522 BOOK REVIEWS

tation so much as an especially emotional way of responding to representa- tions. In her study of idle thoughts, subjects are told beforehand about the three structures of representations and their visual counterparts in feeling (counterparts on the basis of the earlier free association studies). This alone could be expected to bias the reports in favor of the predicted correlations. The results, however, remain highly ambiguous and it is often hard to accept Aylwin’s categorizations without first accepting her conclusions. Reports involving strong emotions, for example, count as reports of enactive repre- sentations despite the fact that they are rich in verbal exchanges and environ- mental detail (cf. p. 138) and reports involving social self-consciousness count as reports of visual representations despite the fact that they are rich in imagined participation and verbal cliches (cf. p. 117).

I do not think circularity is always a bad thing; the bootstrap method of theorizing is unavoidable-especially, perhaps, within cognitive science. What worries me about Aylwin’s book is the shakiness of her initial distinc- tions between verbal, visual and enactive representation. More justification and articulation of these foundations is necessary in order to secure the tri- partite model she proceeds to build; and this, I suspect, will require con- siderably more work on the broader questions facing any theory of mental representation.

McCuinness, Diane. When Children Don’t Learn: Understanding the Biology and Psychology of Learning Disabilities. New York: Basic Books, 1985, 310 pages.

Reviewed by Stephanie Thornton, University of Sussex.

The main theme of this book is that various types of school difficulty are presently being misrepresented, in ways which obscure their remediation. McGuinness examines dyslexia, math problems, and hyperactivity; conclud- ing in each case that diagnosing children in these terms attracts all the well- known difficulties associated with such stigmatized labelling, whilst offering no theoretical advantages, since these concepts are virtually devoid of mean- ing.

Dyslexia, hyperactivity, and math phobia are not coherent categories. Rather, they are superordinate categories, containing widely disparate ele- ments, and as such, these concepts are devoid of explanatory power. There is no evidence to support the view that physiological problems underly any of the phenomena indicated by these terms: so far from being organically based syndromes as is commonly supposed, learning disorders as currently

BOOK REVIEWS 523

conceptualised are little more than statistical artifacts. A diagnosis of dys- lexia (or math phobia, or hyperactivity) means only that the child concerned has failed to learn to read (do math, sit still, and attend to teacher) at the “normal” rate. But the “norms” against which such a diagnosis is made are defined by social values and expectations, without reference to the ac- tual variation observable in the phenomena in question. “Abnormal” in this context means no more than socially unacceptable. It does not even nec- essarily mean that the child’s performance is outside the normal range. McGuinness’s thesis is that we should stop using these labels, and particu- larly stop drugging the victims of hyperactivity scales, in favor of a careful re-examination of the processes underlying these children’s difficulties.

So far, the theme running through this argument is not new. But perhaps the greatest strength of this book is that what follows is a genuine attempt to understand these three areas of “learning disability” in terms of their com- ponent skills and processes. Such efforts are unfortunately rare in applied psychology, and this book therefore represents an important contribution.

McGuiness’s argument hinges on the idea that sex differences are crucial to each of the three areas of “learning disability.” She points to the striking sex differences in the occurrence of “dyslexia’‘-boys are three times as fre- quently so diagnosed as girls-and argues that these children’s “diagnoses” reflect statistical artifacts: tables of norms on reading tests are not validated for boys and girls separately; girls are usually ahead of boys in learning to read; when considered against sex-specific norms, the vast majority of boys diagnosed as dyslexic are in fact revealed to be within the normal range for their sex. Sex differences in learning to read are explained in terms of differ- ential “preparedness” for the activity in the two sexes. Girls, more inter- ested in social phenomena, are more oriented towards and more advantaged in language development as a whole. Their bias toward fine motor coordi- nation and superiority in certain auditory skills likewise make them better prepared, in terms of the relevant subskills, to learn to read. Rather than a diagnosis of dyslexia, what boys who are poor readers need is specific train- ing in the functions underlying reading skills.

Math problems, by contrast, affect primarily girls. McGuinness dismisses socialization theories as to the origins of the problems, pointing out that such problems relate much more to the specific content of the math the child encounters than to age, for example. Young girls are not disadvantaged vis-a-vis boys. Sex differences in mathematical skills set in only when more abstract forms of math must be mastered. McGuinness attributes the diffi- culty specifically to girls’ weaker visuo-spatial skills, in particular to their weak abilities in mental rotations of three-dimensional representations. She argues that this weakness stems from the female relative lack of interest in inanimate objects, and consequent bias against “hands on” manipulative

524 BOOK REVIEWS

exploration of the environment-which young boys display abundantly, thus “preparing” themselves for higher math. The solution for the prob- lems of “math phobia” is to encourage manipulative play in young girls.

Like dyslexia, hyperactivity is predominantly a male problem. McGuinness explains this in terms of the very same male orientation to “hands on” manipulation which advantages boys vis-a-vis math, and to the male bias toward the gross-motor system. Together, these things predispose boys to an active exploration of world, which, if mistimed vis-a-vis adult expecta- tions, is diagnosed as hyperactivity. She looks again at evidence suggesting that hyperactivity causes deficient learning, and concludes that, in fact, the evidence suggests exactly the reverse: learning difficulties cause the poor attention and disruptive behavior typically labelled as hyperactive. She sug- gests that the appropriate approach to such children lies in a detailed analy- sis of their individual difficulties, and the engineering of contingencies of reinforcement which will rehabilitate them into the classroom and into school success.

One of the most attractive aspects of the book is its attempt to take a real- world issue, of vital importance to hundreds of thousands of parents and children, and present the issue in a way accessible to the lay reader, focusing on advice as to positive action rather than simply academic exegesis. In the attempt to arm the intelligent parent against the impenetrable pronounce- ments of “experts,” McGuinness has sacrificed detail for clarity. This is, of course, entirely justifiable, given her apparent aims. But the area she is tackling here is an extremely controversial one. The reader is sometimes left without sufficient information to evaluate her claims. For example, her use of sex differences in explaining the phenomena is interesting, and often per- suasive. But the existence of the alleged sex differences in subskills is not unequivocally established here. Sex differences research is an area at least as subject to artifact as is the area of learning disability. It is a shame that this book does not scrutinize the methodology of sex differences research in as much detail as that of learning disability research. Similarly, her dismissal of alternative accounts of the phenomena is sometimes a little glib.

This book provides a clear overview of a complex area of research, albeit a view strongly leaning toward one side of a complex controversy. It will appeal to those pragmatically interested in the problems of school failures in reading, math, and appropriate classroom behavior, and will also provide an interesting introduction to the area for those more interested in explana- tion than in cure.