Deafness itp?

[Helanna]

My local community college recently offered high school seniors the chance to take two free summer courses, so I'm taking American Sign Language. The class is truly fascinating and has a fantastic teacher, and I'm hoping to be able to achieve basic communication skills by the end of the course, even though it's only about a month long (eight classes).

There's a research paper due in a couple of days (I . . . may have procrastinated. I may still be procrastinating, in fact) and as my topic I chose oralism, communicating through speaking and lip-reading rather than through sign language. But while researching it, I found out that a lot of deaf people seem to really dislike oralism (mostly the way some schools force it on their students), and there's a lot more controversy about it than I thought.

It got me wondering, though - how many members here are deaf or have deaf family members or friends, and how do you deal with it?

Also, any more information on oralism (even just your opinions) would be appreciated. I'm having some trouble finding good sources.

[Cobalt]

Because I second guess myself when I already know the obvious, I decided to do a quick Google search on oralism so I could at least be sure I knew what I was talking about.

Manualism and oralism are two opposing philosophies regarding the education of the deaf. Manualism is the education of deaf students using sign language and oralism being the education of deaf students using spoken language. Since the beginning of time in the 18th century, these two philosophies have been on opposing sides of a heated debate that continues to this day, although many modern deaf educational facilities attempt to integrate both approaches

I learned never to trust Wikipedia ever again.

It may just be awkward wording, but still. "It technically works" is not acceptable 'round here.

I think that there can't be a blanket "This way over that way" method of teaching. For deaf students or for those with hearing. It seems to me that it would certainly be easier with Manualism, but never having been deaf or in need of teaching while deaf, I couldn't really vouch for either at the moment. It depends on personal preference and whether one method makes more progress over the other for that individual or not. If I had to make an off-the-top-of-my-head guess right now, I would say that schools for the deaf offer both. But I'd be wrong, wouldn't I? else there wouldn't likely be such a controversial... Controversy, about it.

[thubby]

i would think oralism would be more important to functioning with the rest of the world, since most people don't understand sign language.
but for teaching purposes, manualism is probably easier since the student wouldn't have to deal with complex subject matter and reading lips.

[bluewind95]

With the advent of better hearing aids and cochlear implants, oralism actually teaches children to *listen*. They can *listen* now. And speak.

I volunteered as a translator on a camp for parents of children with cochlear implants. There was a high-school girl who volunteered in the camp too, to take care of the kids and the siblings and so on. Everyone was talking to this girl, she would use her cellphone and all... until the last day. There was a panel there for parents with older children with cochlear implants and such. That girl was there. She was deaf and no one ever noticed. She functioned just as well as anyone else.

I always was in favour of oralism... but after seeing that... I'm totally an advocate for it. I think that sign language has its place too... but I think it should be there as a backup, for times where even a hearing person would have issues understanding (cochlear implants are NOT as good as healthy hearing, despite how amazing they are!). But really... to be able to function along with the rest of the world is something very valuable. One of the children in the panel? He plays the piano. It's simply amazing.

I hear that the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing has some information on oral deaf education. My aunt is an oral deaf educator, and I think that the school she's worked at may have links to more resources, if you're interested.

Edit: Oh this (http://www.oraldeafed.org/) would be it.

[Cealocanth]

I have a friend who's deaf. She reads lips and can speak like anyone else. i didn't find out untill a few months ago.

She likes to wear a shirt that reads "I'm deaf. (Death is the guy with the black cloak and the scythe.)"

[KenderWizard]

Something that I find interesting is apparently babies can learn sign language sooner than speech, because they have a lot of work to do to control their tongue and lips and throat, whereas by the time they're starting to interact with the world, they've usually got pretty good control of their hands. So hearing babies who are taught sign language then pick up speech very quickly, because they've done all the "symbol -> real life -> symbol" groundwork, as it were.

Sorry that wasn't especially helpful, but I thought it was pretty cool!

[smellie_hippie]

I've been studying and practicing ASL (American Sign Language) for about the past 14 months. It is an amazing language, but our teacher also talks to us about deaf culture (both Big D and little d).

Big D people might find it insulting to advocate for the cochlear implant. Deafness is part of who they are, and it is something they are proud of. Many folks have no desire to be part of the 'hearing world', since they are perfectly fine without the need for hearing.

[thubby]

*snip*
Sorry that wasn't especially helpful, but I thought it was pretty cool!

totally agree. my niece knows some basic sign language, and it's amazing what she can get across.
/proud-uncle-moment

[Serpentine]

I know the Australian signing alphabet, thanks to a pamphlet inexplicably left in the woodtech room. So if I come across any deaf people, I can communicate veeeeeerrrrry slowly. Probably quicker just to write, really...

[Haruki-kun]

I learned never to trust Wikipedia ever again.

It may just be awkward wording, but still. "It technically works" is not acceptable 'round here.



*corrects*


Since the beginning of the 18th century, these two philosophies have been on opposing sides of a heated debate that continues to this day, although many modern deaf educational facilities attempt to integrate both approaches

See? Help the community. :smallwink:

Also, I don't know anyone who's deaf.... although I do have a great grandmother who lost the ability to speak at an advanced age. Not really the same thing, though.

[KenderWizard]

totally agree. my niece knows some basic sign language, and it's amazing what she can get across.
/proud-uncle-moment

Oh, that's awesome! I don't know any babies who can communicate with signs, I've only read about it.

[Helanna]

If I had to make an off-the-top-of-my-head guess right now, I would say that schools for the deaf offer both. But I'd be wrong, wouldn't I? else there wouldn't likely be such a controversial... Controversy, about it.

I guess what one of the problems was was that in 1880, it was decided that everyone should be taught oralism, and a lot of deaf schools started punishing anyone caught signing. Now, I think most schools offer both, but a lot of people still remember when they were forced into learning oralism.



I hear that the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing has some information on oral deaf education. My aunt is an oral deaf educator, and I think that the school she's worked at may have links to more resources, if you're interested.

Edit: Oh this (http://www.oraldeafed.org/) would be it.

Awesome, thank you!


Something that I find interesting is apparently babies can learn sign language sooner than speech, because they have a lot of work to do to control their tongue and lips and throat, whereas by the time they're starting to interact with the world, they've usually got pretty good control of their hands. So hearing babies who are taught sign language then pick up speech very quickly, because they've done all the "symbol -> real life -> symbol" groundwork, as it were.

Sorry that wasn't especially helpful, but I thought it was pretty cool!

I have heard something about that . . . actually, now that I think about it, that would have made a fantastic topic! . . . the report's due tomorrow, and I already have most of it written, so it's proooobably too late to change. :smallfrown:


I know the Australian signing alphabet, thanks to a pamphlet inexplicably left in the woodtech room. So if I come across any deaf people, I can communicate veeeeeerrrrry slowly. Probably quicker just to write, really...

