fMRI of Surface & Phonological Dyslexics?

Liar42 liar42 at
Fri Nov 9 04:34:05 EST 2001

No, but why do you regard the surface relevant?

For incoming verbal data one might have assumed maybe Wernicke's as relevant
and for outgoing very much the language structurer that you might call Broca's.

(I do know that I seem to have more trouble understanding dialects that I am
not used to than various around seemed to have. 
I assumed somehow, that parallel processing capacities being limited &
discerning a lot well parallel might have to do with that.
So maybe there actually some outer stuff does become relevant.
But I still do not get what the surface should be so relevant, but maybe the
word has another meaning in English that I don't know. Or it referred to
"dyslexic" and I just sorted it not O.K. with that because I am unfamiliar with
a word combi like that there.)

Even if you know, how does that help them people?

Might be easier if some teachers finally accepted that some just are differing
and would stop to demand from people with brain damages as a role model
capacities of undamaged brains.

(For MBD people 
people with their sort of master race idealisms of humans have to be,
irregardless if they have the internal capacities to be so, 
can be an outright plague.)

If if you noticed what in their brains was differing 
it might be assume that you will not make it not so.

Apart from that if the damages did come later and are not something genetically
that always is so with a certain genetic group, there might be quite some
individual differences.

Instead of DYSing around 
more tolerance for differences might help rather differing persons more
than making some norm not their own THE master race norm, and anyone who does
not have it is a DYS.

Reading and writing are late skills, taking our ancestors genetic history
something that came even later than that they turned humans, 
so like some mm on a meter scale, if even that much, 
and not very old and very basic stuff.

If one were to regard speaking words and understanding spoken language like a
and reading and writing like some mm on a meter scale there 
that might already be exaggerating.

Maybe some instead of DYSing around that could be regarded more, also.

But if you like it, go on,  
I guess some are more into surface stuff.


(BTW, not that I am sure he has data about such, but you could try to take a
search program like Google and give in Eric Courchesne
{and note I really don't like the guy and also consider him to be an idiot}
and ask him if he knows where to get the data you are looking for.
Maybe he does not, but he is to do with some rather differing brains stuff.

But never believe his theories uncriticially, if you want an advice.
The dude can be way off-shot in his believes, irregardless how much he regards
it so.
And I find his attitudes partially to outright suck.)

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list