Abstract
When in the grip of false scientific convictions, our perception of reality inevitably becomes distorted and narrowed to fit expectations. As a result, even the more recent highly sophisticated traditionalist investigatory efforts in dyslexia were often as unwittingly distorted by false dyslexia=alexia=severe reading impairment assumptions as were the older theories dating back to 1896. Sadly, they all lacked sufficient explanatory and predictive capabilities to justify their existence. And the reason is simple, as many of you may now realize.
Science progresses not by convincing the adherents of old theories that they are wrong but by allowing enough time to pass so that a new generation can arise unencumbered by the old errors.
—Max Plank, Nobel Laureate in Physics
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
Notes
- 1.
Speaking of exceptions—which I enjoy exploring and making sense of—it is likely that the dyslexic impairment may secondarily trigger compensatory brain “islets,” resulting in exceptional or “gifted” functioning in a lucky few, especially in those predisposed to it. That’s like one arm becoming exceptionally stronger—hypertrophied—to compensate for a weaker atrophied one. However, there’s another idea I had that may make sense of the above “dream/fantasy,” perhaps also explaining the exceptional splinter capabilities seen in Asperger’s. Might a failure in brain inhibition result in the release or escape of previously suppressed exceptional talented functions? Thus, every dream or fantasy may have a grain of truth worth exploring.
- 2.
These examples of scrambled sentences illustrating our innate and learned abilities to spontaneously decode them were taken from an internet site: http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/7h15-m3554g3-53rv35-7o-pr0v3-h0w-0ur-m1nd5-c4n-d0-4m4z1ng-7h1ng5//
- 3.
Might Galaburda’s findings of abnormal embryonic cells within the dominant cerebral reading processor, and throughout the dyslexic brain, support my rather novel evolutionary CVS concept, albeit he mistakenly believed they initially validated traditionalist dyslexia theories and later on the neotraditonalist concepts? Thus, Galaburda’s microscopic data may have been correct, even if his varied interpretations of their significance as to dyslexia’s causation were likely not. However, to better understand both the specifics and context of these important insights, you will have to refer back to my prior discussion within Chap. 8, footnote 3.
- 4.
I long ago discovered that the very same mechanisms that Freud used to explain dream content and slips as well as neurotic symptoms were similar to those I found characterizing dyslexic errors. These include omissions, insertions, displacements, condensations, reversals, opposites, etc. Refer to the Reading Error Diagram within my medical text, A Solution to the Riddle—Dyslexia, as well as here in Chap. 19, Fig. A. It thus appeared likely that Freud’s unconscious or primary (primitive) process “language” or thinking mechanisms were also derived from the CVS—especially the higher cerebellum. And just as we all tended to deny Freud’s discovery of subconscious activity and motivation, we similarly denied the amazing functions of the higher cerebellum which likely modulates this activity!
It’s also worth mentioning that this subconscious thinking is, like a young child’s, pictorial, concrete, and 2-D or linear.
By contrast, there likely is also significant cerebral subconscious functioning akin to a fast computer. This might explain how I, and many others too, often go to sleep puzzled and wake up with solutions. Or insights spontaneously arise while we are busy with unrelated activities. Might this computer be continually active—printing out solutions when the timing is right? Perhaps, conscious thinking, which is slow and tedious, is the exception to man’s overall thinking capabilities?
- 5.
And via a Freudian analysis, the very opposite was shown true about anecdotal content: It is scientifically meaningless, as some traditionalist critics maintain, when improperly listened to, questioned, analyzed, reconciled, and so never really understood. Or when never listened to at all due to bias and so denied altogether.
Thus, when properly analyzed, all verbalizations can be eventually understood and so have scientific value—even opposites and seemingly nonsensical expressions.
- 6.
Another Zag
In writing this chapter and discussing how insights just pop into consciousness after sleep, I suddenly wondered: Might these occurrences result due to decreased conscious inhibition of subconscious processes akin to dream content or what Freud called primary process thinking surfacing? Seems likely. And suddenly I had a probable “validation” for how dyslexics like Michael Shultz and Meg Fex began reading content they previously did not consciously know once medically treated (refer back to Chap. 3). Might med treatment have lessened over-inhibitory memory mechanisms? Or simply enabled suppressed normal reading mechanisms—which would explain how gifted readers just spontaneously function from the start, without prior learning.
Clearly, there are many latent thoughts and insights roaming about our subconscious—otherwise they couldn’t suddenly enter consciousness—just like dreams. So, might most be normally or adaptively held in check by cerebellar/cerebral inhibitory mechanisms? Might the latter prevent flooding and/or dreams and dream-like delusional and hallucinatory content from becoming conscious and interfering with normal conscious, logical, or secondary thinking processes and functioning?
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). The CVS Theory of Dyslexia: A Theory’s Value Is Entirely Dependent on Its Explanatory and Predictive Capabilities. In: Feeling Smarter and Smarter. Copernicus, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16208-5_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16208-5_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Copernicus, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16207-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16208-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)