Analytic thinker

shel90 said:
Just keep on putting down deaf people's viewpoint, dont ya? You just continue to be rude.
Click to expand...

I said I would provide some contact information for some families if anyone was interested, and I suggested a place to start looking for the people you could talk to. Those offers were ignored. If someone is actually interested interested in talking to these young adults, they would, if they aren't, then the thread must be for a different purpose.

And why do you try to turn everything into "Deaf vs. hearing"? I did nothing to invalidate her life experience. Just because I happen to be hearing and the OP happens to be Deaf, that doesn't mean that a disagreement suddenly becomes "You are putting down the Deaf perspective". Deaf people are individual and have a variety of viewpoints on all issues. I happen to know a few Deaf families with early implanted, oral-ASL bilingual children. Their opinion is different from yours on this subject, does that mean they are "putting down deaf people's perspective"?
 
faire_jour said:
I said I would provide some contact information for some families if anyone was interested, and I suggested a place to start looking for the people you could talk to. Those offers were ignored. If someone is actually interested interested in talking to these young adults, they would, if they aren't, then the thread must be for a different purpose.

And why do you try to turn everything into "Deaf vs. hearing"? I did nothing to invalidate her life experience. Just because I happen to be hearing and the OP happens to be Deaf, that doesn't mean that a disagreement suddenly becomes "You are putting down the Deaf perspective". Deaf people are individual and have a variety of viewpoints on all issues. I happen to know a few Deaf families with early implanted, oral-ASL bilingual children. Their opinion is different from yours on this subject, does that mean they are "putting down deaf people's perspective"?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are putting down the deaf people's perspective, but it looks like a personal trait of you to put down other people's perspective, so I don't get that offended by this.
 
faire_jour said:
I said I would provide some contact information for some families if anyone was interested, and I suggested a place to start looking for the people you could talk to. Those offers were ignored. If someone is actually interested interested in talking to these young adults, they would, if they aren't, then the thread must be for a different purpose.

And why do you try to turn everything into "Deaf vs. hearing"? I did nothing to invalidate her life experience. Just because I happen to be hearing and the OP happens to be Deaf, that doesn't mean that a disagreement suddenly becomes "You are putting down the Deaf perspective". Deaf people are individual and have a variety of viewpoints on all issues. I happen to know a few Deaf families with early implanted, oral-ASL bilingual children. Their opinion is different from yours on this subject, does that mean they are "putting down deaf people's perspective"?
Click to expand...

You told Frisky that you doubt it is an attempt to get information and that the her thread is to bash childhood implantation. That's rude. She is entitled to create a thread asking anything she wants without being attacked.
 
faire_jour said:
If you really want to know I can get you contact information. But I doubt you want to talk to these people. If they got CI's 15-20 years ago, they were still very new, so only the strongest oral folks were doing it. www.cochlearimplantonline.com has lots of video interviews with CI users. You could look there.

I doubt you actually want the information, I see this as simply another thread to bash childhood implantation.
Click to expand...

i understand your choice to implant a child that WENT Deaf and think its great. But I also think its really good that she is Deaf not deaf.

ADers forget miss kat WENT deaf and WAS NOT BORN DEAF. you have/had a totally different road to travel than parents of BORN DEAF KIDS and its not right to compare the two
 
Tousi said:
From whom will this information come?
Click to expand...

Eventually, enough time will have passed that we are able to get longitudinal information. It will come from research conducted on a cohort group of CI users that is consistent over time. The same cohort will be tracked for 20-30 years.
 
flip said:
I have met some screwed up kids that got implanted at 12 months. I say screwed because they were kept in a restrictive environment with so so speech and listening skills, that could be acheived with ASL and a bit speech therapy. They were cognitive behind normal kids.

Guess I am trying to say; don't expect too much.

BTW, welcome back Jillio! :)
Click to expand...

Thanks, flip!

Yep, sometimes people concentrate so much on the actual spoken language that they fail to recognize all of the cognitive delays that are created as a result.
 
jillio said:
Thanks, RD. I should have known you would remember the thread.:ty:
Click to expand...
Sure. Actually those are empirical articles from Oxford Journals on Deaf studies and deaf education which I believe to be a reliable source. There is some interesting information in the first study I posted which is very recent.