Apparently, the Rochester Method, fingerspelling out absolutely everything, was named for the city I'm going to school in next year, because it's so common there. I really don't understand the appeal, it seems like it would be really difficult. :smallconfused:

[thubby]

Apparently, the Rochester Method, fingerspelling out absolutely everything, was named for the city I'm going to school in next year, because it's so common there. I really don't understand the appeal, it seems like it would be really difficult. :smallconfused:

it's easy to learn.
it's just learning 26 characters, then using them to spell words you already know. as opposed to learning a sign for almost everything you encounter.

[Serpentine]

Like the difference between learning Latin characters and Chinese ones? :smalltongue:

[thubby]

Like the difference between learning Latin characters and Chinese ones? :smalltongue:

seeing as how chinese is considered one of the hardest languages to learn, ya.

[Exeson]

Big D people might find it insulting to advocate for the cochlear implant. Deafness is part of who they are, and it is something they are proud of. Many folks have no desire to be part of the 'hearing world', since they are perfectly fine without the need for hearing.

See, I have heard this argument before and really struggle to understand it. If you were in a wheelchair and someone said they could make it so you could walk on crutches then how many people would say no?

It's great that they want a sense of identity, but really?

Sign language is amazing and probably one of the most powerful tools for a person with hearing disability but I think really Oralism is the way to go for everyday interaction and conversation. For example my sister works at a trekking shop and has served two deaf customers, the only way she knew they were deaf is because when she looked away they couldn't understand her. That means they were able to walk into a shop, buy complicated technical equipment, and understand what they were buying without the need of any aid.

There is just no way you could beat that.

[smellie_hippie]

See, I have heard this argument before and really struggle to understand it. If you were in a wheelchair and someone said they could make it so you could walk on crutches then how many people would say no?

It's great that they want a sense of identity, but really?

Before these classes I would have agreed with you totally. One of the main differences is someone being born into a hearing world and then subsequently losing their hearing. That's little d... which would go along with your wheelchair analogy.

Big D is someone who was born deaf, identifies as being deaf, and has no desire to be "part of the hearing world". To think about a cochlear implant would be to admit that there was something "wrong" with the way they are now. Take your person in a wheelchair, and imagine how he feels when he goes rolling through a hardware store to buy a hammer and nails. How many looks of pity does he get from people? "Oh you poor man, are you building a ramp to get into your house?" It's quite possible that he has always been this way, adapted his truck to be hand-drivable (and in fact drove himself to the store), and was simlpy buying supplies to build an archery stand for his upcoming national tournament...

The second person is perfectly capable, and might get very insulted by the assumption that he is "handicapped". It's a rough comparison I know, but that the closest I can come without coffee.

[thubby]

The second person is perfectly capable, and might get very insulted by the assumption that he is "handicapped". It's a rough comparison I know, but that the closest I can come without coffee.

that would be comparable to someone objecting to using glasses, and society makes a point of calling that silly.

[smellie_hippie]

that would be comparable to someone objecting to using glasses, and society makes a point of calling that silly.

Not really. Glasses can be taken off, and are used to correct or improve vision you already have. It's more of a comparison of having ocular replacement surgery for mechanical eyes. They're not yours, you have never been able to see before, and someone is telling you that despite the fact that you have been a "functioning human being" for the past XX number of years, you still should do this because it will make your life complete.

Many would find it insulting that someone is telling them their life has been incomplete up to this point.

[thubby]

Not really. Glasses can be taken off, and are used to correct or improve vision you already have. It's more of a comparison of having ocular replacement surgery for mechanical eyes. They're not yours, you have never been able to see before, and someone is telling you that despite the fact that you have been a "functioning human being" for the past XX number of years, you still should do this because it will make your life complete.
for someone with severe enough myopia (or comparable condition), glasses actually do grant an otherwise absent functionality. sight at long range.


Many would find it insulting that someone is telling them their life has been incomplete up to this point.

it's not about life completeness. if they don't trust the technology, or the medicine, or just the doctor, that makes sense. if someone is happy being disabled, that's fine.
but pretending it's not what it is is just dishonesty.

[Serpentine]

Not to mention, in my mind, kinda selfish, too. Or dramatically self-hobbling, depending on how you think about it. Communication is a major part of humanity. Anything that makes that easier can be nothing but a good thing.

[Telonius]

Suppose you're born an Ordinary-Guy in a universe full of Superheroes. They can do things you just can't, sense things you just can't. For your whole life, you've had to deal with knowing that, no matter how hard you try, you're never going to be able to do what 99% of the Superheroes can do. But you start building up your own self-worth, realizing that you're a whole and complete person with intrinsic value, regardless of whether or not you have powers. You, or one of your friends, might even turn out to be Batman, after a bunch of training.

But then all of a sudden, Dr. Egghead invents a machine that will give you super powers too. Do you take the chance? Or, do you think that super powers are irrelevant to your (or anybody else's) happiness? Given the fact that you've just spent your entire life building up that sense of self-worth, I could understand how some Ordinary Guys might not want to take it. They might even be a bit upset at anyone who took the chance - since it could be seen as implying that they're wrong in their belief of intrinsic self-worth.

[Serpentine]

If the lack of superpowers seriously impairs your ability to communicate with and thereby relate to the vast majority of other people on a fundamental level? Absolutely.
It may very well be that I just don't understand it, but I find it quite worrying when people relate a practical deficiency to their sense of self-worth.

[Exeson]

Big D is someone who was born deaf, identifies as being deaf, and has no desire to be "part of the hearing world". To think about a cochlear implant would be to admit that there was something "wrong" with the way they are now. Take your person in a wheelchair, and imagine how he feels when he goes rolling through a hardware store to buy a hammer and nails. How many looks of pity does he get from people? "Oh you poor man, are you building a ramp to get into your house?" It's quite possible that he has always been this way, adapted his truck to be hand-drivable (and in fact drove himself to the store), and was simlpy buying supplies to build an archery stand for his upcoming national tournament....

But the fact is that there is something wrong with them, and yes a man like that is admirable for doing all those things, but is it really worth denying yourself a increase in quality of life for the sake of a perceived identity that is linked to a physical attribute?

To give a bit of context I have Ocular Albinism, and was diagnosed when I was three years old. When I was 7 and wanted to start playing football (soccer) at my school a specialist said that it could be possible, but they would have to put a bell in the ball to allow me to play. (To compensate for the inability to track moving objects and the loss of visual acuity)

My parents said, 'what a silly notion, don't bother with a bell, we'll just get him a pair of glasses that don't break. (This was back when bendy glasses were not common at all) And I did play, and although I sucked it was still awesome.

