{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03463855421686747, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.645, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Postmodern Critique of Conte's, Andrews's, Gresham's, and Elliott's Assumptions

In this article I suggest that the assumptions that Conte, Andrews, Gresham, and Elliott make regarding the characteristics that should be attributable to learning disabilities are limited by the “either/or” empirical view. I contend that (a) there is no such phenomenon as a pure primary disorder; all behavioral and learning problems are manifested by a discrete cluster of behaviors, so that one differentiates exceptionalities by looking at the quality of behaviors and possible antecedents rather than comparing them quantitatively; (b) that learning disabilities are earmarked by the inefficient manner in which tasks are approached in one's specific area(s) of deficient intellect rather than by universal characteristics; (c) that all aspects of learning are metaphorical and, therefore, have implicit and explicit dimensions; and learning disabilities are, in large part, a deficit in learning implicit information; (d) that in-school and out-of-school learning are of a piece and must be synthesized, just as theory, research, and practice must be synthesized; and (e) that the definition should not dictate our notion of what learning disabilities are, but rather should reflect our observations of persons with learning disabilities.