It’s not that simple, at all, and I think you know that.
Or should we say that seizure disorders aren’t “real” disorders because, hey, everybody’s brain is wired differently?
I think it is ridiculous to say that people suffer from a “math disability”, and to talk about a “sydrome” and “symptoms”.
Some peoples’ brains are just wired to be better at some things and worse at others.
Having said that, I find dyslexia to be a useful term, because there, it was discovered that there was something in the input/output system, and there was nothing wrong with the “cpu”. And, if I understand correctly, there are ways to teach dyslexics in a way that gets around their I/O problem.
But in general I think finding a term for lack ability in a lot of areas (math, music, art, etc) and calling people who lack that ability as having a disability or a “syndrome” is ridiculous, and I don’t think adds any practical benefit.
And does someone who’s colorblind just happen to be worse at seeing that other folks?
You might wanna read up on the issue you’re currently debating.
I’m not sure what distinction you’re trying to draw. The problems with the input/output are due to problems with the brain.
For example… there has also been research that shows that dyslexics have different phonological awareness than other folks.
You’re confusing pedagogy with neurology. Just because a learning disability can be compensated for doesn’t make it go away.
And what if those disorders for some people are based on a statistically significant pattern of neurological defects?
So if I understand you correctly, are you saying that if folks have discovered there’s something wrong with the “input/output system” of folks with discalculia and that there are ways to teach discalculiacs “in a way that gets around their I/O problem,” you’d find discalculia to be a useful term as well?
If this is the case, before I continue, I want to ask one more question: prior to mocking the term, did you do any research at all to determine what the answers would be to these questions? Or are you operating off your intuition?
Daniel
What is the utility of labels? Why do we sometimes name things rather than just describe them longhand?
Well, it saves time, for one thing. As someone professionally involved in children’s development, and avocationally interested in the development of cognition, it is easier to refer to a population of “dyslexic children”, or a population of “dyscalculaic children”, who are studied, than to refer to “a group of children who have difficulty learning to read despite normal intellience and opportunity to learn”, or “a group of children who have difficulty learning math skills despite normal intellience and opportunity to learn.” These are shorthands.
Now why would do people care to discuss these particular groups enough that creating and using a shorthand is worthwhile, whereas it is not for, say, “dyspaintia”? Well, early identification of these particular difficulties allows for the possibility of early remediation. Early remediation is likely to be more effective than later attempts at intervention. Without intervention a child with a specific learning disability may have school failure that was avoidable. School failure is associated with a lesser likelihood of job success later in life. Such a situation may be less true for dysclaculia than for dyslexia, because reading skills underpin many other subjects to a much greater extent than do math skills, but is to some degree true for both specific learning disabilities.
Syndrome schmindrome. What we care about is what happens to people with these particular patterns of strengths and weaknesses and what works to help them most efficaciously. Naming it helps us learn that and to help people function better. And it is interesting to attempt to figure out exactly how some of us are wired differently. What in the brain does what and how do some people use it differently. Very cool stuff.
Btw, no idea what you are taling about with that I/O vs CPU garbage.
Man, if there is discalculia, I have it.
I’m a smart girl. I can read and write well. I am organized. I am skilled at putting together different idea. I have a high IQ and graduated from college with honors.
And yet the other day I was trying to figure out how many hours I had worked. I came in at 10:30 and left at 5:00 and had a one hour break. It took me serveral tries and I’m still not sure I have the right answer. The numbers just dance around in my head. I get different answers every time I try to do even simple calculations. Even things like counting money or copying down numbers from one place to another are things that I tend to mess up. You don’t even want to look at what happens when I try to do higher math. It’s embarrasing, and it’s sucks in the workplace. I don’t want to tell my bosses that I shouldn’t do math related stuff, but I also don’t want to get the wrong answer. So I’ll sit in front of a cash drawer and count it out ten times before I leave for the night and hope that whatever number came up the most is the right on.
I would like to take this opportunity to say that 56 is my favorate number.
As long as we’re still at it:
[
](http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/tutors/expertcolumn/dyscalculia/page3.shtml)
I agree that labels can be useful shorthands, but of what use is “dyscalculia”?
From wikipedia
Which of the above courses of action are different compared to what we would do with any student who is simply bad at math?
It isn’t different than “saying simply bad at math” … so long as by simple you don’t mean to dismiss it as inconsequential. The underlieing developmental neurobiology is quite complex and the deficit can be quite significant to individuals’ functioning.
Besides, if I want to do a literature search to keep up on the research, whether it is learn more about which sorts of interventions are most effective or about the brain differences that cause this deficit and what else travels with it, then a search for “simply bad at math” will be less useful than using the phrase “dyscalculia.”