What are your thoughts about Deaf people?

[Flynn MacCumhaill]

Beautiful Blue Bomber

Flynn MacCumhaill

Beautiful Blue Bomber

Black Lust Perfume

Beautiful Blue Bomber

Why aren't they happy with it?
"Do you want to hear or do you not want to hear" isn't much of a question.

They said that it is very uncomfortable hearing noises in background while trying to focus on listen to people's talk.

What noises? Like, actual background noises, or noises that the CI makes?
Cause if it's the first one, that's called hearing neutral

No, it's also a common problem with hearing aids. There's something about the way that background noises are amplified and electronically processed that means your brain can't filter them out the way it can with normal hearing. Both hearing aid and cochlear implant users often become functionally deaf in settings with lots of background noise, like restaurants, and certain sharp, high-frequency sounds, like cutlery clinking, can be over-amplified to the point of being physically painful. The hearing aid users I know remove them and either rely on lip reading, people shouting in their ear, or just put up with not being able to engage in conversation because the device becomes so useless and uncomfortable in noisy settings.

Couldn't that just be because they're not used to the background noises?
Mind you, I know next to nothing about deaf people and their s**t, but I remember learning about something in psychology where your brain learns to filter out loud noises after it's exposed to them enough. Maybe the problem is that they don't keep it in long enough, so their brain doesn't have time to adapt to those noises?
Again, I know almost nothing about this device except that it lets you hear.

I think the problem is inherent to the technology, as it persists even in lifelong users of the cochlear implant. They have been using it to hear as long as a person who can hear unaided has, so you'd expect that they'd had the same amount of exposure. I don't know the cause of it, or even if the cause is understood by anyone, I just know that it is a phenomenon that exists: people in general using an electronic device such as the cochlear implant or a hearing aid are not able to filter voices from background noise the way a person hearing unaided can.

The quality of sound experienced through a cochlear implant has been described to me by people from the company (my research group has close ties with cochlear) as "its apparently a bit like listening to a tinny old radio through a tin can on a string." It's far from perfect, natural hearing. Have you ever heard an old .wav audio file recorded in a noisy setting -- like the audio to an early digital video camera recording a big christmas dinner or something? That's what I imagine it's a lot like. >.<

The hearing aid users I know have previously had normal hearing, but have experienced a reduction in hearing level as adults through age, disease, or occupational noise exposure, so they would have previously had the ability that people hearing unaided do to filter voices from background, and it hasn't carried over.

[Flynn MacCumhaill]

Beautiful Blue Bomber

Flynn MacCumhaill

Beautiful Blue Bomber

Flynn MacCumhaill

Beautiful Blue Bomber

What noises? Like, actual background noises, or noises that the CI makes?
Cause if it's the first one, that's called hearing neutral

No, it's also a common problem with hearing aids. There's something about the way that background noises are amplified and electronically processed that means your brain can't filter them out the way it can with normal hearing. Both hearing aid and cochlear implant users often become functionally deaf in settings with lots of background noise, like restaurants, and certain sharp, high-frequency sounds, like cutlery clinking, can be over-amplified to the point of being physically painful. The hearing aid users I know remove them and either rely on lip reading, people shouting in their ear, or just put up with not being able to engage in conversation because the device becomes so useless and uncomfortable in noisy settings.

Couldn't that just be because they're not used to the background noises?
Mind you, I know next to nothing about deaf people and their s**t, but I remember learning about something in psychology where your brain learns to filter out loud noises after it's exposed to them enough. Maybe the problem is that they don't keep it in long enough, so their brain doesn't have time to adapt to those noises?
Again, I know almost nothing about this device except that it lets you hear.

I think the problem is inherent to the technology, as it persists even in lifelong users of the cochlear implant. They have been using it to hear as long as a person who can hear unaided has, so you'd expect that they'd had the same amount of exposure. I don't know the cause of it, or even if the cause is understood by anyone, I just know that it is a phenomenon that exists: people in general using an electronic device such as the cochlear implant or a hearing aid are not able to filter voices from background noise the way a person hearing unaided can.

The quality of sound experienced through a cochlear implant has been described to me by people from the company (my research group has close ties with cochlear) as "its apparently a bit like listening to a tinny old radio through a tin can on a string." It's far from perfect, natural hearing. Have you ever heard an old .wav audio file recorded in a noisy setting -- like the audio to an early digital video camera recording a big christmas dinner or something? That's what I imagine it's a lot like. >.<

The hearing aid users I know have previously had normal hearing, but have experienced a reduction in hearing level as adults through age, disease, or occupational noise exposure, so they would have previously had the ability that people hearing unaided do to filter voices from background, and it hasn't carried over.

Oh, alright. I'd still say that hearing shittily is better than not hearing anything at all, and I don't see any problem with giving it to a child at a young age if they can just remove it whenever they want.

Having not been there, I can't really make a call on whether it's better to hear shittily or not at all, but I do agree that giving it to a child and letting them elect to remove it later is the better option -- largely because the earlier in childhood its use is started, the more easily the user adapts to it. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people who are eligible as children lose eligibility for it after a certain age because the failure rate is so high for adapting to it.

[Flynn MacCumhaill]

Beautiful Blue Bomber

Flynn MacCumhaill

Beautiful Blue Bomber

Flynn MacCumhaill

Beautiful Blue Bomber

Couldn't that just be because they're not used to the background noises?
Mind you, I know next to nothing about deaf people and their s**t, but I remember learning about something in psychology where your brain learns to filter out loud noises after it's exposed to them enough. Maybe the problem is that they don't keep it in long enough, so their brain doesn't have time to adapt to those noises?
Again, I know almost nothing about this device except that it lets you hear.

