Gone with the old, here comes with the new...

AliciaM said:
no one ever said any one had to get CI in this thread or oral was better than ASL ...the OP pointed out new technology and faire just said that it was good to be able to have new things in the future..what does any of that have to do with oral vs ASL...it's technology advancements! no one ever said being able to hear is the end all be all the thread is going the wrong way because of something that shouldn't have even been relevant to the thread..the thread is about a technology advancement for those seeking CI's or for those who have CI's now and maybe would like a new implant in the future no one ever said "Every Deaf person needs a CI to be happy"...
Click to expand...

the article, they say the new implant will be like BACH compare to the old implant (music box) --

I never said that the advance technology shouldn't exist.

I just don't like the audism attitude that people have that goes with it. Remember, they believe the earlier the child is implanted the better, because apparently, it isn't good enough if child is implanted later. Even if the childstill benefit from it and does well. You were born hearing, so you didn't have technologies that molded the way you talk and hear.
 
Ok..I didn't get what statement you referring to from the article...but I don't think that the article was referring to it in that manner..just comparing the now CI's to ones in the future for ppl that want them..but I don't wanna start a non sense fight over the topic...if that's how you took it as an oralist thing to say then thats your perogative
 
I'm so glad to know that significant improvements to the surgical approach and the array are coming in the not too distant future. The CI itself is pretty amazing as it now stands, but the surgery is such a huge obstacle. One of the biggest decisions around going bilateral for us was weighing how soon new surgical approaches (which we'd read about in several journals during the past couple of years) might be put into operating rooms and how much change might occur in the implanted technology in the next few years versus the benefits of having significantly better hearing and access to sound in noisy environments (like classrooms) during the early years of language development.

We gave the short-term gains of getting the second CI sooner rather than later a higher weight (over waiting 5 years for some unknown quantity of better tech/improved surgery) to reduce potential English language delays, but the timing was really a tough call when technologies (and other therapeutic options) improve with every passing year. Like FJ, though, we too look forward to opportunities to take advantage of the most advanced approaches at some future date. After less invasive / less damaging surgery is accomplished, I'd really like to see something fully implantable in the not too far away future.
 
AliciaM said:
Ok..I didn't get what statement you referring to from the article...but I don't think that the article was referring to it in that manner..just comparing the now CI's to ones in the future for ppl that want them..but I don't wanna start a non sense fight over the topic...if that's how you took it as an oralist thing to say then thats your perogative
Click to expand...

I dont know about you but many of us were raised getting brainwashed that with newer techology, our lives would be better which in result, destroyed our self-esteems and views of our self-worth.

Sure, it may have no revelent to the topic but as someone who was subjected to these kinds of views as A was, I totally understand why she brought it up.

You were very very very lucky if you were never subjected to this kind of thinking as a child.
 
just because I was never subjected to an oralist pov when I was a kid because I wasn't deaf as child doesnt mean I wasn't subjected to other things as a child
 
Yea, like that time when my friend got a plasma flat screen tv while I still had the enormous boxy tv. I couldn't afford the plasma tv. It was damaging to my self worth as a child. YOU HAVE NO IDEA!!

SeriousLy folks, you know it's dumb and does not solve anything to halt new technologies for the deaf. And honestly, it has NOTHING to do with autism attitude. New technologies are ALWAYS better than the old (in terms of efficiency, cost, attributes, or performance), otherwise what's the point of even making it?!?! So I think saying that this article has "audism" tone is seeing something that isn't there.
 
faire_jour said:
Yeah, the kids getting their implants in 25 years will do better than the kids today....yep, that what technology does

Though the likelyhood that my daughter will go to the grave with the internal device that she has now is really next to zero, so she should get to benefit from the advances as well.
Click to expand...

imagine what the future archaeologist will say :lol:
 
ouch @ where this thread's going. tsk.
 
wow this thread went in a totally different direction... On topic I am all for technology advancement. CI surgery today compared to that of 10 -15 years ago is so different and I'm sure in 10-15 years there will be a totally diff way for the implants to be improved.
 
Jiro said:
ouch @ where this thread's going. tsk.
Click to expand...

Where?? :lol:

More like rofl than ouch.

I wish I could go back to roasting an ox on a spit in my fireplace instead of just sticking a nice prepared roast in my electric oven.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Yea, like that time when my friend got a plasma flat screen tv while I still had the enormous boxy tv. I couldn't afford the plasma tv. It was damaging to my self worth as a child. YOU HAVE NO IDEA!!

SeriousLy folks, you know it's dumb and does not solve anything to halt new technologies for the deaf. And honestly, it has NOTHING to do with autism attitude. New technologies are ALWAYS better than the old (in terms of efficiency, cost, attributes, or performance), otherwise what's the point of even making it?!?! So I think saying that this article has "audism" tone is seeing something that isn't there.
Click to expand...

I totally agree...I don't understand why this article sparked that...all it's talking about is technology..like jeese louise
 
All I am stating is that I totally understand where A is coming from..u dont have to like it.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Yea, like that time when my friend got a plasma flat screen tv while I still had the enormous boxy tv. I couldn't afford the plasma tv. It was damaging to my self worth as a child. YOU HAVE NO IDEA!!

