I'll ask anybody who thinks such awards or tests are discriminating - do you think your local football team should be drawn at random from everybody living in the town? And would you pay to watch? Life is competitive, live with it.
I think this thread was started in order to encourage Bit-Tech to encourage corect spelling and grammer. I think it is a good idea. I don't see it as discrimination. I too sometimes show signs of dyslexia, but I dought I have it. Although, I sometimes have trouble understanding the question unless logically stated. I always seem to understand logic. But as soon as something is unlogically stated, I must think about it to understand it. I also need to see it, because I am more a visual learner than an audio learner. So to some it up, I think this subtle little flame war should stop. i think this thread was only meant to try and find a way of encouraging bit-techers to post nice, clean, grammatically corect posts. I find things that are had to read quite annoying. As we all do. I guess I could go about this all day, describing different facts and ideas about it, but I don't really see the need to. But will if anyone doesn't understand. I hope I don't get flamed for this, or get called stupid or something.
This is a big can of worms! These types of forums ( fora ) are very international. An award for correct English would be discriminatory. BUT there are limits. Using SMS speak and abbreviations with bad spelling and grammar can make some posts unreadable. What I try and do though is compensate for my weaknesses. I use spelling and grammar checking. It doesn't take much to run your posts through ieSpell to make sure they are readable. I'm not very hot when it comes to literacy; I write slowly and my hand writing is poor. I might have been diagnosed as dyslexic if I went through school a few years later. I still get my 'b' and 'd' confused and can't spell for s--t! I'm not thick (post grad qualifications and a 147 IQ) or lazy, I just don't do language very well. I just accept that, when I write stuff, it takes longer, requires more effort and I make more mistakes than most. To compensate, I excel at stuff other find nearly impossible Everyone should recognise (even rejoice in) their own strengths and weaknesses as well as everyone else's. Max
Absolutely. But some people feel that this is a personal attack because they cannot do it through no fault of their own. This is exactly what I have been saying. Your handwriting s slow, your mental agility is quick. You may be given extra time in a formal exam. What if the situation were reversed, you handwriting were quick, your mental agility slow? Why should you not be given extra time then? I havent made a personal attack upon anyone here, and nobody has actually outlined why they find my post insulting. Do you feel I am somehow lessening your "disability" (for want of a better word), the thing that 'permits' you to spell words however you see fit?
This is the part i found insulting as you are effectivly calling dyslexics stupid when it is probably the opposite that is true (that is dyslexics are anything but stupid)
Actually, I have to admit, I found it kindof insulting too. Its like saying some one who would take a jump over a bunch of burning oil barels is the same as a person who would window mod an hdd. Yes, they are both taking risks, but the stunt devil is risking his life, not a silly hdd. Although, my examply may not suit you well, and may not convince you that your statement was insulting in any way. If that is so, I hope you can think of another example which may relate it for yourself. Then you will understand exactly how it was insulting. Although, I think it is nothing to cry about myself, just ignorant of you to ignore two distinct differences. the end result may be the same, but the causes are different. I suppose that is like a woman killing a man for saying he wants to have sex with her, and then later doing it. and say them being in a relationship (a bad one) and the woman killing the man in self deffense. I have heard of cases were the woman is ruled in favour, and is not punished nearly as bad if the circumstances were otherwise.
It is, in fact, the complete opposite to what you have said. I have clearly defined Dyslexics and 'stupid people' as two distinct and unrelated subgroups. I am sure there are some stupid dyslexics, just as there are some exceptionally bright ones. when I said "I see no difference" I mean in terms of the problem they are facing in relation to a timed exam, NOT that I see no difference between stupid people and dyslexic people. Pygobombe, I have no idea what you are talking about. I was kinda with you until you started about the man and the woman and then it just all made no sense at all.
Yeah.. I was trying to clarify my first point... but I guess Iwent a little too far. I don't really understand what I said either. I kinda embarased a little Please ignore anything stupid I say from now on... well, maybe mention you don't get it, or oppose it in some way. I think answering phone callse and posting at the same time has fuddled up my posting again And I thought I.... ok.. enoughs enough... I herebye disable myself from posting stupid things... wait.. oh no I hope you understand, and excuse my incopedant use of my brain.
