Marcus Aurelius and the Continuing Dyslexia Debate


Share This:
Facebooktwitterlinkedin

June 2014

By Maryanne Wolf, Ed.D.

“Blame no one. But set the record straight.”

“Everything we see is a perspective, not a fact.”

Marcus Aurelius said many things in his Meditations that are as apt today as when he wrote them two thousand years ago, but I think the above two passages are particularly helpful as a context for my own reflections on the book, Dyslexia Debate, by Julian Elliot and Elena Grigorenko. It is a book that has generated more debate than actual reading, and for reasons that may have more to do with informal interviews and comments by the first author, than by the solid scholarship that both authors contribute in the book itself.

More’s the pity. There is much to learn from this book, whether one agrees with the particular perspective the authors bring to the subject or not. Indeed I found myself in an ongoing dialogue with the authors, sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing, but always interested in the perspective they bring to bear which I believe will be helpful to many members of our dyslexia community. My hope in writing this brief essay is to invite members of the dyslexia community to read and form their own opinion of the book’s pages, and to eschew other commentary or remarks. That is the joy of written language, and its advantage over oral language: It allows and, at its best, elicits dialogue with the reader without public judgment or influence.

Towards that end, I would like to suggest six points or insights that might provide a context for reading this book and that formed the scaffolding for my personal dialogue with the authors as I read the book.
Six insights might help scaffold your reading

First, the history of dyslexia is pockmarked or punctuated (choose your metaphor) by very different explanations of the phenomenon we call dyslexia. Each hypothesis was based on efforts to provide the one true explanation for why children with dyslexia have difficulty learning to read. The search for parsimony, usually a strength in matters of science, proved a profound error in the uni-dimensional explanations given to dyslexia over its history. And with each new effort to explain dyslexia, there was a new name given to the phenomenon. Perhaps no other similar condition has had more names—from visualis amnesia verbalis todyschronia.

… the fact that the construct of dyslexia, like reading itself, is so complex does not mean that we need to return to older, more general terminology like reading disability or reading disorders to explain it.

Second, the major reason for both the plethora of dyslexia explanations and their accompanying new names is the underlying complexity of the reading circuit itself. If one actually could plot the different explanations/names for dyslexia on the cerebral cortex, you would see a fairly good depiction of the overall reading circuit of the brain. With good reason. Like the metaphor of the blind man and the elephant, each new researcher was investigating one of the various reasons reading could be disrupted in the circuit. There is an old maxim that works well here: “If it can go wrong, it does.” The history of different explanations and names for dyslexia has its origins in the complexity of the reading circuit.

Third, adding to the complexity of dyslexia is the fact that the brain can and does make different reading circuits. For example, the Chinese writing system requires a different reading circuit than does an alphabetic system. In dyslexia, there may be a quite different reading circuit in some children that is genetically based and that advantages the right hemisphere for doing what should be left hemisphere tasks. This would explain many of the very different findings for individuals with dyslexia who appear to have more diffuse activation and more right hemisphere activation for traditionally left hemisphere language tasks. Some of the recent work by John Gabrieli and members of my own lab show exactly that.First, the history of dyslexia is pockmarked or punctuated (choose your metaphor) by very different explanations of the phenomenon we call dyslexia. Each hypothesis was based on efforts to provide the one true explanation for why children with dyslexia have difficulty learning to read. The search for parsimony, usually a strength in matters of science, proved a profound error in the uni-dimensional explanations given to dyslexia over its history. And with each new effort to explain dyslexia, there was a new name given to the phenomenon. Perhaps no other similar condition has had more names—from visualis amnesia verbalis todyschronia.Second, the major reason for both the plethora of dyslexia explanations and their accompanying new names is the underlying complexity of the reading circuit itself. If one actually could plot the different explanations/names for dyslexia on the cerebral cortex, you would see a fairly good depiction of the overall reading circuit of the brain. With good reason. Like the metaphor of the blind man and the elephant, each new researcher was investigating one of the various reasons reading could be disrupted in the circuit. There is an old maxim that works well here: “If it can go wrong, it does.” The history of different explanations and names for dyslexia has its origins in the complexity of the reading circuit.

Fourth, all of this collective complexity makes an understanding of the many aspects of dyslexia research more difficult to evaluate. What the authors of The Dyslexia Debate present is an impressively fine-grained summary of this research, which is imminently worth reading. This is not to say that there will not be differences of perspective on their presentation of the research. For example, even though my own perspective differs somewhat from theirs, I was impressed by their view of my own research on naming speed and the RAVE-O intervention program. I believe such differences in perspective are healthy and the basis for the development of knowledge in any field. I applaud these authors’ tremendous efforts to apply their particular perspective across the many areas of dyslexia research.

Fifth, one of the most difficult aspects in any large effort like this book concerns the need to connect knowledge bases that are highly divergent. Here is one of the great strengths of the book, where the highly respected geneticist Elena Grigorenko illumines how the genetics of dyslexia is connected to structural and behavioral levels of research. The future of our collective work in dyslexia involves an ability to make just such connections, out of which better assessment and more comprehensive interventions can emerge. Again, I applaud the authors for these important efforts.

Finally, I will add the sixth and most controversial point: what is and is not up for debate. I would like to make three points here.

  • First, children with dyslexia are best served with a diagnosis and explanation for their difficulties with reading acquisition.
  • Second, no individuals with dyslexia should ever think that they are less intelligent or lazy or not working to their potential.
  • Third, the fact that the construct of dyslexia, like reading itself, is so complex does not mean that we need to return to older, more general terminology like reading disability or reading disorders to explain it.

The authors and I differ only on the last issue. It is a crucial one, to be sure, for all the reasons that everyone in the dyslexia community has been discussing with no small intensity in different forums. I respect the monumental efforts that have made this book a great resource. I respectfully differ only on the last point. For better and, indeed, also for worse, as a researcher and perhaps more poignantly as a mother of an individual with dyslexia, I believe we need a term that will better communicate the specificity and the seriousness of the issues (social, emotional, intellectual, political, policy-related) involved. But not unlike the views of the authors, I would also wish the term embodied more of the plurality involved. If I could turn back the historical clock, I would add my own naming efforts to everyone else’s and recommend that we use the term “dyslexias,” which I suggested two decades ago with Pat Bowers. Historical humility convinces me that what we need is not a new name, but a more nuanced understanding of the multi-faceted phenomenon that is dyslexia—an understanding that emphasizes its advantages as much as its challenges.

In sum, I believe the book Dyslexia Debate lives up to its apt title and has multiple contributions to make to the serious reader. Whether one agrees with the authors’ conclusions or not is, as Marcus Aurelius presciently described, a matter of “perspective, not truth.”


Maryanne Wolf, Ed.D., John DiBiaggio Professor of Citizenship and Public Service, Director of the Center for Reading and Language Research and Professor in the Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development at Tufts University


Copyright © 2014 International Dyslexia Association (IDA). We encourage sharing of Examiner articles. If portions are cited, please make appropriate reference. Articles may not be reprinted for the purpose of resale. Permission to republish this article is available from info@interdys.org.