The homunculus

In the Middle Ages, many believed the homunculus -the little human with a voice inside our heads- told us what to think and do. One of the problems with this belief, was the question of who or what told the homunculus what to tell us? The homunculus form of argument leads to an infinite regress. Who or what tells the little human inside our heads other than another homunculus inside its head: and so ad infinitum.

It’s tempting to think that the homunculus has disappeared from contemporary explanations  of behaviour. It’s true that ‘homunculus’ no longer appears in the (social) media or in diagnostic manuals [DSM- V5; ICD-11; NICE], the notion behind the rationale lives on today, It has been resurrected in the guise of ‘neurodivergency’ in its various forms. The most ‘popular’ are ADHD, dyslexia, autism. The claim that these are  essentially socially descriptive labels used to explain why some think and act the way they do is present in spate of recent programmes on BBC radio and the tv, by among others Chris Packham and Jamie Oliver. They purport to  ‘explain’ seemingly non-normal ways of thinking and acting.

Well intentioned though they may be, what do such programmes achieve?

• for those claiming or assigned a neurodivergent label
  • existential validation - “I’m not alone, there are others like me (and we’re special, think outside the box and creative)”
  • emotional closure - “I don’t have to feel bad about myself for thinking and acting differently: I’m not doing things wrong. It’s others who don’t understand me!”
• for those who produce such programmes?
• • • virtue signalling - “Aren’t I virtuous, conspicuously displaying my awareness of and concern about the feelings of neurodivergent individuals (and frequently “I’m neurodivergent myself!”).
  • • in the case of ADHD big pharma profitting from selling ‘ADHD’ medication
  • • professionals who charge exorbitantly high fees for conducting ‘diagnostic’ assessments

What’s the alternative?

Reputation maintenance

First, it has to be said is that a valid alternative will reflect adversely on the reputation of those who persist with the status quo. But since the alternative will inevitably be a minority view it will ineluctably invoke animosity against those offering the alternative.

And for anyone doubting the ferocity of animosity generated by querying the existential status of dyslexia they only refer to just two examples; both in the public domain: political - that of MP Graham Stringer and academics -  Professors Julian Elliott & Elena Grigorenko.

MP Stringer attributed the high illiteracy rates among those he visited in HMP Manchester (aka Strangeways) to poor teaching. I came across his conclusion in the Manchester Confidential, where it also published comments on his view. The level and amount of invective hurled at MP Graham Stringer had to be seen to be believed. Indeed some stated they disagreed so violently with his claim they were going to leave the Labour Party, of which he was a member. The story was even broadcast on the BBC News [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7828121.stm]

Professors  Elliott & Grigorenko on a related issue said they saw no distinction between those labelled poor readers and those labelled dyslexic. They met a similar fate. To summarise their view: literacy problems were teaching problems and not brain problems. Unsurprisingly one his most vocal critics was Professor Uta Frith: multi-honoured, for her work on autism and dyslexia. She voiced her incredulity at his position by regarding it as ‘going backwards’, and it made her feel ill.

Are there a simple explanations for Elliott & Grigorenko's and Frith’s difference of opinion for something which ought to be fact? One significant difference between them both is that Elliott’s background experience was in teaching, whereas Frith’s was in experimental psychology. [Another more subtle difference concerns their respective mother tongues, English and German respectively. I would argue that. In the context of autism, this was influential in Frith's development of theory of mind. Why not a theory of humour? Humour relies more on intimate knowledge of cultural norms. It is difficult to translate the nuances and ambiguities in humour.

One of the reasons why Frith’s view had become, and still is so popular is that she said no blame attached to parents for their child’s autism and no blame could be attributed to teachers for their pupils literacy problems. In both autism and dyslexia they were ‘brain’ problems.

The relevance of the writing and the wright hand

There is a difference in meaning between the writing and the adept hand. The writing hand is easily noted by simple observation. The wright hand is defined as the adept hand. And the adept hand, in turn, is defined as the hand able to handle complex manipulo-spatial tasks with seemingly effortless ease. It is not so obviously apparent in everyday situations, hence the need to administer unfamiliar tasks in order to identify it.

And in an ideal world the writing hand would be the adept hand. But it was not always so. Left handers were induced, or coerced to write with the right hand for 'cultural' reasons.  Note, the issue is not which hand one writes with or which is the adept hand. The issue is whether one writes with the adept hand, whichever right or left. 

There are two major consequences of writing with the non-adept hand: the first is a whole host of right - left orientation problems. The second is that it results in a general unattributable sense of being ill-at-ease. At one time  this led to such children being described as 'fidgety' or having 'ants in their pants'. It often leads those with, but ignorant of the mismatch to blame others for their ill-at-easeness.

Among those public / academic persons who agree with this alternative have been MP David Mowat I held a meeting with my then Member of Parliament, David Mowat, to discuss how I could promote knowledge about the implications and consequences of the mismatch between the writing and the adept hand. We hadn’t been talking for very long before he asked “Did I realize the full implications of the writing / wright hand mismatch?”. He, as a former scientist self-evidently had!

David Mowat MP was one of the few individuals who actively supported my ‘campaign’ to get the mind-body-mismatch acknowledged as a ‘dys-ability’. He wrote to the then Minister of State for Children and Families, Sarah Teathe. He received this reply:

Thank you for your letter of 24 August on behalf of your constituent Dr Peter Mathews about his research into converted handedness. l am sorry for the extremely long delay to this reply. To deliver the Government's commitments on special educational needs I am publishing a Green Paper shortly to look at the wide range of issues concerning children with special educational needs and disabilities. To inform this important work, l issued a call for views and have met parents, teachers, local authorities, charities and other groups. I am also considering the findings of recent reviews, including the recent report from the Office for Standards in Education. The Department has received over 1,800 responses to the call for views and I have asked my officials to look at Dr Mathews' work on his website as we take forward the work on the Green Paper. I would encourage Dr Mathews to contribute to the public consultation following the publication of the Green Paper. Further details will be available on our website at www.education.gov.uk.

Needless to say, I followed up this suggestion but to no effec

Judge Timothy Mort: Manchester Minishull Street Crown Court. In a Crown Court Case, Judge Mort commended my report saying he was not aware of the implications of latent / converted handedness (i.e. writing with the non-adept hand) and that if the young man took my advice he would not re-offend yet again. The offender's mother said she couldn’t believe how I had managed to get to the root of her son’s problem in an hour and a half when years of involvement with her MP, Beverley Hughes, and the ‘child help’ agencies including educational psychologists had failed to do so. Judge Mort asked “Why don’t all psychologists know about this condition?”

Professor Tommy McKay: British Psychological Society ex-President, In my Tribunal Hearing Professor McKay asked somewhat rhetorically : “All educational, all clinical, all forensic, indeed all psychologists ought to know about this work shouldn’t they!”

Simon Saunders Reader at Oxford University In conversation with him he was so intrigued by this mismatch that he offered MRI scanning facilities to investigate the condition further.

Professor Lewis Wolpert: Developmental biologist In conversation with him he immediately recognized the implications and consequences of the mismatch. He was dismissive of the British Psychological Society’s view in general and their rejection of the evidence in particular.