One thing that I get disappointed in is when some people insist that when parents choose CI's for their children they do it because they are lazy or don't accept their child. There is some compelling information to the contrary in the first study I posted.
 
rockdrummer said:
Sure. Actually those are empirical articles from Oxford Journals on Deaf studies and deaf education which I believe to be a reliable source. There is some interesting information in the first study I posted which is very recent.
Click to expand...

Yes, those are very reliable journals and they publish valid research.

I believe when we were discussing this before, only the comments from the student CI users was published. Then I found the articles, and used those to qualify the comments that had been taken out of context.

Just one thing...and please don't shoot me. They are based on qualitative research, not empirical.:giggle:
 
jillio said:
Yes, those are very reliable journals and they publish valid research.

I believe when we were discussing this before, only the comments from the student CI users was published. Then I found the articles, and used those to qualify the comments that had been taken out of context.

Just one thing...and please don't shoot me. They are based on qualitative research, not empirical.:giggle:
Click to expand...
Sorry... OFC you are correct. I searched using CI and teenager and came up with many hits on empirical studies. And correct me if I am wrong but aren't qualitative studies more reliable than quantitative?
 
rockdrummer said:
Sorry... OFC you are correct. I searched using CI and teenager and came up with many hits on empirical studies. And correct me if I am wrong but aren't qualitative studies more reliable than quantitative?
Click to expand...

Depends on the topic, but for something like this they are far more useful.
 
Kiranadia said:
Sorry, I started writing and toward the end I realized it's kinda a rant...:giggle: I didn't know how strongly I felt about this.

I know many hearing parents that are terrified of having deaf children, they wouldn't know how to communicate with them and would be too lazy or selfish (in most cases) to even bother to learn or teach ASL to their child.

Therefore they will likely do everything they can to make sure their child can "fit into" the "hearing world" so they don't have to maybe break a nail doing something loving/sacrificial.

They are not willing to see the joys of perhaps a challenge but parents should love their child for how God created them and not change or give up because it might be a little difficult to learn a new language............
Click to expand...
With all due respect I completely disagree with your opinions about why parents choose the CI route. You seem to have a narrow perspective.


However, the young people in this study gave no evidence of having problems with the issue of consent. They felt that it was their parents' responsibility to make the decision on their behalf and that it had been the right decision for them. Older young people were included in discussions but might still rely on their parent's judgment. Some who were faced with the real prospect of reimplantation were clear that they would go ahead with it.
Source: http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/3/303.full
Click to expand...
 
Frisky Feline said:
...................The reason is that I asked, I have noticed that lots of parents seem to think that having CI is the best if babies (12 months old) to receive CI then they may have receiving of having better hearing and speaking as possible as they can fit into the hearing world..............
Click to expand...
Actually, studies show it is more effective at younger ages.

Colletti, Carner, and Colletti (2006), Economides et al. (2006), Ligny et al. (2006), and Nikolopulos, O'Donoghue, and Archbold (1999) all demonstrate that implantation is more effective at younger ages, and thus, more often than not, is a decision that has to be made by parents on behalf of their child. Some authors opposing implantation as a procedure to use with deaf children have argued that because it is an elective measure involving surgery, it should only be carried out when the child is of an age when they can decide for themselves (Lane & Bahan, 1998). However, with the evidence of the effectiveness of early implantation, this is not realistic, and parents are faced with this decision earlier and earlier.

Source: http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/3/303.full
Click to expand...
 
rockdrummer said:
Actually, studies show it is more effective at younger ages.
Click to expand...

Just remember, there was a time that it was asserted that it was only effective for those that were late deafened, too. Seems the persepctive on effectiveness changes with the population currently being targeted.
 
jillio said:
Just remember, there was a time that it was asserted that it was only effective for those that were late deafened, too. Seems the persepctive on effectiveness changes with the population currently being targeted.
Click to expand...
So are we to not trust anything then. Even the studies that are coming from reliable sources? It would not occur to me that effectiveness would be subjective. I would imagine that effectiveness is in part measured by how "useful" the hearing attained from the CI is.
 
rockdrummer said:
So are we to not trust anything then. Even the studies that are coming from reliable sources? It would not occur to me that effectiveness would be subjective. I would imagine that effectiveness is in part measured by how "useful" the hearing attained from the CI is.
Click to expand...

Not a matter of not trusting, but more of looking at things with a critical eye. Actually, effectiveness is very subjective. No matter where the research comes from, you should always look at the methods section and ask yourself, "What are the limitations of this study?" It keeps things in perspective.
 
Back
Top