Merged Psychological conditions are illusory

[lomiller]

I understand a difficulty in the "process of information".
But what's dyslexia?

Also you said "People with Dyslexia process written information in a different part of the brain then “normal” learners"

It takes two to make a difference. But here you are privileging one over the other on the basis that it is different!!

Can you better explain what point you are trying to make?

As a reminder, my point is that the brains of people with dyslexia process written information in a physically different and less efficient way. When you compare reading in someone with dyslexia to someone without you are not even comparing the same task, so it can’t be a case of some people simply being better at a task then others as you have claimed.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

One thing affects another thing, and by Newtons law, the other thing affects the first thing.

So if one of these things is the brain, what's the other thing?
And what is it like for us not be affected by the brain?

Answer to highlighted:

That'd be being brain dead.

 

[Craig4]

I understand a difficulty in the "process of information".
But what's dyslexia?

Also you said "People with Dyslexia process written information in a different part of the brain then “normal” learners"

It takes two to make a difference. But here you are privileging one over the other on the basis that it is different!!

Obviously it's fine to privilege the one over the other. Some states and conditions are preferable to others.

What's the clinical application here? So we ignore dyslexia and we disenfranchise people with the symptoms because you've come up with some idea that one condition can't be privileged over another? Seriously? I've been a foster parent of children with learning disabilities (and PTSD but that's another thread). Let me be clear about this: Educators, GOOD parents and mental health care professionals can't be bothered with you. Your silly little ideas are not compelling enough to not use the available interventions to treat this condition.

To put it another way, your idea isn't as good as the idea of treating the condition so treating the condition is privileged over not treating the condition. I know you think it shouldn't be but some ideas are better than others. Yours just don't measure up.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Jonesboy...

Ah, screw it.

Schrodinger's Cat, way to be supportive and understanding of hubby. My wife understands when I sit in the car when she goes to Wal*Mart. For some strange reason that joint gets my hackles up. I think it's the crowds. She understands and that's a huge benefit. You probably already know but you're a huge help.
I have a great PL who was in the same AO I was and we get together and talk sometimes and he got me to go see BMD. I'm glad I did.

I'm not going to say it's always easy, especially when my husband was irrationally accusatory towards me or people I care about, but he's worked so hard to overcome his issues and while he's not 100%, he's come so far.

Still, whenever things get hard, I just have to think about all you service men and women have to go through and sacrifice. As hard as it can be to deal with his emotional fallout, I can always recognize and appreciate how much harder it is for him, and how hard the experiences that caused this must have been.

You folks give up so much of yourselves. The society you come back to owes it to you to support you as much as we can. And yes, Jonesboy, that means recognizing when behavior and emotions are unhealthy and harmful and seeking to help them deal with it appropriately and change their behavior. The pain they feel is real, and it can be downright debilitating. This is not a fiction imposed on them by society.

 

[iknownothing]

It is a problem only in the context of making work and social life difficult- it doesn't do any direct physical or mental damage

Why is direct physical or mental damage important? There is a lot of potential indirect physical and mental damage.

this is nothing that can't be explained by natural variation.

Why does that matter? Natural variation leaves some people with poor eyesight; those people can put on glasses and function normally.

Poor eyesight doesn't cause me any direct damage either. But if uncorrected, it could indirectly cause me a world of hurt.

I'll go a step further with the analogy: saying that people with dyslexia just have generic "difficulty reading" is like saying all people with poor eyesight have "difficulty seeing." But diagnosing exactly what my vision problems are allows the doctor to make me a customized pair of glasses. Other people with "difficulty seeing" have completely different vision problems, and if I tried to wear their glasses it wouldn't do me any good.

The fact that stimulants work doesn't lend ADHD any credibility - smoking helps me concentrate, does this mean I have ADHD ?

Do you meet the criteria? (Hint: "smoking helps me concentrate" is not on the list.)

Sitting still in school would be a symptom of a disorder in my universe.
School is where we learn subservience and obedience.
It's often an obstacle to learning.

I can sympathize with that point of view. However, a ADHD diagnosis looks for problems from different settings -- not just school (or work) but also home, and other activities if possible.