Same story again when I was 13, I wanted to play Rugby but was not allowed to because I couldn't wear my glasses. So long story short got tinted contact lenses all the way from France that allowed me to play, and I ended up in the school's A team. I'm not ashamed of my eyesight (far from it), but that does not mean I will choose to restrict my enjoyment of life just because I'm worried that correcting my defects will change who I am.

I realise it is not totally similar, as I'm not blind, but being insulted that someone wants to help you correct a physical disability because you identify yourself because of that disability just seems absurd. Why wouldn't you want to be part of the hearing world?

[Telonius]

If the lack of superpowers seriously impairs your ability to communicate with and thereby relate to the vast majority of other people on a fundamental level? Absolutely.
It may very well be that I just don't understand it, but I find it quite worrying when people relate a practical deficiency to their sense of self-worth.

If that's the case, if deaf people are fundamentally unable to communicate or relate to normal humans, couldn't that be seen as implying that they're something less than fully human? I'm absolutely not intending to accuse you of that, by the way - just trying to show how it can look to somebody inside it, if they're touchy enough about it. (I'm not deaf myself, but will be eventually if I live long enough - diagnosed with progressive hearing loss, apparently genetic).

[smellie_hippie]

if someone is happy being disabled, that's fine.
but pretending it's not what it is is just dishonesty.


It may very well be that I just don't understand it, but I find it quite worrying when people relate a practical deficiency to their sense of self-worth.


I realise it is not totally similar, as I'm not blind, but being insulted that someone wants to help you correct a physical disability because you identify yourself because of that disability just seems absurd. Why wouldn't you want to be part of the hearing world?

Disclaimer: I have full capacity of all of my senses (when not inebriated)

...but I wanted to point out that all three of these quotes describe this person has having a "disability". "You can't hear and that means there is a deficiany or problem".

That's where my understanding of the insult comes in. My understanding is also from an outsider's perspective, so I am sure that it is also skewed. I'm not saying that I disgree with you, because I can't imagine lacking one of my senses and refusing to do something to correct it.

This is not an argument, but I enjoy the debate. I'd also like to point out that this was my first use of multi-quote. :smallbiggrin:

[Castaras]

That's where my understanding of the insult comes in. My understanding is also from an outsider's perspective, so I am sure that it is also skewed. I'm not saying that I disgree with you, because I can't imagine lacking one of my senses and refusing to do something to correct it.


I can see where they come from. But then again, I have two things:

My eyesight is exceedingly poor. I can see between about 5-10cm clearly, the rest is a blur. I love my glasses, and wouldn't want to get laser surgery to cure them.

I also have Aspergers. This is a disability, because I can't deal with people anywhere near as well as someone else can. I don't understand body language a lot of the time, and have to put in serious effort to make conversation. I've worked hard on it over the years, and if I got told "Hey, we can get rid of your Aspies" I'd say "HELL NO!". Because Aspies gives me an extra something that makes me me.

Which I guess is how Deaf people feel. They've been working with the deafness, and their deafness is part of them. To them, curing deafness may be like curing them of playing football, because people suddenly said playing football is a disability.

*shrugs* My £0.02.

[thubby]

letting your disability define who you are is just wrong.

i would like to see a definition of "disability" that excludes deafness without devolving into uselessness.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I could try for diplomacy, but really not inclined. What kind of person wouldn't take this? Seriously?

The former love of my life was born premature but the only condition she got from that was her inner ears never properly formed. She can hear shouting, but mainly she just reads lips. She's very independent and strong willed and would still LOVE to be able to hear as well as everyone else.

If you can't hear you are generally limited to sight only. This is, as said, limiting. Sure you can live with it, but why?

This isn't the same as a Normal in a Superman world. It's a natural bodily function that is not functioning. The body was made to have all its bits going. It can adapt, but its not what it was intended for.

If we could regenerate legs I would seriously doubt the sanity of someone who lost theirs and refused the treatment because they've 'learned to deal with not walking'. I'm happy for you, really, but running is pretty friggin' nice, doncha think?

Hearing has saved my life several times in a way that it doesn't matter how 'well adjusted' I might have been, I'd have died, or others might have.

Warnings shouted by others, screams of children in the other room, the howls of coyotes in the woods (yes, there were hungry coyotes in the woods. Never would have seen them, just blend in too well).

There is making the best of things and then there is just stubbornness. If that's what you prefer though, ok, but as you crunch on your crusts I'm enjoying my cake.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I also have Aspergers. This is a disability, because I can't deal with people anywhere near as well as someone else can. I don't understand body language a lot of the time, and have to put in serious effort to make conversation. I've worked hard on it over the years, and if I got told "Hey, we can get rid of your Aspies" I'd say "HELL NO!". Because Aspies gives me an extra something that makes me me.
Seriously? I have horrible dyslexia. If someone said 'Hey, we can get rid of your dyslexia" I'd say "YELL HES!"

Dyslexia may give me quirk of mind, but I'd take a cure for the bloody stuff in a heartbeat despite the fact I long ago learned to work around it (generally). It may be a part of me but so is a wart. Still want rid of it!

[smellie_hippie]

letting your disability define who you are is just wrong.

i would like to see a definition of "disability" that excludes deafness without devolving into uselessness.

This is where I hit a brick wall as well. I can hear, and would view the loss of that hearing as a "disability". I don't know where to go from here without debasing into you're wrong and other such useless and inappropriate accusations.

*shrug* It's complex, and maybe we need the insight of someone from the Big D culture to explain things a little better.

edit: I have just sent a short email to my ASL instructor who might be able to provide some insight or articles I could link to help us understand a little better...

[Helanna]

I have to say, I can kind of see where people are coming from when they say that a physical attribute is a 'part' of them that they could never part with, even when it negatively impacts their life. But still . . . I don't really have any type of disability other than being nearsighted. Which obviously isn't nearly as part of any identity I might have as being deaf would be, but I would still jump at the chance to be able to see clearly across a small room. Being deaf might be a part of your personality, but if you could hear, hearing would become part of your personality. So . . . ?

On the oralism thing, one thing that should be taken into account is simply how difficult it is to learn when you can't even hear. So I can certainly understand why somebody might not want to spend a vast portion of their life trying to learn it when they can really communicate just as well if they really need to through signing or an interpreter. Especially as when schools teach it, they often spend so much time trying to get the kids to speak that they never learn anything else like basic math or science.

[smellie_hippie]

I suppose I should also ask here, if you feel that I have stolen this thread? I think this is still fairly "on topic" for you original question. If not, then I apologize.

