Quote:
|
Originally Posted by spazz
Not to put a damper on this conversation. But I have never seen objective physchology research, since nothing can be proven mathematically. So technically even if its research, doesnt mean its factual. If its factual, it doesnt mean it applies to you, because that is subjective, there is no way to prove that it applies to you, because it is based on relativity. It remains opinionated, even if you make generalizations that happen only by chance.
|
Well, I'm sure your own "expert" opinions on the matter are safe however, just for the record, here are quite a few reputable published objective research papers on the subject:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/...ct/123/11/2240
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Hom...accno=EJ730248
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3510847
http://www.uth.tmc.edu/clinicalneuro...Gross-Tsur.pdf
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.co...lts,1:102428,1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation
The controls for alot of these studies are quite good if you read up on it.
In reading up on the subject (I can't sleep, and this topic is interesting) I can note that out of a good 25+ articles in reputable journals, developmental dyscalculia is a very real, studied, objective learning disability. All of the articles that detailed causes pointed to the disorder as gentically-based and specifically ruled out conditions such as IQ, gender, teacher quality, student volition (such as laziness), and surprisingly age. I tried to specifically find research to de-bunk developmental dyscalculia as well, but found none.
There are of course, other ways to acquire a math-learning disability such as through brain trauma or psycho-somatic issues, or alzheimers, but I focused on the developmental path.
Anyways, it's all interesting reading if you've got the time.