 

[quarky]

You know, for some of us our natural heritage isn't that far back. Our grandparents (Yeah, I'm talkin' about people our age, Quarky. ) were born in an era when this whole 'germ' thing had just managed general acceptance in the medical community, and most of the 'guy on the street' kinds of people still weren't too sure about the whole idea.

(My grandfather got his M.D. just in time to be practicing at a Navy hospital in Boston when the Spanish Flu pandemic hit. I'm not surprised he ended up as a forensic pathologist.)

That heritage you're talking about also includes an infant death rate so high that it was a common occurrence. It didn't happen in every family by then, but it happened enough that everyone had friends or family who had lost a child. Probably both.

Even after adjusting for infant and child death, the average lifespan of someone who was born at the end of the 19th century was still decades shorter than it is today.

That was the natural system. That was the heritage. I don't mind giving that up very much.

And along the way we have also learned how to cure or at least alleviate many other health problems which we were unable to before. Sometimes ones we hadn't even yet put a name to, that we didn't even know we could do anything about.

How do you propose that we pick and choose which ones to address? What is the scale we use to draw a line between "This is our heritage." and "This needs a cure."?

Some people used to become "demented" as they grew older. Now we know why. We even put a label on it. Alzheimer's disease.

We can't cure it yet. Should we stop trying because it's our heritage? It is a natural system, after all. Maybe we should just interact with it like we used to.

Sure. I get all that. Yet, its possible that we have now 'peaked' and are starting to slide the other way. Our disconnect with our environment could cause more trouble in the near future than the gains we've made in life expectancy. Are we allowed to ignore the peril whilst patting ourselves on the back? The future we appear to be heading into could be less rosy than the one our grandparents suffered through.

 

[Wudang]

One thing affects another thing, and by Newtons law, the other thing affects the first thing.

So if one of these things is the brain, what's the other thing?
And what is it like for us not be affected by the brain?

You made it to the second comma, which is progress of a sort. Now can you try reading a little further this time? Be brave and take a deep breath
"No, please try to be affected by your brain, especially the visual cortex and the areas associated with processing written language and read the bit that says that "I am my brain". Now try to be affected by the parts of your brain (it's a struggle, I know, work with me here) dealing with logic and try to work out what that means. "

 

[Dinwar]

Do you meet the criteria? (Hint: "smoking helps me concentrate" is not on the list.)

It's amazing how many psychology deniers are completely ignorant of psychology, yet feel qualified to critique the subject. Most of them don't bother to learn what the actual definition of the condition they say doesn't exist is.

Also, I love your eye example. It's almost perfect. There is natural variation in eye shape. Too much and we call it astigmatism, and we correct it, either with glasses or surgery. Similarly, natural variation in reading can result in definable problems that require fixing. The only problem I can see with the comparison of dyslexia to eyesight is that dyslexics use a different portion of their brain to process written information than the rest of us, so it's not actually a case of natural variation of a trait but rather a different trait entirely (it just superficially looks like poor reading).

 

[Drewbot]

Agent Orange doesn't cause heart problems in those exposed to it.
Having a chunk of your buddy's brain land in your lap, doesn't cause any permanent mental issues in some people.

 

[quadraginta]

Sure. I get all that. Yet, its possible that we have now 'peaked' and are starting to slide the other way. Our disconnect with our environment could cause more trouble in the near future than the gains we've made in life expectancy. Are we allowed to ignore the peril whilst patting ourselves on the back? The future we appear to be heading into could be less rosy than the one our grandparents suffered through.

Yeah. It's possible. But I haven't seen any really compelling reasons to think that it is actually happening.

It isn't clear to me that our grandparents' present had any sense that their future was going to be rosier than we do about ours. I think that the opposite might be the case. Change is always threatening, and the changes going on then, social as well as technological, were much more fundamental to their way of life than the incremental changes we are seeing.

People started flying. On a daily basis. There were wonders occurring around every corner, and most of them were viewed with great suspicion. The majority of Americans lived and worked in a city or near one. When their grandparents (maybe even their parents) had been born nearly everyone grew up on a farm and stayed there. That all by itself was a momentous change. It wasn't very well received.

Editorial pages and pulpits of that era were filled with predictions of doom because of the new directions that were being taken. People with the temerity to suggest that the future might be an improvement were commonly derided as starry-eyed idealists.