[Vaynor]

I see what you're saying smellie_hippie, but I think the problem is that people don't have enough experience with the aforementioned Big D culture to understand. Perhaps we put it in terms people would be more familiar with. Say you're a homosexual. You were born a homosexual, you have known nothing else your entire life, and you like the way you are. Let's say a doctor tells you that he has this new treatment that can cure your "problem", you turn to him and say, "What problem?". I think it's pretty similar with Big D people, it's not a disability to them, it's just the way they are (I'm not saying homosexuality is a disability, mind you, just that it can (unfortunately) negatively impact your life, it's not part of the "norm", much like deafness). I can definitely see how Big D people could see the offer of a cochlear impact as insulting to who they are and the person they have become because of their deafness.

[Helanna]

I suppose I should also ask here, if you feel that I have stolen this thread? I think this is still fairly "on topic" for you original question. If not, then I apologize.

Oh, certainly not. I was just curious about the deaf population here, and I'm enjoying the debate.

I can kind of see both sides, so I guess in the end, it's just a personal decision for people to make.

Edit: After skimming through the "controversy" section of Wikipedia's article on cochlear implants, I have to say what I really don't get is people from the Deaf community who don't believe that anyone should get implants, because it lessens the values of Deaf culture and whatnot. Wouldn't that be similar to saying that no one should ever move out of their home country, because they'd be losing their culture?

[KenderWizard]

Personally, I see a big difference between Castaras' Asperger's or the hypothetical homosexual in Vaynor's example, and deafness or blindness or loss of mobility.

Something like Asperger's or homosexuality is in your mind. In order to "fix" it, you'd end up changing parts of that person's personality.

Being deaf or needing a wheelchair is a physical condition. Your life would be different if you were no longer deaf or in a wheelchair, but your personality wouldn't be, unless you felt less secure because you strongly identified with being deaf, which is probably where the Big D culture comes from. But I would argue that would still be your emotions and not your actual personality, and a lot of people would adapt over time.

As a comparison, I would much rather lose an arm or go blind than get something like Alzheimer's that affected my mind, because I feel I would be losing parts of my personality to lose memories and thought processes, but it would just be very inconvenient to lose a physical ability.

But I don't know, because I could feel very differently if I had been deaf all my life!

[Vaynor]

I understand where you're coming from, deafness is a physical ailment, and to many, nothing more. But you can't deny that being deaf your entire life affects your personality, which you cite as a reason against remedy. Deafness may be caused physically but it affects people mentally (how their brain perceives their environment). I don't claim that both instances (homosexuality and deafness) are one in the same, but you can still draw parallels between the two as far as the mindset of those with both traits goes.

Like you said, you would feel very differently if you had been deaf your whole life, and I agree, it's impossible to see things from a Big D's perspective but it can't hurt to try. :smallsmile:

[Zovc]

I remember in junior high I used to mouth words to a deaf guy. He seemed happy that someone was interacting him, regardless of how they were doing it.

[Serpentine]

If that's the case, if deaf people are fundamentally unable to communicate or relate to normal humans, couldn't that be seen as implying that they're something less than fully human?No, absolutely not. You are a human who due to a physical problem is less able to participate in a basic human function.
...but I wanted to point out that all three of these quotes describe this person has having a "disability". "You can't hear and that means there is a deficiany or problem".

That's where my understanding of the insult comes in.But that's exactly what it is. It is normal for a person to have the use of all their sense. If they are denied or deficient in any of those senses, they are handicapped, disabled and all those other words that some people have a problem with. I tried to avoid using such terms, and I was kinda hoping someone would come up with a better way of saying "missing or lacking in an ability or function that is normal to humans and that significantly effects their ability to do or participate in certain normal human activities".
While we're on the topic of terminology, I have a friend who is sort-of mentally disabled (hydrocephalus - I recently posted a picture of her awesome scars), and who works with disabled people. She has told me a couple of times that she dislikes any term that... disempowers them, I believe was the term she used. Unfortunately, she hasn't suggested any words to replace them, but I can understand that - they want it acknowledged that they're still active, initiative-taking beings, not just victims of their disability. The hard thing is finding a word or words that reflect this empowerment, and is honest about the fact that you are talking about a disability, rather than glossing over or whitewashing that fact.
'course, then later she referred to herself a retard :smallamused:

I also have Aspergers. This is a disability, because I can't deal with people anywhere near as well as someone else can. I don't understand body language a lot of the time, and have to put in serious effort to make conversation. I've worked hard on it over the years, and if I got told "Hey, we can get rid of your Aspies" I'd say "HELL NO!". Because Aspies gives me an extra something that makes me me.
I would argue that the bolded aspects are most analogous to learning oralism, which is the actual subject at hand. While obviously it would certainly be good for more people to do so, would you demand that everyone must learn to understand how to handle you as a person with Aspergers or you will have nothing to do with thim - with regard to deafness, nearly literally being unable to communicate with them?
The subject of "curing" deafness has come up. In most cases, I believe this is a moot point: it cannot be done yet. Apparently we've gone on to the subject of cochlear implants (Aussie invention! Woo!). This still seems like a moot point: noone would force anyone to get one, would they? But, and this, again, may be purely because I'm an outsider, it still seems silly to me to conflate purely practical advancements with questions of very personal identity. A person who gets a prosthetic to replace his missing leg is still missing a leg, he's just a one-legged person who can now get around easier. Similarly, a deaf person who gets a cochlear implant or learns oralism is still deaf, they're just a deaf person who can communicate easier.

[smellie_hippie]

Okay, here's a different parallel to bring in.

You know someone who has been deaf all of their life. They have never had any auditory sensory input. You find this person interesting and want to interact with them, possibly become friends. You have two options:

1. Encourage them to read your lips or get a cochlear implant.

2. Study and learn sign language.

In the first instance, you are demanding that they leave their world and enter into yours. "You need to adapt in order to be friends with me." The second option is clearly the opposite, and offering to understand them better.

Yes they both have a bit of sacrifice, but learning to communicate with them is only costing you time and effort to learn a new language.

[thubby]

language is one of the few places majority wins, though.

[Exeson]

Disclaimer: I have full capacity of all of my senses (when not inebriated)

...but I wanted to point out that all three of these quotes describe this person has having a "disability". "You can't hear and that means there is a deficiany or problem".

That's where my understanding of the insult comes in. My understanding is also from an outsider's perspective, so I am sure that it is also skewed. I'm not saying that I disgree with you, because I can't imagine lacking one of my senses and refusing to do something to correct it.

This is not an argument, but I enjoy the debate. I'd also like to point out that this was my first use of multi-quote. :smallbiggrin:

But it is a physical disability, same as not being able to speak, to see, to digest food properly etc. That's a fact. If people don't want to admit they have a disability then thats just shameful.

My main reasoning is that being deaf impacts your ability to function in life. Deaf people manage amazingly well, with lip reading, sign language and a lot of people willing to help them, but the fact is they are still more limited in things they could experience, and I can't understand why they would want to deny themselves that possibility.

