[minihat]

Reading speed might follow a normal distribution near the middle ranges, but I'd expect non-trivial deviations in the tails due to dyslexia, ADHD on the one side and trained speed readers on the other. Perhaps this individual just falls on the far tail of that distribution?

During my graduate coursework I sometimes read 100-200 pages of technical material in a day while cramming for an exam, and was able to retain it for a day or two. I'd believe it if some people exist who could comprehend and retain all of that long-term. Alas, 'tis not I.

[PaulHoule]

I think Dyslexia has a lot of politics attached.

If 25% of people have it then, practically, Dyslexia means you are in the bottom 25% of readers, as much as the Dyslexia industrial complex wants to see it as taxonic and not dimensional. (Sure they say it has two subtypes and sure, maybe there are two reasons that make most bad readers bad readers, there are probably more reasons that are more obscure and too hard to pin down)

Personally I think there are a lot of white collar people who are devastated to have a child who is a poor reader who won't follow in their footsteps (college professors, journalists, people in ethic groups where people will think you're a loser if you're a cop or pro football player, etc.) Labeling it as a disease makes it easier for people in that situation to live with it.

[tshaddox]

> Personally I think there are a lot of white collar people who are devastated to have a child who is a poor reader who won't follow in their footsteps (college professors, journalists, people in ethic groups where people will think you're a loser if you're a cop or pro football player, etc.) Labeling it as a disease makes it easier for people in that situation to live with it.

Isn't this just how all diseases and indeed all things work? We're the ones who come up with these simple categorizations and labels to describe reality which is vastly more complex. The terms are necessarily underspecified and the boundaries between categories are necessarily fuzzy. This is true even within some medical community that attempts to have more precise definitions of "disease"/"disorder"/"disability"/etc. and it's all the more true for colloquial usage of these terms. But yes, these terms do end up just meaning "any condition that is not normal that causes problems for the person experiencing it."

[PaulHoule]

I think "flu", "cancer" and "aortic aneurysm" are well defined concepts.

[btilly]

Trained speed readers trade off speed and comprehension. I've never heard of any of them doing what I do.