We tend to forget that, because those dire predictions didn't come true either. Now we think of them as just silly, if we think of them at all.

We just think up new ones to keep the tradition going.

 

[excaza]

These are weak techniques because they are still defined by the emotional puritanism that accompanies all medical and scientific responses to so-called PTSD.

Funny, up until very recently the 'emotional puritanism' was trying to make it look like PTSD didn't exist or, at worst, was a minor issue. Seems like you're supplanting your reality on everyone else's.

 

[Craig4]

So, it seems clear at this point, having seen no compelling reason not to do so, that we can privilege the state of not having PTSD over the state of having PTSD. Having done so we can now consider that there is no impediment taking steps to alleviate the symptoms of having PTSD as we have been confronted with no compelling reason not to treat the condition.

 

[Tracy Dalziel]

Why is direct physical or mental damage important? There is a lot of potential indirect physical and mental damage.

Because the indirect damage results from behaviour, people must learn to control behaviour. As a comparison, I myself am a 'recovered alcoholic'. Yes it is known that there is an underlying genetic inclination towards uncontrolled drinking but it does not mean that will power cannot override it albeit with great difficulty. There was a time when I would have taken the official position and classified these problems as medical conditions and in my own case this was actually harmful - I would think that because I had an 'illness' my drinking was outwith my control and this would be an excuse to crack open another bottle.

Why does that matter? Natural variation leaves some people with poor eyesight; those people can put on glasses and function normally.

Again, this (poor eyesight) is outwith the persons control

Do you meet the criteria? (Hint: "smoking helps me concentrate" is not on the list.)

No I do not meet the criteria. My youngest child does however, he has a very short attention span, constantly fidgeting and misbehaving, never sitting still and getting into trouble, homework and bedtime amongst other things are a mission but I just persevere because I don't think this is anything abnormal. My eldest was the polar opposite and his first year teacher at school had a reputation as an old battle axe but she knew her stuff, when my youngest entered fourth year at school he was assigned to her - we still had all the troubles but his marks sky rocketed. It was a shame to see her retire.

 

[Drachasor]

Because the indirect damage results from behaviour, people must learn to control behaviour. As a comparison, I myself am a 'recovered alcoholic'. Yes it is known that there is an underlying genetic inclination towards uncontrolled drinking but it does not mean that will power cannot override it albeit with great difficulty. There was a time when I would have taken the official position and classified these problems as medical conditions and in my own case this was actually harmful - I would think that because I had an 'illness' my drinking was outwith my control and this would be an excuse to crack open another bottle.

Great, so you learned the wrong lesson here. You CAN'T control your drinking if you start. That's the lesson. So you have to completely avoid the temptation to drink. That's how alcoholics are. They have a behavior (continued drinking) that they can't control, so they must avoid starting the behavior.

Other psychological problems are similar. People who are severely depressed can't will themselves to be ok. And they have a much harder time of it than you. They can't avoid THINKING like you can avoid alcohol, and even the latter for you is at times difficult I am sure.

The whole reason these things are classified as problems is because parts of them are horrendously difficult to control. So much so that one can't be expected to control them with any regularity (like an alcoholic stopping after one drink). Special strategies have to be learned and in some cases drugs have to be used.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Because the indirect damage results from behaviour, people must learn to control behaviour. As a comparison, I myself am a 'recovered alcoholic'. Yes it is known that there is an underlying genetic inclination towards uncontrolled drinking but it does not mean that will power cannot override it albeit with great difficulty. There was a time when I would have taken the official position and classified these problems as medical conditions and in my own case this was actually harmful - I would think that because I had an 'illness' my drinking was outwith my control and this would be an excuse to crack open another bottle.

Would it be accurate to summarise this as:

If alcoholism is an illness, then a person is powerless to do anything against it on his/her own strength, and would need help, so a person just has to say that it isn't a medical problem in order not to be powerless to do something about it.

If so, then why are there people with, say, autism, who are perfectly capable to deal with it, even though they are perfectly aware of the medical basis of their condition?

Just a thought...