Ultimately I understand that each to their own, but I personally just find it impossible to understand their veiw point.

[Serpentine]

Okay, here's a different parallel to bring in.

You know someone who has been deaf all of their life. They have never had any auditory sensory input. You find this person interesting and want to interact with them, possibly become friends. You have two options:

1. Encourage them to read your lips or get a cochlear implant.

2. Study and learn sign language.

In the first instance, you are demanding that they leave their world and enter into yours. "You need to adapt in order to be friends with me." The second option is clearly the opposite, and offering to understand them better.

Yes they both have a bit of sacrifice, but learning to communicate with them is only costing you time and effort to learn a new language.Why must it be one or the other? Seems reasonable to me for both to do it. Moreover, why is it okay for them to require that person to learn a whole new language, one, moreover, that is only useful for a very small and very scattered and unpredictable part of the world population, but not okay for them to even be encouraged to learn a skill that is useful for a significant and predictably concentrated portion of the world's population, and also applicable for communicating with the rest of the world*?
To put it another way, oralism is a more practical and flexible a skill for the deaf to learn than sign language is for non-deaf people. Which isn't to say that it's useless or pointless to learn, nor that I think people shouldn't be encouraged to do so. But to claim that it's insulting to even teach the alternative... It's more than just absurd, it's screamingly impractical.

All of which is very hypothetical, as no actual deaf people have weighed in yet :smalltongue: I hope we're not scaring them off <.<

*Assuming that the ability to read lips can be applied to other languages.

[smellie_hippie]

It doesn't have to be one choice or the other. Those two just seemed the most obvious. I like your idea of showing effort from both of those two directions...

[Serpentine]

News. I has it (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/17/2956666.htm).
New technology will start being rolled out later this year in major movie cinemas, making it possible for deaf and blind people to follow the film they are watching.

The digital technology, which includes providing captions and audio descriptions, will be introduced for films screened by the four major cinema groups.

The federal parliamentary secretary for disabilities, Bill Shorten, says by the end of 2014 there will be at least one screen in each cinema using the technology.

"This is the start of a process, it's not a static development," he said.

"I know that people with disability and the cinema industry will be able to say we are an example of what is possible in this country if people with goodwill sit down, work through the issues, respect each other's point of view and actually put people first."

The federal disability discrimination commissioner, Graham Innes, is himself blind, and says such a move is well overdue.

"When the rollout is completed at the end of 2014, Australia is on track for having one of the highest per capita rates of cinema access in the world," he said.

"This is a great outcome for people with a disability, for the 2.5 million Australians who are deaf or who have a hearing impairment and for the 300,000 Australians who are blind or have low vision."What a good idea. It has me wondering, though... Cinema is a very visual medium - some of my favourites are ones that are just gorgeous to look at. So what sort of films do you think would be good for the blind? And ultimately, how is this different to a talking book?

[Superglucose]

I am fascinated with the cochlear implant.

I've had quite a few deaf people in my classes, but I never really talked to any. I don't know sign language and it would be difficult then to befriend someone who couldn't hear me. It's sad in the sense that I'm sure they're wonderful people I'll never really be able to connect with.

I wish I'd taken more effort to learn multiple languages for much the same reason: just thinking about all the awesome people I won't get to connect with because I can only speak english :smallfrown: In the end; however, I'm glad my only language is English as opposed to something obscure.

Oh and I'd like to say that personally I found the signers very distracting. :smallwink: Something about the moving hands lulls me into a dream-state where I stop paying attention to the lecture :smallfrown: Something to work on!

EDIT: @Serp, you know what they could do... they could make special glasses. Like the 3D glasses. They would filter in (if that makes sense) the captions... I think it would be pretty cool to have something like that.

[hamishspence]

I am fascinated with the cochlear implant.


They are indeed good.

I never got round to learning sign language more than a few very basic symbols (most of which I've forgotten) but lipreading + hearing aid were a huge help.

[DeafnotDumb]

Wait, how'd I miss this topic?


I am fascinated with the cochlear implant.


What's interesting about the technology for cochlear implants is simply how much it advances. I was first implanted at the age of four, thereabouts, but I got a second implant eleven years later, and what was amazing was how much better the second implant was when compared to the first. With the right equipment, I can even score better than hearing people on certain background noise checks. Advanced Bionics (a company over here focusing on cochlear implants) have even started developing technology that will allow an implant to tune out useless background noise should it's user wish!

In short, one day technology will advance so much that one day deaf people will be able to hear better than all you hearing guys, and then you'll be sorry. :smalltongue:



EDIT: @Serp, you know what they could do... they could make special glasses. Like the 3D glasses. They would filter in (if that makes sense) the captions... I think it would be pretty cool to have something like that.

I've never had problems with getting subtitles on DVDs and so forth, and other people watching the movie don't mind it either (unless you get a subtitle like Spooky Atmospheric Music, which kills the mood dead). I wish more cinemas would put on subtitled shows, and more people would actually go and watch them so it isn't unprofitable for the cinema companies to do so.

I mean, have you ever tried lipreading Darth Vader?

[smellie_hippie]

Wait, how'd I miss this topic?

Yay! ...and yeah, how did you miss this topic? :smalltongue:

[thubby]

I've never had problems with getting subtitles on DVDs and so forth, and other people watching the movie don't mind it either (unless you get a subtitle like Spooky Atmospheric Music, which kills the mood dead). I wish more cinemas would put on subtitled shows, and more people would actually go and watch them so it isn't unprofitable for the cinema companies to do so.

I mean, have you ever tried lipreading Darth Vader?

that depends, really. on their equipment, how many people want subtitles, and the views people take of subtitles. (while most people wouldn't mind, some do, and i imagine many would choose without subtitles given 2 otherwise identical showings.

[Serpentine]

Wait, how'd I miss this topic?Is it cuz you're blind, too? :smalltongue:

I wouldn't mind watching a movie with subtitles, but I couldn't handle watching one of the ones for the blind.

[Telonius]

What's interesting about the technology for cochlear implants is simply how much it advances. I was first implanted at the age of four, thereabouts, but I got a second implant eleven years later, and what was amazing was how much better the second implant was when compared to the first. With the right equipment, I can even score better than hearing people on certain background noise checks. Advanced Bionics (a company over here focusing on cochlear implants) have even started developing technology that will allow an implant to tune out useless background noise should it's user wish!

Huh, that's good to know. Last time I checked up on implants was way back in the early 90s. The reviews were really mixed back then, especially from small-d deaf people. Glad to see they've made improvements!

I didn't pay the extra $1000 to get this, but my own hearing aid is Bluetooth-capable. I about fell out of my chair when I learned they could do that!