I think the problem is inherent to the technology, as it persists even in lifelong users of the cochlear implant. They have been using it to hear as long as a person who can hear unaided has, so you'd expect that they'd had the same amount of exposure. I don't know the cause of it, or even if the cause is understood by anyone, I just know that it is a phenomenon that exists: people in general using an electronic device such as the cochlear implant or a hearing aid are not able to filter voices from background noise the way a person hearing unaided can.

The quality of sound experienced through a cochlear implant has been described to me by people from the company (my research group has close ties with cochlear) as "its apparently a bit like listening to a tinny old radio through a tin can on a string." It's far from perfect, natural hearing. Have you ever heard an old .wav audio file recorded in a noisy setting -- like the audio to an early digital video camera recording a big christmas dinner or something? That's what I imagine it's a lot like. >.<

The hearing aid users I know have previously had normal hearing, but have experienced a reduction in hearing level as adults through age, disease, or occupational noise exposure, so they would have previously had the ability that people hearing unaided do to filter voices from background, and it hasn't carried over.

Oh, alright. I'd still say that hearing shittily is better than not hearing anything at all, and I don't see any problem with giving it to a child at a young age if they can just remove it whenever they want.

Having not been there, I can't really make a call on whether it's better to hear shittily or not at all, but I do agree that giving it to a child and letting them elect to remove it later is the better option -- largely because the earlier in childhood its use is started, the more easily the user adapts to it. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people who are eligible as children lose eligibility for it after a certain age because the failure rate is so high for adapting to it.

And it's not really like it's a 'choice' for them to make. Almost everyone would like to have at least the option to be able to hear.

Apparently not, going by this thread. ;p

Seriously, though, if early childhood implantation is going to be the only way for them to get that choice, I'm for it... but it shouldn't be treated as a "cure", as aside from anything in certain contexts (sports, swimming, etc) the external hardware has to be removed for safety. During that time -- and not to mention if it somehow gets lost or broken! -- they kinda do still need to be able to communicate. CI + sign language seems like a no-brainer as the "best" approach in most cases...

[Flynn MacCumhaill]

Beautiful Blue Bomber

Flynn MacCumhaill

Beautiful Blue Bomber

Flynn MacCumhaill

Beautiful Blue Bomber

Oh, alright. I'd still say that hearing shittily is better than not hearing anything at all, and I don't see any problem with giving it to a child at a young age if they can just remove it whenever they want.

Having not been there, I can't really make a call on whether it's better to hear shittily or not at all, but I do agree that giving it to a child and letting them elect to remove it later is the better option -- largely because the earlier in childhood its use is started, the more easily the user adapts to it. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people who are eligible as children lose eligibility for it after a certain age because the failure rate is so high for adapting to it.

And it's not really like it's a 'choice' for them to make. Almost everyone would like to have at least the option to be able to hear.

Apparently not, going by this thread. ;p

Seriously, though, if early childhood implantation is going to be the only way for them to get that choice, I'm for it... but it shouldn't be treated as a "cure", as aside from anything in certain contexts (sports, swimming, etc) the external hardware has to be removed for safety. During that time -- and not to mention if it somehow gets lost or broken! -- they kinda do still need to be able to communicate. CI + sign language seems like a no-brainer as the "best" approach in most cases...

Yeah, I'm not saying that it should be used as a substitute, but it should still be used.
I'm guessing they're super expensive?

My understanding is to pay for a unit in full is something like fifty grand, but that here at least that's pretty much completely subsidised for "appropriate" cases. If your kid's eligible to get the implant, and you want them to have it, they can have it, basically. As far as I am aware at least. I work with Cochlear people, not for them, after all. ;p

[Zoe Azra]

Love you guys!

[TheValenDreth]

How the ******** can you have an opinion about deaf people? Or deafness? That's like asking for my thoughts about tetraeders. Tetraeders are tetraeders and deaf people are deaf. You can't have your opinion about someone based on one, single ability or disability they have. This topic just seems like a virtual masturbation, made so the OP can tell everyone how much of an awesome deaf person she is. Shoop da woop.

[PwinsezProanamia]

Vintage Baby Deer

PwinsezProanamia

ninja

Vintage Baby Deer

I just don't like the ones who are stuck up and treat anyone who got a cochlear implant like s**t. Is it really that bad if someone wants to hear?

While I don't agree with the ones who treat people who get the Cochlear badly, I also don't agree with those who get the surgery performed on their baby without getting all the information and facts first. But I understand where you're coming from, while, as Black Lust Perfume said, most kids are forced to get it before they understand what's going on.

You act like it's not possible to learn all the information and facts and still choose to get it. If I were a parent the first thing I would think of would be to make sure my child had the most possible opportunities and was the least limited as possible... deaf people are certainly limited in the job world and just in communication period. I wouldn't want them to only know sign language and be unable to communicate with most of the general population.

How did I act like it's not possible to choose the CI if they knew the facts?

I merely states that I didn't agree with those who DO get it without all the facts first.

[Rhonda Reindeer]

My niece is deaf and blind, I am legally blind and have a few years of sign language. I would like to teach the Hearing and visually impaired how to be self advocates. ;3

[Eyes of Burn]

PwinsezProanamia

GreekPheonix

one time: i was at an assembly at my school in the gymnasium and this deaf kid was stealing stuff out of peoples' coat pockets. so i kicked his back off the bleachers and then i got yelled at. i was stopping a thief. im a hero dammit.

I hope that doesn't affect your perception of deaf people.


As I've seen hearing people do it, too. =] lol

well, deafies always things for granted -_-