Merged Psychological conditions are illusory

[Weak Kitten]

Wait, so Jonesboy is just dismissing over a hundred years of neurological studies? Is this based on some desire to claim that the self is not formed by the brain?

If someone's brain is damaged through any number of means then they will not be able to perform certain cognitive functions or will find these functions more difficult. This simple fact is the result of an amazing number of observational studies and even experiments.

Dyslexia is what we call it when a certain portion of the brain which is related to the processing of written language is somehow damaged. This damage is usually genetic in nature but there are instances of severe head trauma causing the same sort of damage. Difficulty in reading is a symptom of this damage.

For a long time people did not know about dyslexia. They assumed that those who could not read and write easily were simply stupid or lazy. Thus instead of developing ways of coping with this problem they simply tried to beat the ability to read and write into them (sometime literally). They put sometimes brilliant minds into classes with morons simply because they could not read and write easily. Like Jonesboy they saw only the symptoms and not the cause.

Now we know what causes dyslexia, we accept that dyslexics are not stupid or lazy, and we have developed teaching techniques that work based on this knowledge. That is the power of science, it corrects the mistaken ideas of the past and moves on to build a better future. While mystics waffle about mind-body duality, scientists struggle to discover the true causes and fix problems.

If we had left it to the mystics all dyslexics would probably have been branded as "animal-level souls" and sent off to work in the coal mines.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

pTSD is a fictional, medical representation of a natural state.

Your information and experience base is insufficient. Your statement above is inconsistent with observable reality.

Most woo I find mildly annoying and sometimes amusing, but somehow I find your brainless pivvle highly offensive.

Goodbye. Welcome to ignore.

 

[Dinwar]

Difficulty in reading is a symptom of this damage.

I think this may be the heart of the issue: Jonesboy and his ilk are getting their clinical data from pop culture, and think the ONLY symptom of dyslexia is difficulty in reading. The fact that in Jonesboy's case this is willful and acomplished by flagrantly ignoring all data to the contrary is obnoxious, but not uncommon...

 

[Drachasor]

Why is it a problem of the body?
It's only a problem of the body if you can't tinker with the body to get the result you want.

Umm, no. If anything it's the other way around. If you can tinker with the body to get the desired result, then it is a body problem because adjusting the body fixes it.

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

There doesn't have to be "damage" per se.

If Bob punches people in the face as hard as he can at random, then it is fair to characterize that a problem. If Drug A removes that behavior with no significant side effects (so Bob can otherwise continue his career, have a family, etc, etc), then for practical purpose Bob doesn't need to care about whether he has brain damage or whatever. Maybe his brain just isn't performing in a desired manner and it causes his problems (like jail time).

The same is true if psychotherapy Theta produces a similar result. This might be superior if it doesn't require continued maintenance like a drug or the like.

Remember, psychology doesn't define any unusual behavior as a problem. It is when the person can't control the behavior to a reasonable degree (e.g. he can't just stop doing it) AND it produces negative effects in that person's life. Whether it is brain damage, a mutation, the result of exposure to a toxin, environmental, or just programming left over from evolving as hunter-gatherers doesn't matter in regards to it being a problem (though obviously each one of those might result in radically different therapies).

And I'll grant that a society can be structured in a way that creates problems and that can be bad and the best solution might require modifying our culture. On the other hand, I don't think dyslexia or ADHD fall into that categories -- some stress-related disorders might though. Reading is pretty inherent to civilization as is being able to focus on tasks and I don't see reasonable ways to change society so that being able to read or focus is a some sort of optional lifestyle (nor do I think that would be good for the human race).

 

[quadraginta]

I think this may be the heart of the issue: Jonesboy and his ilk are getting their clinical data from pop culture, and think the ONLY symptom of dyslexia is difficulty in reading. The fact that in Jonesboy's case this is willful and acomplished by flagrantly ignoring all data to the contrary is obnoxious, but not uncommon...

Even if that were true (and it isn't) it would still not support his conclusions or make any sense out of his disorganized substitute for rhetoric.

A difficulty in reading is enough by itself to merit attention. If a cause for that difficulty can be isolated and successfully addressed (ETA: without undue harm, of course) there is no good reason to not do so. He seems intent on claiming that there is, but doesn't have anything but magical mystery lingo as an explanation for why this should be so.

 

[Drachasor]

I think this may be the heart of the issue: Jonesboy and his ilk are getting their clinical data from pop culture, and think the ONLY symptom of dyslexia is difficulty in reading. The fact that in Jonesboy's case this is willful and acomplished by flagrantly ignoring all data to the contrary is obnoxious, but not uncommon...

He's also assuming the only cause of difficulty in reading is dyslexia. That's not the case either. It might be good to take a look at the diagnostic criteria.

Edit: Here's a better link. Can't find one quite as nice as the one for ADHD, unfortunately.

 

[Jonesboy]

Incorrect... again... again.

Wudang said that we are our brain.

Clear enough now?

Sure, our brain can be affected by itself, if you want to strain the point, but ultimately, the brain is what creates our self.