[banjo1985]

I didn't pay the extra $1000 to get this, but my own hearing aid is Bluetooth-capable. I about fell out of my chair when I learned they could do that!

That's...pretty awesome actually, your hearing aid is more advanced than my last phone! :smallbiggrin:

As for the debate on implants/the correcting of impairments, I would always go for a cure if one was available, though I've never been put in that situation. Mrs B is dyslexic, and while she's developed strategies to get around it, if someone said 'Hey, we got a cure for that, no more phonetic dictionaries for you!' she'd be first in the queue, banging at the door to get them to open up quicker. Not the same I'll grant you, but in my immediate realm of experience it's the closest I can get.

Having said that, I wear glasses but have refused all offers of contact lenses and laser surgery to either obfuscate or get rid of the problem...because I'm used to them and would actually feel quite weird and vulnerable without them. Me, hypocritical much? :smalleek:

[Serpentine]

Yeah, the closest I've got is left-handedness and self-induced poor eyesight.

[Elentari]

I have to say, I can kind of see where people are coming from when they say that a physical attribute is a 'part' of them that they could never part with, even when it negatively impacts their life. But still . . . I don't really have any type of disability other than being nearsighted. Which obviously isn't nearly as part of any identity I might have as being deaf would be, but I would still jump at the chance to be able to see clearly across a small room. Being deaf might be a part of your personality, but if you could hear, hearing would become part of your personality. So . . . ?

On the oralism thing, one thing that should be taken into account is simply how difficult it is to learn when you can't even hear. So I can certainly understand why somebody might not want to spend a vast portion of their life trying to learn it when they can really communicate just as well if they really need to through signing or an interpreter. Especially as when schools teach it, they often spend so much time trying to get the kids to speak that they never learn anything else like basic math or science.

Ok, first off, I'm deaf, and have been since birth. I used hearing aids, and now am a bilateral implantee. Because of this, I always feel like I'm caught between two worlds, never in one or the other. I'm neither Deaf nor hearing. This makes me feel very isolated sometimes. I do extremely well for someone that has cochlear implants, and yet, when I take them off, I'm still deaf.

Learning to speak was very difficult for me because I have a profound hearing loss, and I had speech/listening therapy from age 1 to 15. It was hard because I had to learn how to say sounds that I couldn't hear with my hearing aids. Cochlear implants do help, that is true, but not enough. I miss plenty of things and in noisy environments, I do even worse.

I do have to argue the point that they spend a lot of time in schools teaching them to speak. I had the opportunity to be part of a deaf program in my school, and even though I was mainstreamed and they were self-contained, they spent perhaps half an hour a week individualy with a speech therapist at school. Most of the time is spent on teaching them. The problem lies in the fact that they know ASL, not english, and ASL has a completely different grammar structure than english. This brings their reading scores way down, and because they spend so much time learning english, they don't have enough time to spend learning math and science.


*snip*

All of which is very hypothetical, as no actual deaf people have weighed in yet :smalltongue: I hope we're not scaring them off <.<

*Assuming that the ability to read lips can be applied to other languages.

Ah, don't worry Serpentine, I wasn't scared off :smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

Hey.

Hey, Elentari.

You're a cyborg. :cool:

[DeafnotDumb]

Is it cuz you're blind, too? :smalltongue:


No, just oblivious. :smallbiggrin:


I used hearing aids, and now am a bilateral implantee.

Another one? Hey there! I didn't expect to see somebody else with the same situation as me, especially considering how few there were in my old school.


The problem lies in the fact that they know ASL, not english, and ASL has a completely different grammar structure than english.

This is why I dislike deaf schools that encourage use of sign language over speech, including many other reasons, such as how it cuts you off from almost all the population, lacks complexity, and so forth. Some people at my old school tried to petition for it to change to BSL :smallmad:. Luckily, they got shot down.

There is a rather... interesting situation that sometimes occurs in capital D-deaf cultures, which is that sometimes couples will choose for their child to be deaf their whole life, rather than implant them as early as possible (which leads to significant hearing prowess and high integration into hearing culture) because if their child becomes hearing, the communication barrier will be between the child and their parents rather than the child and the hearing world. I dislike this practice, but it's very understandable and says some interesting things...


Hey.

Hey, Elentari.

You're a cyborg. :cool:

Hey! You forgot me!

I get that observation a lot from my friends...

[KenderWizard]

My boyfriend did an internship researching medical ethics last summer, focusing on ethical use of technology. For example, it would be convenient to have a diagnosing machine in your house to tell you what was wrong with you, but would it be ethical to let you find out you had cancer completely alone?

Anyway, one of the things he came across was this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618717609/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0618378294&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=13S2684RJPHPZ0TD5CAY), and he found it fascinating. It's about a guy who always had bad hearing, but then lost his hearing completely, and was given a cochlear implant that gave him much better hearing than he had before he went completely deaf. The book is kind of him talking about how he considered the implant part of himself, but a machine, making him part machine.

Also, off-topic,
I love your name, Elentari! I chose the same name for my very first elf!

[Elentari]

Hey.

Hey, Elentari.

You're a cyborg. :cool:

Cyborgs for the win!


My boyfriend did an internship researching medical ethics last summer, focusing on ethical use of technology. For example, it would be convenient to have a diagnosing machine in your house to tell you what was wrong with you, but would it be ethical to let you find out you had cancer completely alone?

Anyway, one of the things he came across was this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618717609/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0618378294&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=13S2684RJPHPZ0TD5CAY), and he found it fascinating. It's about a guy who always had bad hearing, but then lost his hearing completely, and was given a cochlear implant that gave him much better hearing than he had before he went completely deaf. The book is kind of him talking about how he considered the implant part of himself, but a machine, making him part machine.

Also, off-topic,
I love your name, Elentari! I chose the same name for my very first elf!

Hm, this book sounds interesting. I should read it.
Also, ehe :smallredface: I just happened to be reading the appendices in LOTR and found the name.


No, just oblivious. :smallbiggrin:



Another one? Hey there! I didn't expect to see somebody else with the same situation as me, especially considering how few there were in my old school.



This is why I dislike deaf schools that encourage use of sign language over speech, including many other reasons, such as how it cuts you off from almost all the population, lacks complexity, and so forth. Some people at my old school tried to petition for it to change to BSL :smallmad:. Luckily, they got shot down.

There is a rather... interesting situation that sometimes occurs in capital D-deaf cultures, which is that sometimes couples will choose for their child to be deaf their whole life, rather than implant them as early as possible (which leads to significant hearing prowess and high integration into hearing culture) because if their child becomes hearing, the communication barrier will be between the child and their parents rather than the child and the hearing world. I dislike this practice, but it's very understandable and says some interesting things...



Hey! You forgot me!

