Some summaries after reading the developmental dyslexia paper

Developmental dyslexia is defined as ‘a childhood disorder in which children fail to acquire language skills in reading, writing and spelling commensurate with their intellectual ability despite adequate classroom learning experiences’ (World Federation of Neurology, 1968). The disorder is thought to have a clear genetic basis, involving complex traits across multiple genes, with genetic factors being determinant for developmental dyslexia from adolescence to early adulthood. It is also universal and cross-cultural, meaning that 5-20% of children have difficulty reading and writing, regardless of whether their mother tongue is phonetic or hieroglyphic, and in both poor and rich countries. Of course this impairment does not mean a total inability to do so, just a relative delay and a limited ability to reach high levels.

It is interesting to note that this gene that causes reading difficulties would have been present in humans for a long time and has only gradually surfaced as society has changed dramatically – most people were illiterate before basic education became universal in modern society, and this has not affected their survival and reproduction to this day. It was only as modern society continued to evolve and children’s learning became an increasingly popular social topic that the existence of this disorder began to be noticeable.

Previous researchers have tended to view the disorder as a simple genetic defect – which, while regrettable, there is little that can be done about it, and they are simply worse off than others in this respect. A new study from the University of Cambridge recently suggests otherwise: that people with developmental dyslexia do not lose some of their ‘talent points’ entirely, but use them to enhance other areas. Experimental research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that this is more of a psychological predisposition, with people more inclined to explore new areas than to repeat work within existing frameworks.

Rather than being the less promising segment of the population, they are more likely to be the ones who make a special contribution to the development of humanity as a whole – they are better suited to exploring uncharted territories and forging new directions.

A growing body of research shows that people with dyslexia have exceptional talents in certain non-verbal skills related to art, architecture, engineering and sport.

Many people with dyslexia are better at seeing the big picture and have the ability to see and reason about complex systems, as well as seeing connections between different perspectives and areas of knowledge, including pattern recognition and analogies.
They show greater creativity in everything from music to painting to literary composition, and seem adept at conceiving and executing unusual combinations of ideas.
In the area of entrepreneurship, a study of American entrepreneurs found that 35% suffered from dyslexia and 22% from high or profound dyslexia. The typical Chinese entrepreneur in this regard is Chen Liuzi.

Even among successful university-entry groups, the divide is clear: among students at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, a significantly higher proportion of those studying fine art and photography had dyslexia compared to those studying economics and business law; at Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts London, 75 per cent of matriculated students had some form of dyslexia, and at the Royal College of Art, 29 per cent of students self-identified as dyslexic. In a study of several UK universities covering four degree disciplines (engineering, law, medicine and dentistry), the proportion of self-identified dyslexia in engineering was 28%, compared to 5% in law – concluding that a significantly higher proportion of students in the arts and engineering were diagnosed and self-identified as dyslexic .

Researchers believe that this condition, known as dyslexia, is actually a divergence in human evolution to achieve group collaboration and enhance survival advantage, and that it involves choosing better strategies to increase competitive advantage. For example, a tribe occupies a forest where fruit can be found and animals can be hunted, which is a known experience. After the tribe’s population has grown and the existing food production is no longer sufficient to sustain survival, they are faced with two options: either to search more carefully for more and smaller fruits or smaller prey in this forest, which is tiring but safer, or to risk being eaten by huge beasts or killed by other tribes to find new forests for more food sources, which would be a case of going beyond the existing experience and trying other ways. It is difficult to say which of these two ways is better, and the correct answer may change over time and with changing circumstances.

If the decision is made not by an individual but by a whole group, it is clear that betting exclusively on one option is detrimental to overall survival: everyone fears death and scrambles for what is left in the forest, and will soon run out of food and face starvation, or everyone goes out to take a gamble and accidentally runs into a flash flood, which also ends in mass extinction.

Similarly, the conversion of fossil energy into mechanical energy was a huge advance in human technology, and Watt and countless other engineers are credited with improving and popularising the steam engine, transforming the potential of the innovative product into a real and significant productivity. But without the new, inefficient and unprofitable machines invented by Dennis, none of this would undoubtedly have happened.

The optimal strategy is clearly to allocate different people to try different things. Working to exploit the remaining potential within the existing framework, while constantly opening up potentially completely new areas, is most conducive to improving the overall competitive advantage. People who can read normally may be better at grasping the knowledge and experience of those who have gone before them, while those who suffer from dyslexia may be better placed to try out a variety of brand new combinations.

This study is very significant in proving that it is a social bias to view a segment of children who are slower to grasp book knowledge as poor learners, and with it, a bias in education, academia, the workplace, media and other areas that may even stifle the future of the group of children with greater creative potential in humanity as a whole. Creating a more diverse environment in which to grow up and a more free space for unlimited possibilities is perhaps the most profitable investment in the future.