RE: Hyperlexia

From: Paul Grant (shade999@optonline.net)
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 20:08:17 MDT

  • Next message: Robin Hanson: "Re: Orlowski: Your hate piece on Robin Hanson"

    From: owner-extropians@extropy.org [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]
    On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
    Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:43 AM
    Paul writes

    > [Lee wrote to Phil]
    > > So you are not an example of what Paul was talking about,
    > > "hyperlexia"?
    >
    > I'm hyperlexic, but I found discrete mathematics to be quite a pain to
    > pickup; mind you I excelled at geometric proofs.

    <lee> Getting good at geometry proofs doesn't fit with the rest of your
    narrative.

    I didn't say getting good; I said excelled :) anyways, I mentioned
    geometric proofs
    in that the need was apparent, and ergo the steps to take were apparent.

    <lee> How old were you when you got good, or were able to get good, at
    geometry proofs?

    I think I was in 8th grade or so :)

    > Anyways, long story short, it turned out that discrete mathematics (as

    > its taught generally) was too abstract for me (ergo too many
    > directions to go in for a "short" proof sans need)

    <lee> Well, according to http://www.hyperlexia.org/ my guess
    is that you are/were only very mildly hyperlexic. Did
    you show many of the symptoms listed there?

    <me> Yes, actually; all of them. I was reading college level (my
    brothers book collection)
    material when I was in 6th grade... generally to the exclusion of
    interaction with
    my class mates.. <hence, antisocial>.. the trend has not really
    slackened in the
    intervening years... The only thing that I don't really match (at least
    now)
    is "specific, unusual fears"... I don't really remember being
    frightened when
    I was a kid, with the exception of a single nightmare I had when I was a
    child.
    Of course that could be do to poor recall, but i doubt it..

    > It was very clear to both me and my professor though
    > that I didn't "learn" discrete math the same way other
    > people did... It took a fundamentally different approach...

    <lee> It's as though you had to hack up in software a number line
    or something that others had built into their hardware.

    <me> the equivalent thereof. I have an internal mental framework;
    my conceptual memory is excellent. I can deduce missing pieces
    of information by their "neighbors". Its pretty amusing really,
    since I have terrible recall when it comes to day-to-day events;
    I'm pretty much the only one i know who signficantly extends
    their memory by using keys... I lost a box of stuff once [materials],
    and "rediscovered" a chunk of memory that was keyed off Shel
    Silverstein... but I would never have been able to recall it had I not
    (accidently) read Shel Silverstein again... Pretty funky. In any
    event,
    it is clear to me that I don't really think like normal people (for
    better
    or worse)..

    <lee> There is a certain form of verbal reasoning that I'm no
    good at, and have always felt that I had to "hack up" a
    substitute for what came naturally to others. Or maybe
    I just don't trust my native reasoning ability in addition.

    <me> could be :) I don't see anything to stop that kind of
    meta-grammer from forming... Its a useful ability.

    > Another really interesting portion is that the symbolic processing
    > extends
    > into my kinesthetic system (its got a different name now, but I don't
    > remember it off the top of my head).

    <lee> Proprioception?

    <me> yuppers thats the one :) thanks :)

    > I have extremely good sense recall when it comes to my skeletal
    > muscular system, including the direction of said muscles when it comes

    > to acquiring new skills. I have the equivalent of a shorthand
    > grammar; I tell my muscles what I want them to do and they do it.

    <lee> Again, it makes me think you have no number "feel" at
    all, because otherwise the feature you are mentioning
    would map right onto it, and you'd be very good with
    numbers.

    <me> It isn't a lack of number feel (quite the opposite, I have an
    excellent
    affinity to numbers and their manipulations)... It was that discrete
    mathematics
    is a weaker form of algebra; there were simply too many different ways
    to
    accomplish the proof that the first step didn't present itself.. I work
    off a
    need-based algorithm; without a need, I couldn't really choose one way
    or
    another. As soon as I saw how discrete math was intended to be used, I
    understood what was required of me in regards to proving them.. It was
    like
    in my world(tm), theory of computation came first, then discrete
    mathematics..
    Trying to teach it to me in the traditional manner was pointless; it was
    like
    trying to ice skate uphill. Mind you, I *understood* the proofs (which
    baffled
    my professor); I just couldn't generate the next step.. As soon as I had
    a
    need-based framework constructed, discrete math fell into place in one
    evening.

    <me> The reason why I mentioned it was to draw a distinction; I have
    always done
    well in math prior to (and after) discrete math. It was the *way* it
    was taught
    that was counter-intuitive to me... it wasn't poor symbol manipulation
    techniques;
    it was that there was too many different ways to go and no intrinsic
    heurestic
    for selection of any particular pathway.

    omard-out



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 20:17:44 MDT