I get that observation a lot from my friends...

You have two CI's too?

Another interesting thing to think about is that a lot of deaf people have hearing parents. They, instead of trying to integrate their kid into the Deaf world, want to be able to communicate with their child. As a result of this, more and more hearing parents are opting to give their kids CI's when they're as young as 1, long before the kids can make a decision for themselves. I was lucky in that regard, my parents waited til I was ten before starting to consider cochlear implants as an option, and I was able to participate in the decision.

[bluewind95]

As a result of this, more and more hearing parents are opting to give their kids CI's when they're as young as 1, long before the kids can make a decision for themselves. I was lucky in that regard, my parents waited til I was ten before starting to consider cochlear implants as an option, and I was able to participate in the decision.

There is a very good reason to do this, actually. The younger the child is when some hearing is restored, the easier the language is acquired. There is a relatively small window of opportunity, as they call it, for language.

I guess you could always opt out of them, but with children that young... I think it really should be the parents' choice. Especially with something that may affect them for the rest of their life.

[Serpentine]

Similar sort of problem with transexuality, really: The earlier you start, the better the treatment will take, but the harder to tell if it's really what's best for them.
I suppose the implants can't easily be removed? But can't you at least turn them off or something?

edit: Somethin' else. Today, I discovered that my library has a book called "The Big Black Book of Colours". It's a book about colour... for the blind. The text is in normal writing and in Braille, and the pictures are all black shiny stuff on black paper. It's pretty awesome.

[Elentari]

There is a very good reason to do this, actually. The younger the child is when some hearing is restored, the easier the language is acquired. There is a relatively small window of opportunity, as they call it, for language.

I guess you could always opt out of them, but with children that young... I think it really should be the parents' choice. Especially with something that may affect them for the rest of their life.


Similar sort of problem with transexuality, really: The earlier you start, the better the treatment will take, but the harder to tell if it's really what's best for them.
I suppose the implants can't easily be removed? But can't you at least turn them off or something?

edit: Somethin' else. Today, I discovered that my library has a book called "The Big Black Book of Colours". It's a book about colour... for the blind. The text is in normal writing and in Braille, and the pictures are all black shiny stuff on black paper. It's pretty awesome.

I am very well aware of that "window" because its one reason why I got my second cochlear implant a few years after my first one. My audiologist kept encouraging me not to wait, and hm, I dunno if it would have made such a difference or not for me. However, my belief is that, with Implants, the parents should at least see if hearing aids work on the kid first before they do the most drastic and most permanent approach. The way they put them in, any residual hearing that might have possibly been there is totally destroyed. This means that when the kid is older and decides that they don't like it, they now have no other option than to continue their lives as completely deaf. This is what happened to several of my friends. Their parents opted for the operation when they were about 2 or 3ish, and the kids never really took to it, and now they have to go around with a big hunk of metal in their heads. One of them wants to have it removed, because he wants to be able to do sea diving. With an implant, he wouldn't be able to do that. That's why I'm happy that my parents decided to wait and do something less invasive and see how it went.

[KenderWizard]

edit: Somethin' else. Today, I discovered that my library has a book called "The Big Black Book of Colours". It's a book about colour... for the blind. The text is in normal writing and in Braille, and the pictures are all black shiny stuff on black paper. It's pretty awesome.

Wow, that sounds pretty cool!

[Superglucose]

I've never had problems with getting subtitles on DVDs and so forth, and other people watching the movie don't mind it either (unless you get a subtitle like Spooky Atmospheric Music, which kills the mood dead). I wish more cinemas would put on subtitled shows, and more people would actually go and watch them so it isn't unprofitable for the cinema companies to do so.

I mean, have you ever tried lipreading Darth Vader?
Well here's the thing. I know I'm not alone when I say that subtitles bother me. I can't not read them which ruins the movie for me. But I totally understand that I'm not the only person around and my opinion isn't the only one.

But it seems like the other option is a separate screen? I dunno... that doesn't strike me as a good idea... but maybe if they could do something with glasses or whatever so that people who want subtitles could have them, and people who don't... don't have to.

EDIT: or maybe it'd be easier to do it the other way around? I don't know, I"m no subtitleologist :smallwink:

[Elentari]

Well here's the thing. I know I'm not alone when I say that subtitles bother me. I can't not read them which ruins the movie for me. But I totally understand that I'm not the only person around and my opinion isn't the only one.

But it seems like the other option is a separate screen? I dunno... that doesn't strike me as a good idea... but maybe if they could do something with glasses or whatever so that people who want subtitles could have them, and people who don't... don't have to.

EDIT: or maybe it'd be easier to do it the other way around? I don't know, I"m no subtitleologist :smallwink:

They do have something like this. Its called rear-view captioning. The person(s) that need captioning have a small mirror that they set up in front of them, and in the back of the theater, captions are displayed in reverse.

[KenderWizard]

They do have something like this. Its called rear-view captioning. The person(s) that need captioning have a small mirror that they set up in front of them, and in the back of the theater, captions are displayed in reverse.

Ooh, that's clever! I was thinking magic glasses as well.

I can't help but read the subtitles. And I constantly watch them as well, I basically ignore the movie if it has them. I wonder if I'd get used to them if they were always on everything?

[Quincunx]

Normality. Normality is the golden goal. The capital-Ds, the exclusionists of noisy culture, want their current (default, if that word's easier for you) condition to be called normal. It's a hostile stance to exclude people and a whiff of wrongness, no matter on which side 'completeness' or 'disability' may lie.


My boyfriend did an internship researching medical ethics last summer, focusing on ethical use of technology. For example, it would be convenient to have a diagnosing machine in your house to tell you what was wrong with you, but would it be ethical to let you find out you had cancer completely alone? . . .

So solo knowledge of the self can be viewed as. . .unethical in this country. . .because it may be received solo. . .perhaps because knowledge derived without the assistance of the doctor still impugning the doctor's ethics and the doctor's ethical responsibilities. . .perhaps because an "unusual amount of privacy", the state of being solo, is itself suspect (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119926). . .perhaps because the user of the machine is assumed to be too ignorant to cope with its output. . .

[DeafnotDumb]

They do have something like this. Its called rear-view captioning. The person(s) that need captioning have a small mirror that they set up in front of them, and in the back of the theater, captions are displayed in reverse.

I had those once, some years ago during a showing of Men In Black - I think the first one. Halfway through the movie they switched to standard subtitles and afterwards they asked the audience which they preferred.

I haven't seen any other instances of rear-view captioning, which is a damned shame. Is it more expensive or something?

