People who qualify as having a learning disability are always of average to above average intelligence. In schools, if they are below average intelligence, they wouldn't be labeled learning disabled. People with learning disabilities have the potential to achieve if they are given strategies and accommodations that help them compensate for their learning disability. People who are below average intelligence do not have a discrepancy between what they are achieving and what they are capable of. If that makes sense. BTW, ADD/ADHD is not a learning disability. But about half the people with ADD/ADHD are also LD. Okay, I'll stop boring people now.
I know this is an old comment, but I'm fairly new to this site. My wife (a clinical psychologist) has a relative with learning disabilities. It's suspected that she was brain damaged at birth. My wife carried out a WAIS test on her, which revealed that she has an IQ of around 55.
It'd be wrong to suggest that she has the potential to achieve what a normal person does. Contrary to your suggestion, she is not of average to above average intelligence. Perhaps here in the UK 'learning disabilities' is a term which is used differently in other countries.
Ah, this makes more sense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_disability - it states that the US and Canada define LD in different ways to the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_disabilityEither way, Lennon was born in the UK, Goldman was an American writer, so we should perhaps be circumspect when commenting on unproven diagnoses :X