this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
39 points (100.0% liked)
Science
3140 readers
1 users here now
General discussions about "science" itself
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is a criticism of the article, no one should be offended by it. Criticism is a tool for archiving the truth.
The DSM-5 is just a kind of definition. We define Dyscalculia as a specific learning disorder. Thats in itself isn't a factuall point.
The link is a 404. Anyway. If we assume that the brain processes math-related concepts somehow (!) different, we have a lots of implication. First, the brain works in a way that it can process math-related concepts different but all other informations normal. Secondly, there are a neurological basis which differentiate between mathematical and other realms of thinking, lets say linguistics. Thirdly, if the add the assumption that this "math-related reasoning" is locelated somewhere in the brain, we could find a "mathematical area" just like the "Wernicke's area". Fourthly, you could develop a test for dyscalculia based on biomarkers.
But not with spatial tasks? I would expact that transitive inferences could be more linguistic and spatial taks need to be done mathematically.
This is reminiscent of Kant on arithmetic...
It's a shame...
Doesn't this view (at least in a naive interpretation) implies that the theory of a general factor of intelligence, the g, are false?
While this is true, the art of understanding a text, got the intention of the author, "read between the lines", are more rare. Some people got a nearly natural feeling about words and their meaning. Other not.
Interesting, if this ability is connected to the faculty to make transitiv inferences.
If these different branches are highly interconnected, doesn't that contradict the above statements that there is a specific problem with math?