Here’s a thing about being labeled “smart” as a kid: When there’s a thing you’re not good at, people assume it is because you are lazy.
Why don’t you practice?
New York Times
Oddly, the person who got me closer to the truth was an anthropology lecturer. We were talking about a project I was working on when she politely questioned my interpretation of some statistics I’d found in my research, and the numbers I had extrapolated from there about the incidence of “soldier’s heart” (PTSD in Civil War combatants). I sighed, digging my fingernails into my hands. I thought I had done it right. I had even called a friend from high school for help and he’d walked me through what I needed to do, but it was still wrong, wrong, wrong.
“Does this happen a lot?” she asked, her voice even, and I looked up at her, bewildered. “Do you have problems with math?”
I looked down at her heavily worn carpet, ashamed.
“I’m very smart,” I said.
“I know.”
“You know how some people have trouble with reading?”
“Dyslexia,” I said, of course, remembering because “dyslexia” is a beautiful word, one that fills your mouth and tastes slightly lavender, and because I had dyslexic friends.
“Some people have that, but with numbers.”
At the time, dyscalculia wasn’t well understood; no one was regularly screened for it, and as with other learning disabilities, a weird persistent myth suggested that only boys got it. Plus, like so many other people who are “smart” in other ways, I also fell through the cracks in a society that values normative versions of “intelligence” and fails to consider that brains work in many different ways; I couldn’t possibly have a learning disability, because I was too smart. Now people use the term “twice gifted,” which I find positively nauseating, to describe people who are very good at certain things while having learning disabilities at the same time. Many people in that position end up like I did, growing up told they’re smart and should just try harder until someone finally figures out what is up. People not in that position end up being labeled “stupid” and ignored altogether by the system in a different way. Both of us are failed, but the assumption of useless mediocrity herds people away from their dreams in a way that the “twice gifted” don’t experience.
That term, “twice gifted,” is yet another disability euphemism from parents desperate to mask the reality of disabilities. I have a learning disability, or, some might prefer, a math disability. It’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’m pretty good at words. That’s fine too. Neither thing is a “gift,” but treating people who are extremely talented at something as exceptional is a fantastic way to gloss over the areas where, perhaps, they need help, rather than scolding for something they can’t control. And it’s an excellent way to make them feel broken and ashamed for the things they cannot do, useless for being “so smart” while failing at “things that should be basic.” It is a fantastic way to make people feel as though, for all their “natural talent,” they are doomed to failure; even their much-vaunted intelligence can’t save them.
These days, dyscalculia is still a lesser-known learning disability, but educators keep a sharper eye out for it. Kids can get early interventions that open up new worlds of possibility. Dyscalculia is less likely to hide behind something else. A kid like me, “talented, but lazy,” might be better understood. A kid who seems to be struggling in general might be evaluated, rather than written off.
Sometimes I think about all the careers I wanted as a kid that I thought were closed to me because I couldn’t do math. Doctor. Veterinarian. Astronaut. And I think about the opportunities that are still closed to me because I can’t do math: the humiliation of having to ask a colleague to manage a budget on a project that I am leading for me because I cannot. The assumption that I’m not interested in a complex and intriguing calculation enough to pull out demographics I care about because it involves numbers. The sinking sensation that I built an entire thesis for an article that now has to be scrapped because of numbers I got wrong. The painstaking effort of grading a pattern that falls apart when a friend looks it over for me and notes a grave miscalculation. The expectant looks in a meeting when someone asks “real quick, if it’s 38 percent, how many people would that affect?” The awkward laughter when I miscalculate the split on a bill. My monthly budget’s stubborn and sometimes perilous refusal to line up, no matter how careful I am, my bank account’s sullen refusal to ever, ever match how much money I think I should have. Those days, I’m just a kid with a hummus and avocado sandwich and a backpack full of books, wishing with all my heart that I could understand why it doesn’t add up.
s.e. smith is a National Magazine Award-winning Northern California-based writer who has appeared in The Guardian, Rolling Stone, Esquire, Bitch Magazine, and numerous other fine publications.