The Dyslexia Myth

Cna yuo raed tihs?

The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno’t mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and yuo can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

So, deos dselyixa ralley esxit, or is ti jsut an ecxsue for sputidity?

Cna yuo raed tihs?

I’m pretty sure the study you mention is for adult readers, not children learning how to read.

No, Dyslexia is not a myth.

Cute trick. I’ve seen it before without the lame crack about dyslexia being a myth.

This is probably true - after you’ve practiced reading for years.

Here’s a recent thread about dyslexia. sevenwood’s post is particularly helpful here, I think:

Everytime I see this, I always wonder why people add the ‘according to Cambridge University’ part. All that does is make someone zero in on that part and say, ‘DEBUNKED!!’.

Not in this case, where calling Dyslexia a myth has nothing to do with the fact that those words can be read.

But in other cases…whenever this is brought up, I look forward to learning more about why we can all read that paragraph, and I never get to hear any good conversation about it, because someone rushes in to debunk the whole Cambridge research part of it; without addressing the main point.

Cdbgriame Uistreivny really said that the middle letters can be in any order so long as the first and last are right?

I doubt it and certainly that stupid little thing that keeps key letter and word shape combos together except for the most practiced and smaller words does not make much of a point.

Yes, dyslexia exists, although people too stupid to even bother to look up that its definition includes being of otherwise normal intelligence and having had normal opportunity to leard to read, do exist.

I suspect here lies the rub.

A dyslexic child learning to read will have real problems. Those of us who have been reading for years and for whom it is second nature can read the muddled text fine.

Can people develop dyslexia later in life? I suspect not although I do not know.

So, for a child dyslexia is very real and a serious impediment to their learning.

Note that in most of the words the consonants remain in the same, or nearly the same, order as in the unscrambled word. That gives a very strong visual/auditory clue as to the intended word. Tht’s hw rdrs cn ndrstnd sntncs lk ths.

The business about dyslexia is a real cheap shot; I’ve never heard anyone report a form of dyslexia that conveniently left perception of the first and last letters of every word unaffected.

U nfortunately, that trick doesn’t work with a.) unfamiliar words (your mind can’t correct the order if it doesn’t already know what the order is) b.) Similar words c.) foreign words or d.) mathematical expressions. The latter caused no end of problems to dyslexic Pepper Mill, who never conquered algebra in part because of it. It screwed up her reading skills, too, and foreign language study.

Nope, Dyslexia isn’t a myth.

So, if someone happens to be unable to discern printed words perfectly, they are irredeemably stupid and should be abandoned to their fate, is that it? Seems a bit harsh.

There’s some explanation here. Somewhat interesting.

From my link: (warning: PDF) (warning: PDF)

The OP is a non-sequitor. It’s like saying “Hey, have you ever noticed you can’t bite your elbow? That seems like evidence that AIDS is not caused by HIV. Discuss!” If you really want to discuss the scrambled letters phenomenon, that’s a different thread. But if you want to discuss links between that and dyslexia, you need a solid argument to stand on first. That’s why my first response was so dismissive.

Previously posted by me:

There’s also the type that each eye focuses on a different line of text. One of my children went to NYU eye center for a year and they had him do various exercises to retrain his eye muscles to focus correctly. It has helped, but it has not eradicated the problem.

If someone does not have a learning disability, and sees correctly spelled text in a language they understand, they can read it.

If someone does not have a learning disability, and sees incorrectly spelled text in a language they understand, they can usually still read it.

At what point in this process have we proved anything about how people who do have a learning disability read? As near as I can tell, at no point have we done so, because at no point have we actually tested a person with a learning disability. All we’ve done is expanded our understanding of the abilities of people who do not have learning disabilities.

Damn. Ya’ll really don’t mess around. I came back to this thread and there was links and education and ignorance fighting going down. Thanks.

It is a conspiracy.
Dyslexics of the world

Iieettlrgnnsy, its ture taht slipme but lgoenr wdros can rsluet in duclffiit to raed stcnneees if oerredd polrrepy.

Wehn enitnemirepxg rnidrageg etceffs ilbicudne tguorhh aoitacilppn of uetacilpmocnd tnoitamrofsnars (elpmaxe: tllaiviry rnisreveg iroiretns) cnoisulcnos setseggud sailadepeuqsen tgolonimrey ierefretns sltnacifingiy.

As someone who confuses left-right easily, & has a very hard time typing, I would say, yeah, it exists, & it occurs in different degrees & takes many forms.

Don’t confuse the use of learned patterns the OP demonstrates for the process of learning patterns.

There are lots of smart people who compensate for their dyslexia by reading when everything looks like the OP.

I would be hard pressed, OTOH, to define “stupidity.” Undefined, no-process dumbitude? Now maybe that’s a myth.