Emphasis added to point out the contradictory nature of the emphasized statements. Your second statement clearly shows why there is a significant distinction in practice between being identified as “dyslexic” and being identified as “just stupid”.
If we know that somebody is dyslexic, we know something about the specific problems they have with language, particularly written language. Moreover, we know that these problems with language don’t imply corresponding “stupidity” in other cognitive areas. This is important information which gets lost if we pretend that there’s no practical difference between being called dyslexic and being called stupid.
Sure, and so are the root causes of shortness and baldness. But that doesn’t mean that being short is the same thing as being bald, nor is being dyslexic the same thing as being stupid.
I agree that individuals should not be identified as dyslexic if they don’t actually present the symptoms of dyslexia just because people think that “dyslexic” sounds less pejorative than “stupid”. But let’s not overcompensate by erring in the other direction and pretending that there isn’t any useful distinction between dyslexia and stupidity.
So do you appreciate the difference in labeling someone “clumsy” and diagnosing someone with cerebral palsy or some other neurological disorder?
“Stupid” implies a person who is clinically normal who falls well below average intelligence. Not everyone is going to be a genius, therefore it should come to no surprise that every population will have some stupid people in it. Stupid, of course, is purely relative. Afterall, the stupidest human is probably the 1000 times smarter than the average sheep.
Dyslexic is not a relative term. It refers to a specific condition that can be diagnosed with some degree with reliability and most importantly, worked around.
If you want to go around calling dyslexic people stupid, it’s a free country. But the concepts aren’t interchangable.
Dyslexia is a common learning disability, but to say that anybody with dyslexia is automatically saying that as an excuse for being stupid is preposterous. Dyslexia is a biologically-based, innate problem that people are just plain born with, and nobody knows how or why some people come into the world like that.
Thanks. I see that my first post was all jumbled and confusing. I don’t blame borderlond for being confused. Thanks for taking the time to clarify my post.
Thanks to begbert2 for trying, too. I really am gonna have to step up my communication game.
Ok, I’ve not read this whole thread yet, but I’ve been said to be Dyslexic after testing when I was around 10 years old. It’s not that I think dyslexia’s BS, I just think that there’s a wider spectrum of learning styles than we have names for. It’s like autism, which is something I was told I also might have a mild case of. I just think that a lot of the time it depends on the individual who has individual ways of thinking.
I’m not sure if I’m dyslexic, I’m sure it exists, but I think there’s a lot of people who are said to have it that either don’t, or maybe have something else. So many people I know claim they’re dyslexic, it’s ridiculous. I was told I have it, and I’m skeptical.