Is There an Upside to Dyslexia?
Sunday, February 5th, 2012
This article from Sunday’s NYTimes, is I think, a continuation of a fascinating argument as to whether the learning disability called dyslexia is also a learning style that has built-in skills and attributes.
I’ve heard many times over, some well-argued points against this notion that dyslexia carries its own set of built in, hard-wired talents. Richard Wanderman, founder of this site and my good friend, can always be counted on to dismiss the notion and point out that people develop talents based on how much they work at it. I may be oversimplifying his and others’ similar points of view on this, but I think it’s close. Proponents argue that such things as “three-dimensional thinking’ for example, are often skill-sets that people with dyslexia possess.
Others claim this is nonsense; that there’s no way to categorize all dyslexics as having a consistent set of benefits or associated neurologically-based strengths.
For me, as is my nature, I think the truth lies more towards the middle. While it’s true that not all people with dyslexia have the same profile of weaknesses, there are general things we know about what’s hard for them, and can see them both operationally (in the real world), and neurologically (through testing and brain imagery). By the same token, while we can’t claim that all dyslexics are “holistic thinkers” or artists, or creative, etc.; if I had a dime for every dyslexic kid who I test or work with, that was a phenomenal “Lego” kid or builder of some kind, I’d be a rich guy. The persistence of the conversation that dyslexics have certain visual skills does not in itself mean that it’s likely to be true, but research such as discussed in this NY Times article, is finally specifying specific attributes that may in fact be true.
Intriguing evidence that those with dyslexia process information from the visual periphery more quickly also comes from the study of “impossible figures,†like those sketched by the artist M. C. Escher. A focus on just one element of his complicated drawings can lead the viewer to believe that the picture represents a plausible physical arrangement.
Of course, all styles of information processing have, hopefully, by their very nature, strengths that are very real. But, having inherent strengths that we may be born with, doesn’t mean the old axiom “use it or lose it. isn’t true.” It also doesn’t mean that you can’t develop skills that you just weren’t born with. I sometimes describe myself a mechanical dyslexic in presentations, to make a certain humorous point, but that doesn’t mean that with enough focus, and enough persevering through mistakes, aka the learning curve, that I didn’t put together a very tough outdoor basketball stand and hoop when my kids were going up.
Genetic tendencies, potential talents and weaknesses, all need fertile and supportive environments to gain traction, and bloom, or become somehow less impactful, in the case of weaknesses. Being sleuths or detectives for strengths in children is as important as being clear about their problems.
In the second study, Mr. Schneps deliberately blurred a set of photographs, reducing high-frequency detail in a manner that made them resemble astronomical images. He then presented these pictures to groups of dyslexic and nondyslexic undergraduates. The students with dyslexia were able to learn and make use of the information in the images, while the typical readers failed to catch on.
Know any photographers who are dyslexic?
Sandy, my opinion is even simpler than you state: it’s all relative.
In some contexts thinking differently is treasured and can work to one’s benefit, in others the social consequences are tough.
The upside only gets to express itself in the right context, IMHO.
Right, but the question is, are there generalizable and definable qualities identifiable as a a dyslexic style of thinking different? Is there such a thing?
Is there such a thing as a “dyslexic style of thinking?”
I don’t think so unless all thinking outside the box is attributed to dyslexia.
Richard,
I’ve been interested in this discussion for a long while. There are quite a few “experts” Shaywitz, etc. who point to definable patterns in enough people with dyslexia, that there is a strong suggestion that there is a dyslexic pattern of thinking. Until we study enough brains with dyslexia I don’t think we’ll settle that argument and I’m not convinced either way.
For me, I’ve worked with so many kids and teens with dyslexia who have strong either three-dimensional building skills (though not sure Legos carries enough weight), or artistic vision and abilities. That’s what makes the discussion so interesting to me.
But certainly not all. So, I imagine there’s a possibility that when the architecture of the brain “decides” to have some neuronal migration in a way that leads to poor print awareness and phonological inefficiency, perhaps there are other migrations to other areas that lead to some particular skill sets. And not always in the same way (hence the uniqueness of individuals).
Many people I know who are dyslexic do show an ability to think outside the box, or not be wedded to sequential sameness (which may be the same thing). But again, not all.
Of course the saying “If you know one dyslexic…you know one dyslexic” rings mostly true.
I think the pattern is that when you’re blocked in more traditional “taught” patterns of thinking and problem solving you either sink or come up with others that work. Many people, dyslexic or not, have done end runs in thinking to solve problems in non-traditional ways.
To single out the dyslexic brain as somehow “special” seems both socially and academically problematic for any number of reasons.
So, to sum, I do think people with dyslexia and other issues that affect more traditional ways of learning can learn to think and solve problems in non-traditional ways. I just don’t think there are a finite set of ways or that these ways are exclusive to people with dyslexia.
Richard,
I agree. Being stuck and blocked can force creative and adaptive ways of thinking. It’s always the hope and best outcome. Unfortunately, that’s also where learned helplessness can rear its ugly head. Enough failure coupled with unsupportive and restricted environments can lead to giving up and thinking your efforts don’t matter. Whether or not you have LD, that will stop a truck and lead to nowhere good.
That’s sometimes where a good coach, friend, spouse or therapist can help as well. Anyone who can help create more opportunities for some success is possible can reignite the fire needed.
Sanford: Absolutely, I agree. But, again, unlike Woody Allen being in psychotherapy his entire adult life (in Annie Hall) it seems to me that the coach or personal trainer or whatever ought to be teaching the kinds of skills that can be used independently.
Coaching toward independence.
I think we’re speaking the same language (smile). Never been a big fan of dependency in any form.
This past year I had to set a kid free from our work together (I’ve been his “learning coach” for a while now). It’s has been an incredibly fruitful mentoring kind of relationship. I’ve gained as much as I’ve given, and he’s learned to read and write so much better, and has gained tons of confidence and an almost perfect attitude. However, I had to prod and push him and his parents out of the tutorial nest. They were somewhat opposed when I presented the idea of discontinuing those services. That’s when I was sure it was the right course. Since my work with him was so very good, he has done fine and gained even more self-reliance now.
So, both the coaching and the weaning towards independence were vital.
You’ve coached me on html, and wordpress and websiting in general. You’ve had a minimalist approach, providing timely input and also letting me try things on my own. And, my recent html italicizing boo-boo aside, I’ve done pretty well with this approach.
As we’ve discussed many times, going through a learning curve requires going through it on your own. The coach can’t run the race for you.
Sanford: Amen. Learning is more than just intellectual, it’s a multi sensory thing as we know well from “old” theories and practices. That means the person doing the learning has to be doing the doing.