SeriousLy folks, you know it's dumb and does not solve anything to halt new technologies for the deaf. And honestly, it has NOTHING to do with autism attitude. New technologies are ALWAYS better than the old (in terms of efficiency, cost, attributes, or performance), otherwise what's the point of even making it?!?! So I think saying that this article has "audism" tone is seeing something that isn't there.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between a deaf person's social life (like language) affected by technologies and tv. No audism message isn't there, but parents will continue to think technologies will solve everything. I started the thread for a reason, to show to the parents that each time a new technology come out, they start trashing the old technology --the very ones that claim that their child is hearing just fine-- and all a sudden, companies will start comparing their child to the new implanted child to promote their technology. I can't see how anyone be comfortable with that. the deaf person feels discouraged they didn't have that type of technology when they were younger like the others. They feel, I don't know, behind, I guess? The older CI folks constantly talked about how they wished they were implanted younger, they would do better. Now why are they putting themselves down like that? it is just technology. I certainly did not put myself down for growing up with black and white tv while everyone had color (which is true).
 
Last edited:
A said:
There's a big difference between a deaf person's social life (like language) affected by technologies and tv. No audism message isn't there, but parents will continue to think technologies will solve everything. I started the thread for a reason, to show to the parents that each time a new technology come out, they start trashing the old technology --the very ones that claim that their child is hearing just fine-- and all a sudden, companies will start comparing their child to the new implanted child to promote their technology. I can't see how anyone be comfortable with that. the deaf person feels discouraged they didn't have that type of technology when they were younger like the others. They feel, I don't know, behind, I guess? The older CI folks constantly talked about how they wished they were implanted younger, they would do better. Now why are they putting themselves down like that? it is just technology. I certainly did not put myself down for growing up with black and white tv while everyone had color (which is true).
Click to expand...

I don't know any one who actually feels like that. They didn't have CI when I was a kid.

I don't feel discouraged or behind because some people have them today.

It's a different time and technologies are constantly changing.

I really think it is silly to begrudge people new technologies just because they weren't available before.
 
Of course not, I don't either. some oral-only older kids may. I do keep up with the CI blogs because I am a CI user myself and time again they say their only regrets is not implanting earlier. Or when they explain their situations, they say it is because they weren't implanted younger. or when a child is behind in language, the parents say the same thing. or they say they wish the technology exist in their time. Even when they explain someone's oral success, they say it is because they were implanted younger with better technology. I just feel none of those things should matter because it is just technology.
 
A said:
Of course not, I don't either. some oral-only older kids may. I do keep up with the CI blogs because I am a CI user myself and time again they say their only regrets is not implanting earlier. Or when they explain their situations, they say it is because they weren't implanted younger. or when a child is behind in language, the parents say the same thing. or they say they wish the technology exist in their time. Even when they explain someone's oral success, they say it is because they were implanted younger with better technology. I just feel none of those things should matter because it is just technology.
Click to expand...

Seems to me you cant win in this situation one way or the other. People will complain that they wee not implanted at a younger age to benefit from the technology or people will complain that children are implanted at to young of an age. :hmm:
 
A said:
Of course not, I don't either. some oral-only older kids may. I do keep up with the CI blogs because I am a CI user myself and time again they say their only regrets is not implanting earlier. Or when they explain their situations, they say it is because they weren't implanted younger. or when a child is behind in language, the parents say the same thing. or they say they wish the technology exist in their time. Even when they explain someone's oral success, they say it is because they were implanted younger with better technology. I just feel none of those things should matter because it is just technology.
Click to expand...

But they have a point. If a child can hear from birth (they are hearing) they (generally) do not suffer from language delays because they hear language right from the start. If a child is Deaf and born to Deaf parents they see language right from the start, and don't have delays. If a child is deaf and can't hear language (and they are being exposed to spoken language as their language) they can't access it for awhile. They younger the child begins to hear, the quicker they can start to use they language, and they don't fall behind, or they catch up quickly. If they don't hear for years, of course they fall behind! That is the idea behind earlier implantation.
 
faire_jour said:
But they have a point. If a child can hear from birth (they are hearing) they (generally) do not suffer from language delays because they hear language right from the start. If a child is Deaf and born to Deaf parents they see language right from the start, and don't have delays. If a child is deaf and can't hear language (and they are being exposed to spoken language as their language) they can't access it for awhile. They younger the child begins to hear, the quicker they can start to use they language, and they don't fall behind, or they catch up quickly. If they don't hear for years, of course they fall behind! That is the idea behind earlier implantation.
Click to expand...

Then why does my son have language delays?
 
Bottesini said:
I don't know any one who actually feels like that. They didn't have CI when I was a kid.

I really think it is silly to begrudge people new technologies just because they weren't available before.
Click to expand...

I love that bolded statement.

I, for one, am a big fan of technology and all that comes with it.

I was never brainwashed into thinking I had to settle for less. I don't understand how some could think they were.
 
Back
Top