Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Thejaybomb t1_itfj8qm wrote

This article is just nonsense, you are going to struggle to find a gene that reflects dyslexia when the tests that diagnose it are so poor and out of date.

If you talk to a lot of educational psychologists, they would/should tell you the tests for dyslexia are not all consistent and don’t really give a acutely diagnosis to give a good quality of support. The truth is, you can pay anyone who will take your money to give you a diagnosis. The problem is the term dyslexia is really broad and dated and can be broken down into a lot of other issues. At this stage, there are a lot of people making money out of this industry. On top of that, a lot of people who really struggle with reading and education don’t like the idea of the label being changed, it gets to be a really emotive situation as it is wrapped in so much trauma after feeling chewed out by the education system and continues to struggle with reading and writing.

Ultimately this becomes a barrier to people getting the correct kind of help. It’s a quick easy label for a complex issue and that doesn’t help address an individuals issues. Anything in life with a convenient answer rarely addresses the problem and there are a lot of sharks in this industry.

Being diagnosed as dyslexic i was thrown all sorts of a mystic cures and tools that never really helped. The only thing that really helped, was pushing myself to read more and this was really hard. But it’s different for everyone.

Look up Julian Elliott, he’s a critic of the current provision of help and is pushing to update support in this area.

9

jonathot12 t1_ithefwc wrote

Yup, I remember years ago a small movement of clinical psychologists and school counselors pushing to end the concept of dyslexia entirely. Not sure if that was an overreaction, but they were responding to some research that showed that dyslexia “treatment” is the exact same as treatment for “low reading ability”. Since they couldn’t find a discernible difference between those two, they thought maybe we aren’t doing our best by treating something as a disorder when it is more likely due to lack of practice and skill-building.

It’s like expecting everybody to be able to play basic music scales at age 8, then giving a child a diagnosis because their family never played music growing up so they didn’t develop an ear for it. If we can support the child’s growth and development to where they no longer “meet criteria” then we ought to hold discourse on whether such denominations are helpful or useful at all.

1