When people like Graham Stringer MP make ill-informed statements saying that this condition ‘does not exist’ it can be confusing and distressing for people who may have been recently identified as dyslexic. It muddies the waters.

So I am very glad you have clarified your article – explaining that you are using the word ‘dyslexia’ in a non-standard way to mean ‘illiteracy’. Many thanks for that.

And I completely agree that there is no advantage in illiteracy. I would be very surprised if anyone today said there was (though I believe Socrates was against writing as he believed it underminded the use of memory!)

All the best.

Rod

I think you make a really good point. It also allows me to clarify my position.
I think that there are two broad meanings of dyslexia. There may be some relationship between the two but they involve different brain systems, treatments and outcomes. One is very clear and means not being able to read. I prefer to use this from a scientific point of view. Using a precise definition like this allows us to define the problem, the area of the brain associated with this problem and subsequently the intervention or treatment. All these have been done regarding the dyslexia of not being able to read.
The other definition of dyslexia and one that is in common use is for a much more broader cluster of difficulties. I would prefer to call this something else but most people call it dyslexia and this definition seems to serve a purpose. This type of dyslexia includes attention difficulties, working memory difficulties, co-ordination difficulties, organizational difficulties, directional problems, temporal difficulties etc. This is harder to define scientifically as it probably represents a number of different brain systems/ causes. Also as you point out these attributes can be very positive. A number of entrepreneurs and designers seem to have these attributes (e.g Richard Branson, Theo Patheties, Richard Rogers) . A number of people with this type of dyslexia seem to see the world in a different and more creative way. I don’t know how you change these difficulties and indeed whether you should. I tend to tell patients who come to see me about this that this is just a different way of thinking about the world and that it is important to play to your strengths. The biggest problem for people with this type of dyslexia is other people’s perceptions, especially teachers. Children with this type of dyslexia are often labeled as stupid or lazy. So the issue here is a greater understanding of the difficulties and utilizing the strengths that are often present.

The other type of dyslexia i.e not being able to read is a much bigger problem and I can’t see any advantage to children or adults of not being able to read. The science about this is very clear and I don’t see a reason why any child can’t be taught to read, even if reading continues to be slow (which may not be possible to change and may be associated with a deeper dyslexia- for example due to word structure very few Italians can’t read but some are slow). It is this type of dyslexia that I would like to eliminate.

Hope that helps clarify my position.

However, I feel readers might be led to believe that you are implying ‘reading problems’ are synonymous with ‘dyslexia’. Whilst it is true that most dyslexics find reading hard to aquire, this is a manifestation of the condition rather a complete description of it.

Though the condition is incompletely understood, it is clear that most dyselxics show a cluster of attributes, some broadly positive others broadly negative.

As a dyslexic, my reading is slow. I need memory joggers to help me figure out which side is called left and which is called right. I have a particularly well developed spatial perception, I find it hard to track the flow of time – and conversely find it easy to really experience the moment. The list of differences could go on.

The real point is – I would not want my mind to be different. I might want to be able to read a bit faster, but I certainly don’t want my dyslexia to be eliminated. It is part of who I am.

Thanks for your stimulating article.

Rod