zlacker

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+(OP)
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.