This thread is a perfect example of why people should proof-read their messages before posting them. Not only will you discover spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors, you might even see a misapplied point of discussion. You have inflamed several members here with this statement and your explanations. According to your logic, and witnessed by your persistent excuses, you are the stupid one. Be that as it may. You don't seem to know what a dyslexic is. I suggest you look it up before trying to discuss it any further. I think you'll find it's a disorder in the way the brain translates the printed word. It has nothing to do with intelligence, understanding or reasoning. You obviously don't know what "stupid" is either, and I apologize for my pointed insult. I was using your definition. Stupid is not an affliction, it is an insult. It is not a term used in any medical or psychological diagnosis, it's a term used by people who aim to hurt or are ignorant of the word's actual use in the English language. This thread has deteriorated from its intended purpose. It has succeeded in showing the importance of language usage and education. We have a communications medium here that can not only satisfy our need to share our hobby and socialize with our peers, but also allow us to practice our communications skills for use in all facets of our lives. Since it had degraded to insults and innuendo, whether intentional or not, I nominate this thread be closed. Maybe another, similar thread can be started again and give us another chance at decorum. Grump
I know that, but if you had read the thread a little more carefully, it was suggested that dyslexia was actually linked with higher intelligence, not lower. *I* never suggested anything either way. Dyslexia IS a disorder in the way the brain translates the printed word, so how can you say this has nothing to do with understanding? If you can't read the word, you cant understand it until you CAN read the word, right? Again, read the thread a little more carefully. I have been trying to be diplomatic throughout the thread. I have used phrases like "slow mental agility" and "less mentally gifted", but it becomes an akward mouthful, and everyone else was using the term "stupid", so I used it too. Are you denying that there are people with faster and slower mental skills out there? Are denying that some people simply pick up on some things in some subject areas quicker than others? Of course you're not. Can you think of a better word to describe what I am trying to convey? If you can, suggest it, and I will go through all my posts and substitute it. If you really were "using my definition" of the word 'stupid' then you have already realised that I have attempted to redefine the word within the parameters of this thread to mean something other than the insult we all know it to be. So your point, whilst very righteously assuming the moral high-ground, is undermined by your clear and total understanding of what I was trying to do, and my difficulty in finding an accptable word. Even earlier within that 6 line paragrah, I had CLEARLY defined what I meant by "stupid" as Perhaps I should have said: Perhaps if you read the threads more closely, paid attention to some of your own definitions a little more, and stopped pretending to misunderstand things I had written, you would not feel this way.
Precisely why this thread should die. Wrong. Now go look it up in an encyclopedia, like I suggested. And thank you once again for trashing a perfectly good topic. Grump
Found here - Encyclopedia Britannica "AN INABILITY OR PRONOUNCED DIFFICULTY TO LEARN TO READ OR SPELL" If you can't read the word, you can't understand it, can you? That's why Dyslexics get extra time in exams, 'cos they have trouble reading words in questions and have to take extra time and care over their answers. Which definition were you working from?
OK, as a Neuropsychologist I have to jump in here. Dyslexia is not a uniform condition. You have various congenital forms (causal factors still poorly undertood) and an acquired one (through brain injury). Congenital versions appear to be related to fast visual movement processing, and basic visual pattern processing. It has nothing to do with language development or cognitive understanding. This is clearly evident in the fact that people with dyslexia have no verbal (spoken) communication problems, and as a group display the same distribution of cognitive abilities as people without dyslexia. So contrary to Wireframe's assertion, dyslexic people can understand a word even if they have difficulty reading it (all you have to do is say it to them!). So Grump is right. But I think what Wireframe is trying to say is that they will struggle decoding or recognising the written symbol representing the word. This is not strictly the same thing, however. Acquired dyslexia related to brain injury is associated usually with damage of the left occipito-parietal area (visual and association cortex). However it can also be associated with receptive dysphasia (caused by damage of usually the left temporo-parietal language area of the brain), which very much affects language comprehension and use, although general cognitive function is unaffected. In the former case, people can understand words even if they struggle at reading them, but in the latter case they may have problems actually understanding the word in any modality (written or spoken). Of course, they will still understand the concept, just like you understand the concept of teaspoon even if you don't understand the word "theelepel" (because it is in a foreign language --Dutch). This is, of course, the simplified explanation... The thing is that things like "understanding", "language" and even something as apparently straightforward as vision work on many, many interrelated levels. So let's not even go there. OK, time to kill the thread now.
