Abstract
When initially starting my research from ground zero, I instinctively determined that the best way—and perhaps the only way—to fully understand dyslexics, and so their disorder, is to listen patiently and carefully to their many and varied symptoms, including what has been reported by their parents, teachers, and testers. Then keenly observe their difficulties in performing reading, writing, etc. psychological and neurological tasks. And analyze everything you’ve obtained for important clues—and correlations—so as to find all of this disorder’s key characteristics as well as their underlying determining origins.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
I mistakenly assumed initially that dyslexia was just a reading disorder, first of psychological and then of cerebral origin. However, following the facts wherever they led saved my research efforts from dead ends. As you read on, you will see that just about all our initial conscious and unwitting assumptions about dyslexia were incorrect. And for good reason. Nature is just too complex and our thinking too “simplistic” to initially assume or guess correctly.
- 2.
No other neurological researcher chose to follow this Q&A “neuroanalytic” (similar to psychoanalytic) investigative method. And the reasons were simple. This was a psychoanalytic-like method—negatively/defensively referred to by some as merely clinical or anecdotal evidence, and neurologists were not geared to use it. And because neurological experts were initially certain that dyslexia = alexia, they saw no reason to further pursue and analyze a problem they believed was long ago solved in 1896. They just sought objective proof—finding the elusive cerebral neurological signs—to cement their irrefutable dyslexia = alexia conviction!
Glued to their alexia universe as well as their sophisticated double-blind investigative path, dyslexia researchers remained unable to see beyond themselves, nor willing to try. So they also defensively resisted listening to a challenging convert like me from planet “Brooklyn” who found and used a simple anecdotal method and investigatory route that significantly differed from theirs. Never mind that my qualitative listening/neuroanalytic method worked—and so ultimately proved successful in unmasking and treating the previously hidden 4-D dyslexia syndrome and all its currently known causal mechanisms. Kryptonite appeared to have them all spellbound. Thus, they continued to listen only to themselves and like-minded colleagues—not to my dyslexic patients, nor even their own!
- 3.
- 4.
My qualitative neuroanalytic listening and eyes-open method, illuminating very large and key CVS-determined symptomatic dots, led to a clear scattergram or 4-D dyslexia portrait. So to attain objectivity, all that was needed was to independently validate these illuminated crucial symptomatic dots and determining mechanisms via double-blind studies.
By contrast, most quantitative double-blind dyslexia studies are primarily focused on statistically validating single variables of a complex unseen puzzle mistakenly believed to be derived from incorrect alexia-like or related images. So the resulting scattergram of seemingly infinite dots, if formed, will never correlate with its theoretical concept/image—since the latter is a false illusion or fantasy (refer to Chaps. 8 and 9 for further clarification). This triple-blind fantasy was independently rejected by the APA and DSM-V, thus, belatedly validating my clinically based concepts and definition.
Thus, most of the collective double-blind results so far obtained illuminate nothing tangible about dyslexia’s image since they are significantly based on unwittingly mistaken premises/beliefs/definitions. Hence, my tongue-in-cheek term for most double-blind dyslexia studies is “triple-blind.”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Levinson, H.N. (2019). Listening to Dyslexics: My Simple Clinical Path Proved Key to Discovery. In: Feeling Smarter and Smarter. Copernicus, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16208-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16208-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Copernicus, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16207-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16208-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)