How can object affect itself? You need two things to make an affection.

 

[Jonesboy]

Are you claiming that it isn't?

The MRI won't tell you that what you are seeing is a problem. The problem was decided before any medical investigation.

 

[Jonesboy]

Why not?

"Dyslexia" is the name assigned to a particular, specific, diagnosable human condition which is a cause of reading difficulties.

So is "hyperopia". And "presbyopia". Might as well debunk those, too.

We can quit wasting valuable time and money on all those ridiculous corrective lenses. They're just dis-empowering.

You can't argue that dyslexia is a word that means a difficulty in reading, and then say "I find it hard to read because I have dyslexia". A synonym isn't a cause.

 

[Jonesboy]

Wait, so Jonesboy is just dismissing over a hundred years of neurological studies? Is this based on some desire to claim that the self is not formed by the brain?

If someone's brain is damaged through any number of means then they will not be able to perform certain cognitive functions or will find these functions more difficult. This simple fact is the result of an amazing number of observational studies and even experiments.

Dyslexia is what we call it when a certain portion of the brain which is related to the processing of written language is somehow damaged. This damage is usually genetic in nature but there are instances of severe head trauma causing the same sort of damage. Difficulty in reading is a symptom of this damage.

For a long time people did not know about dyslexia. They assumed that those who could not read and write easily were simply stupid or lazy. Thus instead of developing ways of coping with this problem they simply tried to beat the ability to read and write into them (sometime literally). They put sometimes brilliant minds into classes with morons simply because they could not read and write easily. Like Jonesboy they saw only the symptoms and not the cause.

Now we know what causes dyslexia, we accept that dyslexics are not stupid or lazy, and we have developed teaching techniques that work based on this knowledge. That is the power of science, it corrects the mistaken ideas of the past and moves on to build a better future. While mystics waffle about mind-body duality, scientists struggle to discover the true causes and fix problems.

If we had left it to the mystics all dyslexics would probably have been branded as "animal-level souls" and sent off to work in the coal mines.

Saying that we know that the brain causes difficulties says nothing because we can also say that the brain causes not having a difficulties.
"Difficlty" like a difficulty in reading, is not found in the brain, the brain is constructed from the report of it.

Neurology is a largely reductionist, modern form of mysticism that asserts that feelings and experiences can be discovered in the brain. Rather, we impose these on matter, and so construct a brain.

Dyslexia is a non-thing, something we bow down to and revere, unfortunately. A difficulty in reading is not.

 

[Jonesboy]

Even if that were true (and it isn't) it would still not support his conclusions or make any sense out of his disorganized substitute for rhetoric.

A difficulty in reading is enough by itself to merit attention. If a cause for that difficulty can be isolated and successfully addressed (ETA: without undue harm, of course) there is no good reason to not do so. He seems intent on claiming that there is, but doesn't have anything but magical mystery lingo as an explanation for why this should be so.

There are no symptoms of dyslexia. There are only varieties of difficulty in reading.
Why invent an entirely new, mysterious thing called dyslexia?

 

[Jonesboy]

Umm, no. If anything it's the other way around. If you can tinker with the body to get the desired result, then it is a body problem because adjusting the body fixes it.



There doesn't have to be "damage" per se.

If Bob punches people in the face as hard as he can at random, then it is fair to characterize that a problem. If Drug A removes that behavior with no significant side effects (so Bob can otherwise continue his career, have a family, etc, etc), then for practical purpose Bob doesn't need to care about whether he has brain damage or whatever. Maybe his brain just isn't performing in a desired manner and it causes his problems (like jail time).

The same is true if psychotherapy Theta produces a similar result. This might be superior if it doesn't require continued maintenance like a drug or the like.

Remember, psychology doesn't define any unusual behavior as a problem. It is when the person can't control the behavior to a reasonable degree (e.g. he can't just stop doing it) AND it produces negative effects in that person's life. Whether it is brain damage, a mutation, the result of exposure to a toxin, environmental, or just programming left over from evolving as hunter-gatherers doesn't matter in regards to it being a problem (though obviously each one of those might result in radically different therapies).

And I'll grant that a society can be structured in a way that creates problems and that can be bad and the best solution might require modifying our culture. On the other hand, I don't think dyslexia or ADHD fall into that categories -- some stress-related disorders might though. Reading is pretty inherent to civilization as is being able to focus on tasks and I don't see reasonable ways to change society so that being able to read or focus is a some sort of optional lifestyle (nor do I think that would be good for the human race).

What counts as being 'fixed'? Everyone reading the same? everyone's brain looking the same?, or everyone being taken for what they are?
There is nothing to fix. There are only varieties in reading skills. If you want to fix these then I suggest that society should be changed so as to achieve medical conformity in line with what we feel is "fixed".

psychology defines all unusual behaviours and experiences as problems or symptoms.

 

[Weak Kitten]

Saying that we know that the brain causes difficulties says nothing because we can also say that the brain causes not having a difficulties.
"Difficlty" like a difficulty in reading, is not found in the brain, the brain is constructed from the report of it.

