<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<font face="Courier New" size="2">I'm struck by the current divergence
of views on learning disabilities in general. <br>
<br>
Current genetic theorists seem to be split over whether learning
disabilities should be characterized in terms of single gene defects
(is in this intriguing new finding with NF1, claimed to be a single
gene deffect LD ... "Common drug cures learning disability"
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8276">http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8276</a>
) or closer to Robert Plomin's model: "</font><font face="Arial,sans-serif" size="2"><font size="2">A large but
unidentified group
of genes, each with very small effects on overall brain function, work
together to determine most of mental ability" (
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4146">http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4146</a>
) . Of course there
is still an influential school of thought that says learning
disabilities are just "different styles of learning" combined with
teaching limitations. <br>
<br>
Not that these perspectives are necessarily mutually exclusive, but
they do lead to very different ways of viewing human learning in some
respects.<br>
<br>
Todd</font></font>
</body>
</html>