zlacker

You know that “learning disability” isn’t a synonym for “stupid”, right? We neither call people who are less academically able “disabled”, nor are disabled people necessarily less able to work academically (apart from some more debilitating mental disorders, which would be a disability). In fact, it’s quite the opposite: the word “disability” exists _precisely_ to distinguish “intelligence” – which is what the university is selecting for – and other characteristics, so in theory intelligence and disability are entirely orthogonal (apart from the exception I mentioned).

Of course, understanding what disability actually is requires considering each learning disability separately, which is something this article unfortunately fails to do. We can do this though:

- Anxiety and depression: I see no reason why this should decrease somebody’s intelligence, so the fact that there are elevated rates of such people at top universities does not seem odd. Since these are treatable conditions, they won’t necessarily affect the ability for a student to become an effective researcher.

- ADHD: This condition is marked by a lack of ability to focus, which is a property unrelated to intelligence. Some very famous mathematicians like Paul Erdős likely had ADHD, demonstrating that it’s not necessarily true this condition makes one a worse researcher.

- Autism: Does not necessarily reduce intelligence. We can look at professional mathematicians and see that a lot of them are autistic.

- Chronic pain, migraines, etc: Unrelated to intelligence. It’s possible this will decrease one’s ability to be a researcher, but if one is able to complete University at all, it’s likely not that severe.

I mean, I could go on, and of course there will be a couple of counterexample. However, it is still the case that generally speaking, “learning disability” and “stupid” are different things, and therefore there is no reason to expect that there would be lower rates of learning disabilities among those who are highly academically skilled.

>>Sabrin+(OP)
I have been under the impression that "learning disability" means that you are less able to learn than your peers. Whether that deficit is on account of intelligence, health, etc., is a different subject.

According to your definition, you can be far superior to your peers at learning and still be learning disabled. If you are looking for stupid people, you have found one, because I don't understand that.

Because of all of the ways that students can be disadvantaged at learning, every student needs accommodations. There are no students who can't benefit from a highly responsive learning environment. Being able to benefit from that does not make any student learning disabled, just different, and they are all different.

But if you're just different, and not disabled, you lose victim cred, preferences and funding.

>>delich+5l
You can claim that “learning disability” should mean whatever, but this does not change the fact that medical experts define “learning disability” such that they do not inherently impede intelligence: https://ehvi.org/learning-vs-intellectual-disabilities/. This isn’t my definition, it’s the definition used by medical experts. A quote from that article:

> Learning disabilities don’t affect intelligence and are different from intellectual disabilities. People with LDs have specific issues with learning but have an average or above-average IQ (intelligence quotient).

I acknowledge that I was including autism as a learning disability, but I see this isn’t the case. Still, however, I hope you would acknowledge that autistic people are not inherently less intelligent than others, and neither are people with depression nor anxiety.