Talk:Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities

Scope of this article

The way I understand the term "Intellectual disability" it does not include conditions that do not affect intelligence. Conditions such as dyslexia and other learning disabilities are not intellectual disabilities. This article should be split into two; Learning disability and Intellectual disability as they are separate concepts. Roger (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, learning disability is another of those awkward terms with different meanings in different countries, as far as I know. One recommended way of seeding a new article is to let a section grow in an existing article until it is ready to split off. I hope we can clarify this and other alternative terms or meanings, including adding more references, with time. --Mirokado (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There is already a learning disability article, from which I adapted the para in this article. The association here is amplifying another contribution to mental retardation. By all means let us correct/clarify as necessary, preferably with the support of references... --Mirokado (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This article should be removed. The mental retardation article may eventually become renamed "intellectual disability," but meanwhile this article seems to be an effort to apply a broad term to disorders that are already known and named by other terms. As defined here, this term is a neologism and should not be a separate article. 67.188.26.78 (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I won't comment on your other statements, but your statement that "intellectual disability" is neologism is clearly wrong. It is a term that is widely used in some settings, especially education, although it has not replaced "mental retardation". Cresix (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

When I wrote that it's a neologism "as defined here," I meant it is a new definition of an existing term. Clearly the term already exists. Sorry for the confusion (and for the confusing new IP address).24.130.93.127 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In many contexts it has in fact replaced "mental retardation", which is seen as offensive in some cultures. A recent prominent example is US federal legislation. Here is a news report about it - http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/09/congress_eliminates_term_menta.html - which is now aligned with the usage in other contexts such as education and health. Roger (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Some organisations at least are explicitly using the term as a synonym: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities says: "The term ‘intellectual disability’ is synonymous with the term ‘mental retardation,’ and is generally replacing it." Centre for Developmental Disability Health Victoria summarise thus: "A person with an intellectual disability may have difficulty learning and managing daily living skills such as self-care, communication and community access and participation. Intellectual disability is an impairment in cognitive processing that occurs before the age of 18 years and results in an IQ below 70. Every person is unique, regardless of their IQ score." Both those organisations deal explicitly with developmental problems. Looking this morning, I have not yet found references supporting a wider usage: if nobody can supply such references within a reasonable time then some of the article content will need to go (that content was moved from the MR article as not matching the definition of MR: I added teaser sections based on the corresponding main article leads.) The reason for the retention of the MR article name is the still-current medical diagnosis definition (see the recent move discussion there) and while that is the case I think an article dealing with the status of the term ID is valuable, but perhaps we will eventually end up with just one article ID, based on the current MR. It is probably a bit early to reopen that discussion though. I hope those with the necessary medical knowledge will propose that move when appropriate. --Mirokado (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in this line from Journal of Intellectual Disability Research:

Please note that 'intellectual disability', as used in the Journal, includes those conditions labelled mental deficiency, mental handicap, learning disability and mental retardation in some counties.[1]

While specific learning disabilities (like dyslexia) do not affect general intelligence (by definition), "decoding letters to recognized words" is still an intellectual activity (e.g., not a physical or emotional activity), and there are people who are truly, legally disabled by the mismatch between their ability to process symbols and society's reliance on written communication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Good source, I wasn't aware of it. I would still hesitate to see a separate article on ID based on this one source's definition, especially when the movement is to use this term as a replacement for mental retardation (which has already happened in some circles, and is in the current draft of the DSM-V). I agree that a learning disability is, literally, a disability that is intellectual. But including it as an "Intellectual Disability," which has a specific definition beyond the literal one, I think confuses the distinction that you're making between mental retardation and learning disabilities. Because with articles like this in place, people are getting two messages: one, that a learning disability is an intellectual disability; and two, that an intellectual disability is the same thing as mental retardation. And since the second message is inevitable, I think the first should be eliminated as soon as possible.24.130.93.127 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Geographic and Cross-Disciplinary Confusion?