I think the award in itself was a perfectly good idea, though it is sad to see adolescent bickerring (sp??) over something so mundane. Personally, I usually don't capitalize when I'm typing unless it is something formal like an email to my boss, but I can understand people preferring it, i just choose not to. anyway, i think the award was a valid idea
Ok, stop. Everyone, stop. Nexxo, thankyou for your outlining the actual conditions of Dyslexia. Yes, NOBODY will be reading out the questions to you when in an exam. All I was saying was that Dyslexics, due to one form or another have problems in formal exams, and are given extra time to compensate. I think other subsets are unfairly discriminated against, or even totally ignored with regards to this bonus when taking exams. There is no "adolescent bickering". Grump disputed a point I was trying to make, and I put my case before his dispute. This is called a conversation, or heaven forbid, a debate.
I have to agree with WireFrame here, although I don't think he has made his point clearly enough. I think, what he means, is that dyslexia can be seen as something to do with the brain (it doesn't matter if it does or doesn't). He compares them with people that aren't "smart". I can see why he does this: people who aren't "smart" (thus, have something not in their brain that others do have) don't get extra time for their exam, why should dyslexic people get it? The period of time you make the exam is on itself a test, if you don't pass it, you don't pass the exam. It's hard to explain this, but I'll try to use an analogy (which I am currently involved in): lifeguards at the beach. Lifeguards have to pass a very hard and strict test before they are qualified to be a lifeguard. For example, they have to swim 200m, with clothes on, within 4 minutes 30 seconds. This is already hard for people who don't have any "handicap" or injury, but a friend of mine, also undergoing the training, has had an injury to his knee, and has had to undergo surgery for it. His left leg was completely useless for 3 months, meaning he couldn't train in those 3 months, and has now some serious time to catch up. The analogy with dyslexic people starts here. Should my friend get extra time to swim the 200m, because he has an injury? No. If he can't swim the 200m in 4:30, he isn't qualified. It doesn't matter if he has an injury or not, he just couldn't, and that means that if he would get extra time, he might endanger other peoples lives that another lifeguard would have been able to save. But he couldn't because he wasn't there on time (because of his injury). Should dyslexic people receive extra time for their examinations, because there is something wrong with their brain? No. If you can't read or write properly (it doesn't matter why), you won't be able to read or write properly irl, on your job. You won't get extra time (or credit) in your job because you're dyslexic. I hope I made my point clear with this analogy. The comparison with "not that smart" people is clear enough I think: should people who aren't as "smart" as other people, receive more time because they aren't that smart? No, if they aren't smart enough to complete the test within the given period of time, they just don't qualify. I am not saying dyslexic people are not as smart as others, I am just saying that there is a link between dyslexic people and not as smart people within the topic or discussion of tests. I also request this thread to be closed, as there won't come an end to this discussion, and I have talked with certain people and I know that such a forum-award isn't going to become reality anyway. Thus, this thread has no purpose left. I am aware of the fact that I shouldn't have stated my opinion just before I request a close of the thread, as now it seems that I have had the last word and that isn't fair, but I just couldn't let it go. I hope I haven't insulted anyway.
RELIX! YES! SO NEARLY! What I was saying was that perhaps people sould either level the playing field for the "other" people (Non-dyslexics with problems) by giving them "extra time" or scrap the "extra time" altogether. I withdraw my "close this thread" request. This issue has now been clearly stated and understood Thankyou EDIT: Actually, this entire conversation highlights the IMPORTANCE of clearly staing a point, which it seems I did not. However, Relix is the thread starter, and I guess his word is going to be final. No hard feelings all
