Once you know the diagnosis dyslexia, you also know the origin of the difficulties and how to deal with them to best help your child. This is very important. A major defining characteristic of dyslexia is that dyslexia is a paradox, slow reading and best thinking. One of the most essential features to know about dyslexia is its paradoxical nature. Slow reading does not imply slow thinking. People often improperly confuse the two, a false notion that may limit the aspirations and options of a dyslexic child. Such a misconception harms adults too. Dyslexia is a true paradox with weaknesses and concrete observable tasks like reading and spelling, which are noticed in the classroom and result in the students being criticized. That same dyslexic students, however, also has significant strengths in big picture thinking and reasoning, highly advantageous attributes that are not as easily noticed and are often overlooked. You will have, should his or her life be defined by their height, thinking ability, and excellent reasoning was slow reading and poor spelling. You have now heard words describing the paradox of dyslexia. Now, you will hear directly how two of the brightest minds have experienced their dyslexia. First, brilliant attorney and dyslexic and good friend David Bois. "Most annoying," he states, "is when people equate dyslexia with the thinking disability. Dyslexia gives you the ability to see the entire picture and step back from it and think. Because reading is hard for a dyslexic, it forces you to rely more on thinking. As you get out into the world, it is thinking that has a lot more prized than reading." Next renowned financier, Charles R. Schwab, who states, "I always had great strengths in thinking, even though I couldn't read quickly, I could imagine things much faster than people who are stuck thinking sequentially. That helped in solving complex business problems. I could visualize how things would look at the end of the tunnel. I intuitively get there much more quickly." Now it's important for me to share with you the 21st century definition of dyslexia. Historically, dyslexia has always been defined clinically as an unexpected difficulty in reading for a person who has the intelligence to be a much better reader. Now we have hard scientific validation of the unexpected nature of dyslexia. The good news too is, a new federal definition reflecting the science. Let me indicate to you how the unexpected nature of dyslexia was validated in the 21st century. Now, finally, powerful new evidence validates the disparity between intelligence and reading as a hallmark of dyslexia. As noted earlier, I'm the principal investigator of the Connecticut Longitudinal Study, the CLS, which has followed over the large random sample of school children from kindergarten entry through to adulthood. While in school, each child was administered an individual IQ or intelligence tests, the Wechsler Scales in alternate years, and you're not supposed to give them every year, and a Woodcock Johnson reading test yearly. I was eager to examine the relationship between reading and intelligence in this group of students. In our analysis, focusing on typical readers, we found that reading and intelligence are dynamically linked. Meaning that not only do IQ and reading travel together over time, they influence each other as well. You can see here, the top line is IQ, dotted line, the dashed line is reading and how in typical readers they go together, and you can see these are graded in school and vertically is the scores. In typical readers IQ and reading are linked. Not surprisingly, and conforming to one most people would anticipate, if a typical person is very bright, that individual would most probably be a very good reader. Someone who is a very good reader, he will most likely also be quite intelligent. These data indicate that in the case of dyslexia, which is on the right panel, IQ and reading are not linked at all. You can see the straight line representing the intelligence score is way above the dashed line, representing the reading score. That the individual struggles to read and yet has a very high level of intelligence provided the scientific validation of the unexpected. These are very important graphs. I should mention that you can find them in Overcoming Dyslexia, the second edition, and it's also been published in Psychological Science in 2010. I'll continue to many of us, this should be self-evident. But as a researcher, I find empirical findings that validate logical but often question associations unnecessary and in this case, rewarding. These data provide the long sought after empirical validation of the unexpected nature of dyslexia. I understand you're asked this question a lot. Hope doesn't require a great deal of reading. What are your thoughts here? Law does require reading and there is no doubt that a lot of the times that I'm going through cases and factual material, I would feel a lot better, and it would go a lot more smoothly if I could read faster. On the other hand, my ability to comprehend what I'm reading, that comes from reading more slowly. It was a great advantage to me in the practice of law. It enables me to analyze both factual and legal issues, to understand what I'm reading. Maybe better than a lot of people who are going through it faster. There are also a lot of ways where I can help get over the difficulty of reading by absorbing information orally. As I said before, I'm a pretty good listener. I think dyslexics have to be good listeners. That allows us to learn a lot of information and learn it better, I think than some non-dyslexics, just because of our ability to listen. It's a combination of reading for comprehension and using alternative ways of inputting. The other thing to keep in mind is that while there's a lot of reading involved in the law, there's a lot more thinking that's involved with the law. There is a lot of inputting, but the processing is much more important. The limitations on reading become much less important in the overall performance of a lawyer than you might think.