Learning Disabilities, Learning Difficulties, and the Tyranny of the Norm
5 min read
The distinction between learning disabilities and learning difficulties is more than just terminology – it reflects society’s rigid definitions of intelligence and ability. A learning disability (IQ ≤ 70) is present from birth and often comes with significant limits in learning and retention, while a learning difficulty (IQ ≥ 70) indicates struggles in school but with the potential to learn with support. Yet, intelligence is multifaceted and culturally specific, and IQ remains an outdated, narrow metric. The education system enforces arbitrary learning limits, favouring conformity over adaptability. And intelligence labels, shaped by power, are social constructs – for what is valued in one culture or system may be dismissed in another. Instead of ranking intelligence on a rigid hierarchy, what if we celebrated diverse cognitive strengths? Because, ultimately, the issue isn’t individual ability – it’s a system that defines, measures, and limits intelligence in ways that stifle human potential.
If you have ever found yourself confused about the difference between a ‘learning disability’ and a ‘learning difficulty,’ congratulations – you are already ahead of most people, including policymakers, educators, and that person who insists everyone just needs to “try harder”. But let’s take a step back. The very way these terms are defined is deeply symptomatic of how society constructs intelligence, ability, and what is considered ‘normal’.
The Difference: Disability vs. Difficulty
To distinguish between these two definitions, here is a quick cheat sheet:
Learning Disability
IQ of 70 or below
Present from birth
Typically attended special education or required 1:1 support in mainstream schooling (even if undiagnosed)
There is an educational limit – a plateau where learning, retention, and new skill acquisition significantly drops off, even with support
Poor working memory, difficulty absorbing and recalling new information
Learning Difficulty
IQ of 70-75 or above
Struggled with school-related tasks like reading, writing, spatial awareness, or coordination
Can still be supported to learn and retain new skills with the right interventions
Simple enough. But looking deeper, these definitions don’t just describe cognitive function – they reflect societal values about intelligence itself.
A Game of Moving Goalposts
The idea that an IQ score is a definitive marker of ability is outdated at best and dangerously simplistic at worst. Intelligence isn’t a fixed trait – it is a constantly evolving, multi-faceted phenomenon that standard IQ tests fail to fully capture. But because a small group of decision-makers set this standard – one that the majority population then upheld, consciously or not – anyone who doesn’t fit the mould is labelled as “lacking”.
If society ever decided to measure intelligence purely by spatial reasoning, then verbal-linguistic thinkers (here’s looking at you, Shakespeare) would suddenly find themselves classified as having a ‘learning difficulty’. If memory recall were the gold standard, then anyone who struggles to remember names at parties would be functionally impaired. The way we define “normal” intelligence is less about objective truth and more about what’s easiest for the majority to work with.
The Educational Ceiling: Who Decides the Limit?
One of the starkest distinctions between a learning disability and a learning difficulty is the concept of an educational limit – the point at which even the best interventions cannot push learning further. But here’s the thing: who gets to decide where this ‘limit’ exists? Is it truly an innate cognitive barrier, or is it the result of an education system that isn’t designed for diverse minds?
If intelligence were seen as fluid rather than fixed, how might education change? Instead of a system that rigidly sorts students by perceived ability, we could adopt models that allow for different paces and styles of learning. Likewise, if education embraced neurodiversity, there could be a focus on individualized learning pathways rather than standardized benchmarks. A system that adapts to its learners, rather than forcing learners to adapt to it, would challenge the very premise of an educational limit.
For centuries, intelligence has been measured by a narrow set of skills deemed valuable by a dominant group, and its definitions shaped by those in power (I still see you, Shakespeare). Because of this, our thoughts on intelligence are not neutral; they reflect the values of the prevailing privileged party. More than that, these biased measurements and definitions exist within a framework that demarcates all those who fall outside of it as of “limited” or “lesser” intelligence.
And thus the self-fulfilling prophecy begins by defining intelligence in a way that excludes certain people, then claiming those people have a disability because they don’t fit the definition.
Is Intelligence a Social Construct?
There is little doubt that intelligence exists, but what gets labelled as intelligence – and what gets dismissed as a deficit or a disability – is shaped by social norms and power structures.
We see this in how different skills are valued: fast mental math is considered a sign of high intelligence, but having extraordinary emotional intelligence (like being able to read people and navigate social situations masterfully) is often undervalued. Similarly, intelligence is culturally specific. In oral cultures, intelligence might be measured by memory and storytelling ability, while in literate societies, it’s more about reading and writing (Shakespeare again). And in places that prize function and utility intelligence equates to productivity and efficiency rather than creativity or adaptability, as shown in capitalist societies.
So, What If We Measured Differently (if measuring be needed at all)?
If measuring intelligence is absolutely necessary – since measurement itself has often been a tool of exclusion rather than understanding – what if, instead of ranking intelligence on a rigid hierarchy, we recognized that different brains are built for different things? What if education systems weren’t designed to push everyone through the same rigid pipeline but instead adapted to diverse cognitive styles?
The way learning disabilities and difficulties are presently discussed doesn’t just describe challenges – it (re)enforces a societal norm of what intelligence “should” look like. And when we frame deviations from the majority’s cognitive style as impairments rather than variations, we don’t just limit individuals. We limit our entire understanding of human potential.
Final Thought: Are You Disabled, or is the System?
If intelligence were looked at differently, would we still consider the same people disabled? Or would we finally start to recognize that our definitions of ability have been constrained by centuries of bias?... Maybe the real question isn’t who has a learning disability or learning difficulty, or who is of higher or lower intelligence; but what. Because perhaps the answer isn’t people – but the society that constructed such definitions in the first place, made them even necessary, and crippled us all as a result. For when intelligence is confined to narrow definitions, it forces conformity; devalues and erases entire skill sets and diverse talents; entrenches inequities in labour, education, and social worth; and stifles human potential for growth.
