't mean that she has a secret agenda. I really can't stand prejudice,bigotry especially with my past from suffering from it because of my special education past and my being multiethnic as well as not fitting the male stereotypes. I believe in treating others like I want to be treated - a human being with a soul. All of us should do that. User:Satabishara 18:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

There is no need to be condescending and patronizing. I didn't claim to be any specialist either. I don't need any lectures from you about it. Just because people have their own beliefs and views doesn't mean that they didn't do any research nor are ignorant. There is no crime in expressing myself in the lengthy way. 71.137.212.201 17:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)