I suspect that the root of some of these difficulties lies in differing uses of the terms across different 1) disciplines, and 2) countries and jurisdictions. For example, in Australia, the term "intellectual disability" is used as entirely synonomous to "mental retardation." "Mental retardation" is considered to be obsolete and offensive, and hasn't been used in that country since the 1980s. Britain, on the other hand, never used the term "mental retardation" (they prefered "mental handicap"), and have trended more recently to developmental disabilities. The Journal of Intellectual Disability Research is a multi-disciplinary scholarly journal with an international scope, and its definition (above) is an attempt to reconcile the terms used in different countries and disciplines. The DSM, on the other hand, is a national manual for psychiatrists. Perhaps an added (or clarified) section on terms around the world, or in different practice areas (education, neurology, psychiatry), would help clarify some of the confusion on this page.Dave Earl (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Remove Learning Disabilities and Dyslexia from this article.

Learning Disabilities and Dyslexia are not Intellectual disabilities, by definition accepted in, not just in the USA, but also by the World Health Organization as well as most developed countries. Some "editors" of this post seem to keep reverting edits to include these diagnosis without any factual basis even when edits to remove LD from this catagory are backed up AND clearly discussed on this page. Based on a preponderance of research and facts, LD and Dyslexia is being placed in a category where it does not belong. These reverts to mis information are harmful to the public interest at large and are not done with any sound research data. As noted earlier and repeatedly on this talk page, consistent requests to eliminate LD and Dyslexia from this page are ignored and reverts to include these groups in the wrong category are not backed up. I would move to either have this page removed entirely or request that it is monitored for vandalism. ----bumblebo----Bumblebo (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You have a fairly good argument, but unfortunately you weaken your case by making unfounded accusations of bad faith editing. Wikipedia works by WP:Consensus. One problem with your argument is that the term "Learning disability" is in fact used in some places (notably the UK) as a euphemism for MR. Roger (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the point here is that to include by using the rationale "euphemism for MR" is applying a false stereotype credential as an argument to current scientific research. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Logical consensus through edits should be based on fact. If there is an alternate opinion based on fact, I am sure that facts are welcome in conversations on this topic but euphemism for MR or personal opinions are best left out of disability related topics. Again any inclusion of LD and Dyslexia in the topic of Intellectual Disabilities is not accurate using current scientific world standards and research and should be removed from this topic. Please use factual positions when disputing, it makes wikipedia a relevant source for information.Bumblebo (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)bumbleboBumblebo (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a "euphemism for MR". The UK commonly calls dyslexia a "learning difficulty", not a "learning disability". Their regional name for MR—or whatever you want to call that thing characterized by an IQ below 70 and problems with daily life—is "learning disability". The divergence in terms is a source of substantial confusion.

Not every reliable source agrees with your definition. The Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, which is a specialist scholarly journal, directly defines specific learning disabilities as being a type of intellectual disability that they want to publish about.

I think this page is something of a WP:SETINDEX, which is wikijargon for a list of things that have been called the same name. According to your definition, 80% of this pages contents aren't "true" intellectual disabilities, because your definition uses the term exclusively to mean MR, so massive brain trauma and dementia, even though they produce obvious and permanent damage to "the intellect", can't be called "intellectal disabilities".

I believe that SLDs ought to be mentioned, and I believe that the two important points to mention are:

1. that some definitions of ID exclude SLDs (or, more precisely, that most definitions of SLD directly exclude people with MR, so that it is impossible to have both dyslexia and MR), and
2. that some people told they were "stupid" or had intellectual problems back in the day probably had SLDs.

