Dyslexia

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32778, 1 December 1971, Page 16

Dyslexia

Sir, —As an English woman I assure Jenny Street that my approach to dyslexia is not casual. Authorities accept that to place a “dyslexic” in a slow reading “group” is detrimental. I teach individuals only, searching for the weakness, then stress sounds, combining speech and reading. I also say: “I know how you feel—l’m hopeless at maths.” Thus a common bond is established. With patience, humour, encouragement, and the knowledge that a child is not dumb, success is invariably achieved. I can recognise! “dyslexia”; it is the loose use of the word I object to. Thus my reference to “mathadazia.”—Yours, etc., RUTH THORN. November 30, 1971.

Sir, —I have no objection to the use of names for conditions if we can be sure that they have meaning. By definition, the statistical intelligence quotient puts one person m six at an I.Q. of 85 or below. An emotional stability measure would show the same proportion as significantly below average in that area, and a "lexia quotient” the same percentage whose understanding of speech and other symbols would be a cause of worry. The problem is to measure anything psychological except 1.Q., and that is defined only by the tests used. I find autism indistinguishable from brain damage, and no reason to believe that, dyslexia is a condition attached to anyone “otherwise normal," or with “otherwise full intellectual potential.” I am sorry about this, and can just encourage the greatest optimism in every individual case, avoiding refuge in semantic mysticism.—Yours, etc., "JIM ABELSON."

November 30, 1971. [This correspondence is now closed.—Ed., “The Press.”] Pay deductions for