And just to add: It's all a matter of degree. One person can deal with a disorder quite easily, whilst another person would really struggle with it. Pretending that it isn't a medical problem doesn't change the actual difficulty to deal with it, but merely the perceived difficulty.

 

[Jonesboy]

Thankyou for your amazing insight! When I get home I shall inform my 17 year old daughter that she isn't dyslexic and that the medical establishment has been abusing her and disempowering her......on second thoughts lets look at your post in detail.




Wrong. It is difficult to debunk because it is a real problem. There are quite clear definitions of the word.



Dyslexics generally don't have contact with medics regarding their dyslexia. They will, however, see opticians and teachers. My daughter has seen a few medics over the years, for non dyslexic problems, but none of them have ever tried to disempower or abuse her.



My daughter is far from a willing victim - she would love to be able to read as easily and fluently as other people. There is nothing ordinary about her reading difficulties, except in the sense that ~15% of the human race has similar problems. She can read large words easily, once she has learnt them, as they form a unique pattern. The words she has problems with are generally short words such as "this", "that", "then", "them" etc. because they all start with the same two letters and are the same length. Their patterns are similar.



Obviously true.



Complete and total crap. Dyslexic brains do not work in the same way as "normal" brains. Data is often lost on the way from short-term meory to long-term memory. Letters get confused, and some of them cannot associate the sound a letter makes with it's shape, so phonics and phonetics do not always help dyslexics to read. The font also can have a large effect on how well a dyslexic can read any particaular text. Plain fonts tend to be easier to read than curved or unusual fonts. Some dyslexics find that the colour of the font also makes a difference.

You are either trolling, or your opinions are ignorant or misinformed.

I know what a difficulty in reading is.
But what's dyslexia?

 

[Dinwar]

If alcoholism is an illness, then a person is powerless to do anything against it on his/her own strength, and would need help, so a person just has to say that it isn't a medical problem in order not to be powerless to do something about it.

This sentiment is emotional gobblty-gook without any factual value whatever. It in essence boils down to "But I don't LIKE that word!!!!" As soon as you admit that X is harmful, and Y helps, what you call it becomes irrelevant to any rational person. To refuse to call it by a certain name because of an emotional outburst is to admit to not being rational in that case.

 

[Jonesboy]

I didn´t say what _causes_ what.

But now I see your point. And the answer is: dyslexia is caused by brain damage (or lack of complete development) in the region that handles the task of reading. Just like cerebral palsy is caused by brain damage in any random part of the brain, and dementia is caused by brain damage a bit here and there around.

Dyslexia is not caused by dyslexia.
Cerebral palsy is not caused by cerebral palsy.
Dementia is not caused by dementia.

Happy now? End of topic?

No, you have dug a tunnel to nowhere. The problem remains:

You have assessed that the brain is damaged on the grounds that there is a difficulty in reading.
You then try to appeal to this "damage" as a further reason behind the difficulty in learning.
But the "damage" is only damage as far as you define a difficulty in reading as being caused by damage.

 

[Dinwar]

You have assessed that the brain is damaged on the grounds that there is a difficulty in reading.

Seems to me that someone already explained to you that there's evidence from MRI images, CAT scans, or the like that directly shows that there's a problem in the brain.

Do you intentionally dismiss evidence that shows you to be wrong, or is this something you do unconciously?

 

[Jonesboy]

Absolutely fascinating! I hadn't heard of this before but I have heard of other cases of people using different parts of their brains to compensate for the damaged portions.

I do wonder how this effects the normal functions of that lobe. According to wikki the inferior frontal gyrus is normally related to risk aversion. I have not heard of any problems with risky behavior in dyslexics one way or the other.

That is neither here nor there however. The point is that this is solid evidence of a physical difference in the brains of dyslexics. Thus, to get back to the original question, we can define dyslexia as "a disorder of the brain such that the normal linguistic centers do not function properly, most specifically in regard to deciphering written characters. In the best cases these functions can be taken up by a different section of the brain with imperfect results."

There, we answered the original question about defining dyslexia and why it must be defined as a disorder! Betcha this definition will now be willfully ignored.

These are empty wonderings. There's no significance to these brain studies.
The brain studies and brain maps are predicated on peoples reports and abilities. There's nothing they can add to these except empty, reductionist, science intrigue.