It is not clear to me that you bothered to read the changes I made before blanking the section. Specifically, I tried to address your concern by adding sentences like "Unlike other forms of intellectual disability, it is not indicative of general intelligence level, and many experts consequently do not consider it to be a true intellectual disability." I hope we can agree that this statement is true and desirable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I did in fact read your re edit and deleted it. I cannot agree with your definition, it is not based on current medical or diagnostic fact. Intellectual disability is not the same classification as SLD, LD or Dyslexia and should be clearly protected from mis information from terms used or possibly presented in past educational climates. You even state in your example above, "Unlike other forms of intellectual disability, it is not indicative of general intelligence level, and many experts consequently do not consider it to be a true intellectual disability." So I hope you will agree with the implied statement you made and the vast majority of experts and as well as the WHO and many other groups do not support your belief that LD or dyslexia should be included on this topic. If you are concerned about people realizing that in the past they were considered stupid when in fact they had SLD's then you should not promote misclassifications that are not backed up by an overwhelming majority of professionals, this type of editing does that type of harm to many for the very reasons you are mentioning. Again any inclusion of LD and Dyslexia in the topic of Intellectual Disabilities is not accurate using current scientific world standards and research and should be removed from this topic.

You may want to start another page entirely to dedicate to the misconceptions and progress made in diagnosing and assigning intellectual functioning for those identified with SLD that may be a more appropriate forum than continuing to include them in a category that they clearly do not belong.Bumblebo (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)bumbleboBumblebo (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This page is for everything related to intellectual or cognitive disabilities, not just selected facts approved by the right-thinking sources. The fact that SLDs are a type of cognitive disability is something that belongs here, as an opportunity for the reader to better understand the disabilities affecting general intelligence by engaging in some "compare and contrast" if nothing else. You have never yet produced a source that says dyslexia is not a cognitive disability. So far, you've only produced a claim that dyslexia is not an intellectual disability according to organizations using the term ID exclusively as a synonym for mental retardation. I believe we have all agreed that dyslexia is not MR, no matter what name you use for MR. Your task now is to demonstrate that it has nothing to do with non-MR disabilities associated with intellectual or cognitive skills. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You incorrectly state that "The fact that SLDs are a type of cognitive disability ((which you stretch to conclude...)) is something that belongs here, as an opportunity for the reader to better understand the disabilities affecting general intelligence by engaging in some "compare and contrast"

Dyslexia and LD, by definition and recognized scientific fact, DO NOT effect general intelligence, in fact to be diagnosed you must rule this out. Average to above average intelligence is the recognized criteria. You seem to be presenting an argument that keeps perpetuating protest on this talk page since it's inception. Taking this back to the comments on the top of this page, clearly, many people are trying to accomplish the same goal which is factual data to support the content of this page, your line of thinking does not seem to be in the majority.

Maybe you don't realize that your inclusion of groups that don't belong under intellectual disabilities aka MR, is highly offensive and very destructive to the many that share the diagnosis of LD and Dyslexia. I am clearly not the only editor that is making this point, you can read all the way to the top of this page and see that; yet you still insist on edits using thin technicalities. What you are stating is offensive to the disabled and factually incorrect. I have no task from you other than making sure that others are not misinformed. Bumblebo (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)bumbleboBumblebo (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should try bullet points instead of paragraphs.

• Dyslexia is not mental retardation. However, both dyslexia and mental retardation have some traits in common. They are both:
  1. real disabilities
  2. that affect real people
  3. that have a cognitive or intellectual component.
• The main difference between dyslexia and mental retardation is this:
  • Dyslexia (a disability that affects cognitive function) is is specific to one skill (decoding symbols into words) and is not general to all cognitive functions.
  • Mental retardation (also a disability that affects cognitive function) is not specific to one skill, but is general to all cognitive functions.
• Because some but not all of the characteristics of these two separate conditions are the same, it makes sense to have a page on Wikipedia that shows:
  1. that some of the characteristics are the same, and
  2. that some of the characteristics are different.

That page happens to be this page. I'm sorry that you are unhappy with the page's name. We have tried very hard to make people realize that this page is not the article about mental retardation. You might notice, for example, that 80% of the information on this page is about non-MR types of disabilities that affect intellect/cognition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's try to come to a resolution: How about this:

Maybe we should try bullet points instead of paragraphs.

