🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <xczGUOBMkUt4Ew2H@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk>, John Underwood
<john@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 at 10:20:39, Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>demon.tech.pc:
>(Reference: <rxcvxAA3XQt4EwWG@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>)
>
>>
>>Which doesn't mean it doesn't affect other things than written (either
>>reading or writing) english. Maths wouldn't normally be described as
>>'english' for example.
>>
>This makes an important point. A person can be numerate - capable of
>dealing with numbers and arithmetic processes - but cannot cope with
>maths because that is more concerned with logical processes and to a
>large extent with how to represent them in graphical (literally =
>"written") form.
>
>Perhaps, Oz, you could enlighten us, from the inside, so to speak, about
>how dyslexia is a problem with recognising and/or writing words, rather
>than actually understanding words and being able to use them.

Oh, in my family it's to do with reading and writing. I have written
quite acceptable poetry for example and my kids got good marks in
essays, just they were covered in red ink from the spelling and grammar
errors. Generally (but remembering that many dyslexics also have
significant other brain damage) I would suggest that comprehension (and
speech) are not affected other than what is read is often only part of
what is actually there.

>I wonder if it is also worth pointing out that just because someone is
>functionally illiterate - can't read more than a few words strung
>together, is incapable of writing a grammatically correct sentence with
>any but the shortest words mis-spelt - that person may not by any means
>necessarily be dyslexic. 

True.

>The thing that I associate as a characteristic of all dyslexics I have
>met is the inherent ability being there, but "blocked" somehow. This is
>evident from those, of whom Oz is an excellent example, who have managed
>to break down this blockage and then do so well with their use of
>language.

Hmm. That happens to be the medium I use. If I stopped for a few months
the subsequent results would be utterly atrocious.

>[1] I know it is politically incorrect to suggest that as a possibility,
>but when those who argue that point stop one person from earning a
>fortune because he shows a better aptitude for playing football than
>another, I will give them some consideration.

It was absolutely **known** in the 60's and 70's that genetics had
nothing to do with intelligence, and behaviour was considered 99%
nurture. The evidence now is that this is not true, particularly in non-
pathological situations. Generally something about 60% seems to be
considered about right.

However be cautious. I once saw a histogram of the IQ's of children of
graduates both of whome had IQ's above 130. The average IQ of their
children was 102!!! This is about the difference between the main ethnic
groups (ie african, eurasian, asian) and is almost unmeasurable. In
other words intelligence is very poorly inherited. Having said that one
thing I did notice was that the chance (although low) of their children
having IQ's above 130 was double the norm. Just for information really.

-- 
Oz