I am saying nothing regarding my own experiences with dyslexia. I have had none. I have, however, been a teacher of students with 'learning' difficulties and observable physical disabilities for many mature years.
Just to clarify, I didn’t mean to imply that I don’t believe in mental/physical disabilities. I just don’t believe “dyslexia” is a “learning disability.” Taking into consideration what kids are being taught these days I think that having a “learning disability” might actually be an advantage. Anyway, I have no teaching experience at all so I really can’t speak on it. Your line of work is truly a noble calling. My hat’s off to you, my good sir!
I beg you to take a look at this excellent documentary from the U.K. 'Dispatches' programme. It should answer a number of questions besides that of 'dyslexia'.
I made a VHS copy years ago but I see some-one has posted one to YouTube.
It’s funny (odd) how angry some of the parents & teachers get at the thought of “dyslexia” possibly being a myth. I find nothing wrong with the adorable kids in that documentary, dear Sharpstuff. I see nothing stopping them from living happy, fulfilling and productive lives.
(Un)learning disability : recognizing and changing restrictive views of student ability - AnnMarie Darrow Baines (2014)
"How do high school students confront and resolve conflicting messages about their intelligence and academic potential, particularly when labelled with social and learning disabilities? How does disability become disablement when negative attitudes and disparaging perceptions of ability position students as outsiders? Following the lives of adolescents at home as well as in and out of school, the author makes visible the disabling language, contextual arrangements, and unconscious social practices that restrict learning regardless of special education services. She also showcases how young people resist disablement to transform their worlds and pursue pathways most important to them. Educators can use this important resource to recognise and change disabling practices that are often taken for granted as a natural part of schooling"--Publisher's description.
https://www.worldcat.org/title/unlearni ... /863632709
There is no objection to studying how human minds work but they must be all conjecture, however presented. Interesting but not to make money from, the essence of peddling all these 'theories' (a.k.a. fictional stories, like I must say, having a museum of Sherlock Holmes' 'artifacts' as though they were (as the character) real!).
Agreed, dear Sarpstuff.
perhaps it's due to some sort of “unlearning disability”?One of our problems when discussing contentious subjects with others (about all sorts or 'established' notions) is that they are so firmly entrenched and been so 'fashioned' that even compos mentis posters here find it difficult to face up to the fact that they have been (and apparently continue to be) hoodwinked par excellence.
Consider the following article:
The Art of Unlearning
Scott H. Young
“It ain’t what you know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” – Mark Twain
Most people think about learning as adding knowledge and skills. When you learn French, you learn that the word, avoir means “to have.” You now have a new fact in your mind that didn’t exist before.
Adding knowledge like this, I’d like to argue, is actually the less important case. The most useful learning isn’t usually a strict addition of new knowledge, but first unlearning something false or unhelpful.
Types of Unlearning
Other times new knowledge revises a simpler picture by filling it with more complex details. This is similar to adding new knowledge, although because the older, simpler view of the issue has been overwritten with more detail, there is some unlearning going on. When Albert Einstein discovered special relativity, this overthrew Isaac Newton’s laws of motion. However, this wasn’t a complete refutation, but a modification—Newton’s laws still hold approximately in areas where near light-speed or extreme gravitation aren’t issues.
In all of these cases, however, you have to first let go of something you thought you understood to make way for a new understanding. This isn’t always easy to do.
The first challenge of unlearning is that when something contradicts your current understanding, you are likely to dismiss it. This may be adaptive in a world where many of the things people say or information you encounter are false, or lies constructed to manipulate you. Things that you don’t currently believe are, ceteris paribus, more likely to be false. However, this confirmation bias can make it harder to unlearn when that’s valuable to you.
What is Strange?
Almost everything is much, much weirder than it looks at first. Science is the clearest example of this. Subatomic particles aren’t billiard balls, but strange, complex-valued wavefunctions. Bodies aren’t vital fluids and animating impulses, but trillions of cells, each more complex than any machine humans have invented. Minds aren’t unified loci of consciousness, but the process of countless synapses firing in incredible patterns.
Science confirms the underlying weirdness, but for most people, knowing science is another kind of stamp collecting. Knowing quantum strangeness doesn’t overlap with most areas of practical life, so it can be an additional fact or idea one knows and can bring out in conversations.
How to Unlearn Things
One way to begin unlearning is to seek additive knowledge in familiar areas and then use that new knowledge to start pulling up and modifying old knowledge. For me, learning about psychology and cognitive science often had this effect: I would start with a particular belief that seemed reasonable about myself, and then digging deeper, I would encounter careful arguments that showed why those beliefs were probably false. From that point of tension, I could start reworking some of my old beliefs.
This approach can work, but it’s difficult and it requires a lot more patience for theory and academic learning than most people have an appetite for. Another approach is to seek other people’s experiences of the world. Other people may not give you *the* theory for understanding the world, but the more diverse their experiences are from yours, the more likely they are situated in a different position in the space of life possibilities and how their lives differ from your expectations can itself give you information about your own thinking.
Being Comfortable with Mystery
A good meta-belief to this whole unlearning endeavor is to be comfortable with the idea that everything you know is provisional, and that underneath what you know is likely a more complex and stranger picture.
Human beings seem to be naturally afraid of this groundless view of things. I’m not quite sure why that is. It may be that this kind of epistemic flexibility might start to question societal norms and rules of conduct, and so people who think too much about things may have an amoral character. That’s certainly the perspective of many traditional religious viewpoints on things, which discourages open-ended inquiry in favor of professing allegiance to dogma.
https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2018/0 ... nlearning/
Religions like Scientism that promote Sir Isaac, St. Einstein, subatomic particles, Cell Theory… I wonder how Scott Young would react to the topics discussed on this forum. I would love for him to put his art of unlearning to the test here.
The central (i.e. the real or actual) question of modern psychology is the psychology of the psychologist.
Bravo. You hit the nail on the head, Mansur.
Fears Grow Over Academic Efforts to Normalize Pedophilia
"When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an attorney for the ACLU, she co-authored a report recommending that the age of consent for sexual acts be lowered to 12 years of age," the article points out.
Knight and York's footnoted documentation on this is as follows: "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," Report for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, April 1977, p. 102, quoted in "Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Feminist World View," The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 26, No. 12, Section 1, p. 3. The paragraph (from the Ginsburg report) reads as follows: "'Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years" and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. ... A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. ... [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.'"
LaRue said pedophiles may co-opt language used in the Lawrence decision regarding homosexuals; that laws against their behavior are a discriminatory attempt to harm them as a persecuted minority. And they will be supported, she claimed, by academia.
Reclassifying pedophilia already subject to debate
During its annual convention in May, the American Psychiatric Association hosted a symposium discussing the removal of pedophilia along with other categories of mental illness (collectively known as paraphilia) from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
Would it be "anti-Semitic" or "sexist" of me to call RBG a sick/twisted/despicable Talmudic shyster?