In many countries including the Untied States of America and the governing body of the World Health Organization, Intellectual Disabilities are synonymous for Mental Retardation and would not include the term Learning Disabilities or Dyslexia. In other countries including the UK, the definitions are different and Intellectual Disabilities include the term Learning Disabilities in a synonymous definition. Different countries have different definitions and interpretations of the terms used in this article. (for more in depth reading see the talk page.) To better represent differing country definitions and terms "Generally":

• Dyslexia and MR are both under the broad definition of Intellectual Disability only in countries outside of the USA that use terms in this manor. However, in a general sense, both are in fact:
  1. disabilities
  2. that affect people

Keep in mind that people with Dyslexia have average to above average intelligence. This disability, that affects a cognitive function is specific to one skill (decoding symbols into words) and is not general to all cognitive functions nor does it imply a lesser ability to reason. For more information on Dyslexia see the Dyslexia page.

We need a firm delineation of the differences in definitions from country to county if this is insistent to remain in this section. Does the above work for you?Bumblebo (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)bumbleboBumblebo (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that we need a firm delineation of the terminology differences from country to country so much as a more aggressive effort to get the "Intellectual disability is a polite way of saying 'mental retardation', which is what I really want to read about" people out of this page and off to the actual page on MR.

I think that means expanding the introduction and probably expanding the section on ==Mental retardation==. I'm thinking less of a laundry list of terms and more of a big, flashing sign that says "If you want to read about that <70 IQ thing, you are on the wrong page". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that the whole page is basically screaming exactly this already ,"I'm thinking less of a laundry list of terms and more of a big, flashing sign that says "If you want to read about that <70 IQ thing, you are on the wrong page"". You should start a page that is the UK version of the "Intellectual Disability's" definition and cultural usage of this term in the UK if it indeed has nothing to do with MR less than 70 IQ thing in that area. For the vast majority, Intellectual Disability is the current term for MR. Again any inclusion of LD and Dyslexia in the topic of Intellectual Disabilities in any way implying similarities to MR is not accurate using current scientific world standards and research and should not be included in this topic. It is highly offensive and very destructive to the many that share the diagnosis of LD and Dyslexia, (outside of UK terms). I am clearly not the only editor that is making this point.Bumblebo (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)BumbleboBumblebo (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

We create pages around subjects, not around words. It would be silly to have multiple articles on the same subject, except using different words. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.

As for implying that dyslexia and MR have some similarities, I'm not going to imply it: I'm going to state it as a proven fact. They have more differences, but they have several, relatively minor, similarities, including, but not limited to these:

• They both affect real people.
• They both are almost never the fault of the person who is affected.
• They both impair academic performance.
• They both are due to differences in how the affected people's brains work compared to 'normal' people.
• They are both considered medical conditions.

Now back on the task at hand: This is an encyclopedia. We start with a concept and then pick a name that describes the concept. The concept here is "all the medical conditions that make people be disabled with respect to intellectual activities". What would you call that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It's time to discuss the scope of this article with sources at hand.

See the discussion that has already started on the talk page for the article Mental retardation. It is a fact that all over the English-speaking world, the development condition formerly known as "mental retardation" is now generally called "intellectual disability," as in the May 2013 new version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Running two articles in parallel about essentially the same topic makes for very messy editing and cross-referencing, and a lot of needless confusion for readers of Wikipedia. I have many sources at hand, including photocopies of all the relevant pages of DSM-5. Let's discuss how to name articles to match current medical usage. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the main point of this article is to provide a brief summary of the 'real' articles, so that people can find out how many different classes of medical conditions affect intellectual abilities. I don't really care what it's called, except that it shouldn't be called whatever some more specific condition is called. I've most recently been wondering whether a merge with Cognitive deficit would be possible, or if CD is defined more narrowly than our current article suggests.