[KenderWizard]

So solo knowledge of the self can be viewed as. . .unethical in this country. . .because it may be received solo. . .perhaps because knowledge derived without the assistance of the doctor still impugning the doctor's ethics and the doctor's ethical responsibilities. . .perhaps because an "unusual amount of privacy", the state of being solo, is itself suspect (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119926). . .perhaps because the user of the machine is assumed to be too ignorant to cope with its output. . .

Well, they were asking whether or not it was ethical. At the more basic level, is it just a doctor's job to tell you what's wrong, prescribe something, and move you along, or do they have an ethical responsibility to comfort you and respond to your needs, should you want them to? Anyway, it was just the example I thought of, it wasn't even me who was doing the ethical philosophy internship: I'm a geologist! :smallsmile:


I had those once, some years ago during a showing of Men In Black - I think the first one. Halfway through the movie they switched to standard subtitles and afterwards they asked the audience which they preferred.


Which did they prefer? Was the audience all deaf people?

[Elentari]

I had those once, some years ago during a showing of Men In Black - I think the first one. Halfway through the movie they switched to standard subtitles and afterwards they asked the audience which they preferred.

I haven't seen any other instances of rear-view captioning, which is a damned shame. Is it more expensive or something?

I'm not really quite sure whether it is more expensive, but I do know it is harder to find theaters that do rear view captioning. To my knowledge, and living next to a big city, there are only two theaters that have such a thing. Three or four others have normal subtitle capability. (BTW, its actually called Open Captioning)

[Quincunx]

Probably keeping track of the mirrors (like 3-D glasses) is enough of a pain to discourage it, let alone whatever apparatus is needed to display the captions on the rear wall. Interesting idea though.

Superscripted live events, with the scrolling electronic board above the stage, were more distracting than subtitled recorded media but the best of the bad solutions. In that case, I, the reader by choice, was reading the board at the expense of looking at the lower edge of the pretty scenery, because it was supertitling opera lyrics and I would otherwise have had no idea what was going on.

(I'm not deaf, but obtuse when it comes to picking lyrics out of music. My mother, on the other hand, had sat on one too many Hammond B3 speakers in her youth. . .Thank goodness her daughters are all ((tuneless)) altoes and thus still audible.)

U.S. closed captioning was done with poorer quality than foreign-language subtitling, so far as I saw it over about six months' comparison of both. Subtitles didn't capture sound effects, but the smoother and more succinct phrases more than made up for the lack. Closed captioning always looks like it's done live, with all the lack of editing that implies. Maybe it's easier to read for folks who grew up in the age of shorthand.

[The Succubus]

"Advanced Bionics (a company over here focusing on cochlear implants) have even started developing technology that will allow an implant to tune out useless background noise should it's user wish!"

I'll stick a slightly more in depth 2 pennie's worth in later when I have more free time but let me stop you right here.

This claim is b******. There is no hearing aid, bone-anchored hearing aid or cochlear implant on Earth that will ever be able to do this. It's something I see hearing aid companies advertising time and again and it makes my job as an audiologist bloody difficult, because patients then come in to me asking why they can't have one of those ones from the newspaper that cut out background noise.

Let me ask you something. How does this miracle gadget know what the user is thinking about? There is a world of difference between hearing a sound and listening to it. Hearing is a passive process - it goes on all the time regardless of whether you want it to or not; listening in involves turning your thought processes to the sounds the ear is picking up and translating them into something meaningful. Hearing aids are exactly that - HEARING aids. They makes it easier for the brain to turn the sounds into something meaningful but what they cannot do is decide for you which sounds to listen to.

Even if they could, it would be highly inadvisable. So you tune your magic cochlear implant/hearing aid to the sound of your friend's voice and hear just him. It sounds really terrific right up to the point where you get run over by a car that you didn't hear because the hearing aid classed it as an annoying background noise.

I apologise for the aggresive tone of this post but this is something that really p***es me off. :smallfurious:

[thubby]

it's no more magic than any recording technology. granted, they're overemphasizing what the technology can do. but we know what range human speech usually falls into. the technology to enhance the audio in that range (and reduce whats outside that range) is older than most of the people in this thread.

[DeafnotDumb]

Let me ask you something. How does this miracle gadget know what the user is thinking about?



Even if they could, it would be highly inadvisable. So you tune your magic cochlear implant/hearing aid to the sound of your friend's voice and hear just him. It sounds really terrific right up to the point where you get run over by a car that you didn't hear because the hearing aid classed it as an annoying background noise.


As I understand it, the largest part of the research going on right now is figuring out how to only cut out the non-essential noises. Apparently, you can categorize certain noises into groups and choose to turn those off (with a button, in answer to the question posed in the quote at the top of my post here). From what I recall, most of the research right now is gong into finding out what kind of noises/patterns are safe to turn off.

Of course, I'm no audiologist. You are. It's entirely likely that I'm wrong/have been misinformed.

[KenderWizard]

Well, humans are more sensitive to sounds pitched at human-voice-range and even more sensitive to sounds pitched at human-scream-range. You can hear this (um, if you're not deaf...!) if you get an electronic oscillator and tune up from very low to very high: there's two points where it seems to get louder, but it isn't really.

So, as I understand it, a hearing aid that just amplified everything would be frustrating to use, because all the people around you are actually speaking quieter compared to how they would be if they had to compete more against the leaves rustling and the wind and the birdsong and the cutlery etc. So hearing aids kind of i have to do that, just to be useful. I don't know about the ones that tune things out, because ideally you think your brain would take over that side of the operation, like it always has? (The human brain, I mean, not necessarily the specific human's brain, because if they've been deaf so far, it probably hasn't had much practice, but brains are good at adapting to that kind of thing.)

[The Succubus]

I don't know about the ones that tune things out, because ideally you think your brain would take over that side of the operation, like it always has? (The human brain, I mean, not necessarily the specific human's brain, because if they've been deaf so far, it probably hasn't had much practice, but brains are good at adapting to that kind of thing.)

And with that, KenderWizard earned herself a very large and delicious cookie.

This is exactly what happens - it is the job of the brain to filter out the background noise. For example, you're at home watching the TV and a friend drops round for the first time. As you go to fix them a drink, the friend comments that your clock ticks very loudly. Your mind then starts thinking about this and actively listens for the sound of the clock. Up until this point, it had been ignoring the sound but the clock had still been ticking anyway.
It's one of the ways we deal with tinnitus and hyperacusis - part of the therapy involves teaching the brain to ignore sounds again like it used to. The problem that I have to deal with, as many of my patients are elderly, is that people forget that this was how their ears used to work, or perhaps had just taken it for granted. I often have to remind my patients that even people without a hearing loss can struggle to hear in background noise - picture yourself on a typical friday night at the pub with music going and a lot of other people sitting around you.

[KenderWizard]

And with that, KenderWizard earned herself a very large and delicious cookie.


Yay! Cookie! :biggrin: That's my day sorted!