Neurology is a largely reductionist, modern form of mysticism that asserts that feelings and experiences can be discovered in the brain. Rather, we impose these on matter, and so construct a brain.

Dyslexia is a non-thing, something we bow down to and revere, unfortunately. A difficulty in reading is not.

So are you basically saying that if we didn't acknowledge the problem it would just go away? That we can just wish or will our brains into no longer being damaged?

 

[Jonesboy]

No. YOU have said this. We have not. In fact, we've linked it with specific errors in where the brain processes information. So this quote is what we call a "lie".

Dyslexia is a name for a condition. If it makes you feel better, we can call it Dinwar Syndrom. Do you really think that what we call it makes any difference? Are you REALLY that bad at the whole philosophy thing?

That's obvious disingenuousness. What I do then is to give the other person a chance to rewrite their post. Things are moving too quick here, so I would n;t bother.

 

[Drachasor]

What counts as being 'fixed'? Everyone reading the same? everyone's brain looking the same?, or everyone being taken for what they are?

Not having treatable problems that give you significant problems in multiple areas of life.

There is nothing to fix. There are only varieties in reading skills. If you want to fix these then I suggest that society should be changed so as to achieve medical conformity in line with what we feel is "fixed".

And yet, treatments for dyslexia are very effective. Are you saying that if someone is having great difficulty reading and they get treatment that works, then they weren't having a problem?

psychology defines all unusual behaviours and experiences as problems or symptoms.

No, it doesn't. They are only problems when they significantly interfere with one's ability to function in life (roughly speaking).

Name a behavior that's only unusual that is defined as a problem (e.g. not a behavior that creates great difficulties in function). Name an experience that is just unusual that is defined as a problem.

 

[Jonesboy]

It would seem it is intentional, Dinwar.

Too bad. Ignorance can be cured by education. Willful ignorance cannot.

Not worth our time.

Why look for wonders and intrigue?
You are only giving people power when you assert that you know what dyslexia is, or how an MRI scan shows what an illness is. Why invent these modern myths? Do away with them. The world will look emptier to you but it will be cleaner.

 

[Jonesboy]

Not having treatable problems that give you significant problems in multiple areas of life.



And yet, treatments for dyslexia are very effective. Are you saying that if someone is having great difficulty reading and they get treatment that works, then they weren't having a problem?



No, it doesn't. They are only problems when they significantly interfere with one's ability to function in life (roughly speaking).

Name a behavior that's only unusual that is defined as a problem (e.g. not a behavior that creates great difficulties in function). Name an experience that is just unusual that is defined as a problem.

Assisting people with their reading has been shown to be helpful.
But you dress it up as "treatments for dyslexia are very effective"

Why dress it up? Why invent mysterious causes and impose a clinical mien?

 

[Drachasor]

Assisting people with their reading has been shown to be helpful.
But you dress it up as "treatments for dyslexia are very effective"

Why dress it up? Why invent mysterious causes and impose a clinical mien?

Did you even read the link I put up?

Not all reading problems are caused by dyslexia, which is a fairly specific thing with a specific methodology of diagnosis and specific treatments that are specialized around the particular areas dyslexics have trouble with. There are very particular reasons why dyslexics have problems reading. It isn't as simple as "they have reading troubles."

This isn't the first time I have pointed this out to you. Are you just going to ignore links and other information specifying how dyslexia is a particular disorder with particular things associated with it beyond "having trouble reading"? Further, this is backed up by brain scans looking at how dyslexic brains work when reading compared to non-dyslexics.

I assume since you didn't respond, that you are retracting this statement: "psychology defines all unusual behaviours and experiences as problems or symptoms. " You agree that statement isn't true?

 

[Dinwar]

That's obvious disingenuousness.

No, it's not.

You have two main arguments against dyslexia: 1) you don't get what the term means, and 2) it's described as a medical condition. That's it. You complain about WHAT SOMETHING IS CALLED, rather than dealing with what it is--which is a flagrant error in reasoning. It's been demonstrated several times in this thread that there's a physical condition involved, but YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE IT. So you've essentially abandoned all pretense at rationality.

Did you even read the link I put up?

$20 says no--and if he did, another $20 says that he's going to ignore it if it disagrees with his a priori conclusion that dyslexics should just suck it up and move on.

 

[quadraginta]

Assisting people with their reading has been shown to be helpful.
But you dress it up as "treatments for dyslexia are very effective"

Why dress it up? Why invent mysterious causes and impose a clinical mien?

Because the causes aren't invented. They are discovered in the course of research. And they are becoming less mysterious as we study them. That's called "learning", and it is what science does.

If a person suffering from dyslexia is given a pair of glasses with corrective lenses this will not address difficulties with reading which are a result of the dyslexia.

If a person suffering from hyperopia is taught different methods of parsing written language for comprehension this will not address difficulties with reading which are a result of the hyperopia.

These are two different names for two utterly different disorders which require completely different "clinical" methods to achieve beneficial results.

Both can have different solutions which might be aimed toward a similar goal. That doesn't make them the same. Why do you think they do not merit different names?