The following semi-autobiographical essay tells a cautionary tale about the entrenched Anglocentrism, Eurocentrism, and Alphabetism in reading and reading disabilities (dyslexia) research. Having been born, raised, and educated in an entirely monolingual English-speaking environment, I later migrated to a country where non-European languages (Hebrew and Arabic) were the linguae francae and, furthermore, written in a non-alphabetic script. Over the period of a decade or so, I gradually, and sometimes painfully, came to understand that I needed to revise or discard many of my Anglophone insights into reading and reading disabilities. The culmination of this "awakening" came with the writing of my Anglocentricities critique (Share, 2008), where I argued that the extreme ambiguity of English spelling-sound correspondence had confined reading science to an insular, Anglocentric research agenda addressing theoretical and applied issues with limited relevance for the majority of the world's literacy learners. I subsequently extended this argument to Eurocentricism and Alphabetism -- the misguided belief that alphabets are inherently superior to non-alphabetic writing systems (Share, 2014). More recently, together with Peter T. Daniels, a linguist specializing in writing systems, I have been exploring writing system diversity and its implications for learning to read around the world (Daniels & Share, 2018). I hope my story will help raise awareness of the need to move our field a step closer toward embracing global diversity. [This is a William M. Cruickshank Memorial Lecture delivered at the 2019 Conference of the International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities.]