I'm not in a big rush to get this changed, because the WHO standard (ICD-10) still uses "mental retardation" and will for a couple of years, but I'm also not opposed to making progress on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Coherent article title fitting article topic sought

I have suggested a new-and-improved title for this article by the bold text in the article lede as I recently edited it. We should check medically reliable sources on human intelligence to make sure that the article grouping of subtopics, and the article's designation of what it is about, match the professional literature and how laypersons will look up issues discussed in the article as well as possible, per WP:NAME. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Should not rely on physicians and psychologists, more current international peer reviewed and secondary review medical research. And need to cover all aspects developmental, genetic, acquired, and progressive illnesses. The previous article was concerned with those with IQ less than 70, but these issues apply to the population regardless of IQ. So Those who have an IQ below 70 may or may not have co-existing cognitive barriers. dolfrog (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have listed on the Invisible Disability section of my user page some my online PubMed research paper collections which relate to only a few of the many issues that should be included in this article dolfrog (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The article previously at mental retardation covered only people with IQs of about <70. This article has always included other conditions.

I have just reverted most of the recent major changes, because they removed important information. This article is not "everything that makes people's minds work poorly except the condition formerly known as mental retardation". This is "everything that makes people's minds work poorly, including mental retardation". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The statement of the article topic "This is 'everything that makes people's minds work poorly, including mental retardation'" doesn't seem to have been readily apparent to most readers previously. It looks like it will take some careful structuring of the article subsections (and use in those of the main article cross-reference template) to make that more clear. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I kind of like the article title you've suggested, "Medical conditions affecting cognitive ability". "Medical conditions affecting intellectual ability" might be plainer English.

However, before we spend very much time on this, I think it's important for someone to figure out whether cognitive deficit is the same thing. From the lead of that article, which mentions MR, TBIs, dyslexia, and more, it certainly seems like these two might be the same subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

All of these issues have a neurological basis, and IQ is only a single form of measure. There are multiple causes of cognitive deficit including the many genetic issues which can cause intellectual disability. There are varying degrees of single or multiple sensory information processing deficits/ disorder, attnetion and memory issues. And the development of alternative compensating skills and abilities to work around various deficits/disorders. And there can also be related multisensory integration issues. To focus only on intellectual disability can only be a distraction dolfrog (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article must not be restricted to only below-average IQ.

Perhaps this will help:

Things to include in this article

	Below-average IQ	Normal IQ
Abnormal function	Yes: Dementia, mental retardation, stroke	Yes: Specific learning disabilities, some TBIs
Normal function	Yes: Possibly malnutrition	No: Normal

Everything that affects any part of cognitive function—everything except "normal"—belongs in this article.

Here is my concern: what's the proper subject for the article called Cognitive deficit? We do not want to have two separate articles with the same actual subject. So we need:

Either this:

• Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities, whose subject is "everything that affects any part of cognitive function", and
• Cognitive deficit, with a verifiably different subject

—or—

• One merged article (probably at the title of Cognitive deficit, but with redirects) that contains all of the information.

I don't know which is the best course of action. Determining the best course of action requires finding out what the medical definition of "cognitive deficit" is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

As most are aware, I have one of these cognitve defitics, which is the caue of my dyslexic symptom and some other related issues. So I prefer to let the research papers do the talking for me. I had a quick look as some of my cognition collection research papers and came across 4 which may help resolve some issues here.

• Evolution of human brain and intelligence
• Cognitive functions, their development and modern diagnostic methods
• Mapping Cognitive Function
• Embodied cognitive evolution and the cerebellum

there are probably more recent and more specific articles, just an idea dolfrog (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Title

I see there has been some discussion on this already, but I just came across this. Can't we come up with something better than "Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities" ? (also considering there is another page "Intellectual disability") - thewolfchild 22:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the title is still in place, and it is still pretty crummy. I would still like to see discussion for change and some proposals. For my part, I would like to propose;
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

Anyone oppose this? Or have any other ideas? Thanks. - thewolfchild 02:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)