Has anyone read this new study?

Status
Not open for further replies.
seb said:
I think it should of been post's and not post"s".
Click to expand...
Oh come on. It was clear I was saying to add an s. And even so, post's would still have been wrong !!!! It would be posts. Good grief.
 
seb said:
I think it should of been post's and not post"s".
Click to expand...

No.. she meant postS ...or post... "any further posts to be sent by PM" rather than "any further post to be...."

If I were born hearing (and near perfect vision)... I'm not so sure I'd be a totally different person to be honest. I still likely would have the same issues I have today among them introvert- and a few others I don't wish to divulge publicly. Whether or not a person is born deaf or hearing does not always figure that heavily in the overall picture of a person. It's a small part of us... which is why so many deaf who don't want CI or hearing or whatever... just shrug and say "eh, My life is still great, I still can function just fine- just a little extra help with communication and it ain't that hard to adapt !"

I could sit here all day and play the "what if" game but I've got other things to worry about ;).
 
seb said:
I think it should of been post's and not post"s".
Click to expand...
And if you want to nitpick some more about how we don't hear well without a CI, your sentence should have said "I think it should have been ...." not should of. Stop with your criticism about CIs. I do not have one, and I'm profoundly deaf. I think you should shut it right about now.
 
^^ Damn I knew there was something else about that sentence that was bugging me!
 
AlleyCat said:
And if you want to nitpick some more about how we don't hear well without a CI, your sentence should have said "I think it should have been ...." not should of. Stop with your criticism about CIs. I do not have one, and I'm profoundly deaf. I think you should shut it right about now.
Click to expand...
I guess I've ruffled some feathers. So perhaps being an English teacher should of been your line of work, it it isn't already. I will be the first to admit that my English and grammar are far from perfect, but that has more to do with the fact that I am a product of the California school system, a few teachers that didn't like English either and didn't spend much time on it.

Look every parent who has a child want's one who is 100% healthy and perfect. Those parents today who have a child who has a hearing loss, heart defect, etc. have options that your parents never had and when it comes to hearing loss 80% of them are using the option they have been given!
 
Last edited:
There you go again with the "of" when it should be "have". I won't point out the other errors. And no, I'm not an English teacher. I actually totally hate picking out errors on a deaf forum. You are right in that my parents didn't have a CI option as I was born before that time, but my point has been it does not define us. It certainly didn't define me. I do just fine in life without one, apparently.
 
AlleyCat said:
There you go again with the "of" when it should be "have". I won't point out the other errors. And no, I'm not an English teacher. I actually totally hate picking out errors on a deaf forum. You are right in that my parents didn't have a CI option as I was born before that time, but my point has been it does not define us. It certainly didn't define me. I do just fine in life without one, apparently.
Click to expand...
Yes, you do! As I said, English is not one of my strong suits, I wish it was, but I'm glad it seems to be one of yours! However, as to the study, times change, advances are made and new things come along that can change peoples lives and today's children are the one's who are now benefiting from those advances. When one study comes out and says something works, other groups will conduct other studies, some might use the same number of subjects and others might double the number or really go crazy and use ten times the number of subjects to try and duplicate it. If these studies come to the same conclusions it is put into practice and becomes the de facto standard of treatment. You may not like it, but that's just the way it works.
 
Now I understand why some animals eat their young.
 
seb said:
Yes, you do! As I said, English is not one of my strong suits, I wish it was, but I'm glad it seems to be one of yours! However, as to the study, times change, advances are made and new things come along that can change peoples lives and today's children are the one's who are now benefiting from those advances. When one study comes out and says something works, other groups will conduct other studies, some might use the same number of subjects and others might double the number or really go crazy and use ten times the number of subjects to try and duplicate it. If these studies come to the same conclusions it is put into practice and becomes the de facto standard of treatment. You may not like it, but that's just the way it works.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good but why do you feel it's ok to put down the deaf, and yes, that is what you and TOD are doing in this thread, by posting these studies on a deaf forum?
Not only is your English bad, your sensitivy to other human beings is sorely lacking.
 
DOD said:
I wouldn't put a lot of stock in this study. They picked 97 kids, none profoundly deaf and eliminated 40 of them from the results due to lack of follow up. It would be interesting to know the details of the nearly half that were eliminated. Perhaps their CI provided them with no benefit.

ASL is beneficial for language acquisition and cognitive skills. I am fairly sure it would be easy to dig up more reliable studies that prove the opposite of what this one is suggesting.
Click to expand...
P

I agree with you 100% my daughter goes to speech every week, and her therapist counts Maggie's signs as words . She told me the amount of signs she knows is age appropriate, meaning for her age she knows just as many signs as her hearing counterparts can speak words . This isn't coming out the way I want . I guess what I am saying she has age appropriate vocabulary regardless of the fact if she was hearing or deaf. Words are words , language acquired should be equal. I am thankful her therapist sees it that way.
 
Maggiesmom said:
P

I agree with you 100% my daughter goes to speech every week, and her therapist counts Maggie's signs as words . She told me the amount of signs she knows is age appropriate, meaning for her age she knows just as many signs as her hearing counterparts can speak words . This isn't coming out the way I want . I guess what I am saying she has age appropriate vocabulary regardless of the fact if she was hearing or deaf. Words are words , language acquired should be equal. I am thankful her therapist sees it that way.
Click to expand...
I understood what you were saying. Knowing words, whether visual or audio, is what's important.
 
Last edited:
DeafDucky said:
I'm curious...

for the study going on and on that those who mostly or partially use sign language they score lower...

Then why is it that sign is being promoted and applauded for use with hearing babies as a way to communicate before they start speaking? I believe I've heard of studies where it's found that babies who utilized or learned sign along with picking up auditory cues (whether it's 'baby signs' or actual ASL did better in verbal scores etc than those hearing babies who didn't.

What a conundrum..
Click to expand...
e s

True story !!!! If you go to signingtime.com they have research there on what you just posted. I did this ASL baby class when Maggie was about 3 months old and she was the only baby their with hearing loss ...all the other babies were hearing babies .
 
LoveBlue said:
Or maybe 80% of parents with deaf children are too lazy to learn ASL. I imagine that a percentage of these parents would have aborted their babies had they known the were not "perfect" (aka deaf).
Click to expand...
We are learning, I wouldn't have her any other way. I had a kids ask what she was doing one day at the park and I said she talks with her hands not her mouth
 
Maggiesmom said:
We are learning, I wouldn't have her any other way. I had a kids ask what she was doing one day at the park and I said she talks with her hands not her mouth
Click to expand...

Great to think of that quick enough to use it!
 
Jane B. said:
To try to add a bit of humor is that weather sunny, rainy, windy or what?
Click to expand...
And to think I homeschool my older two kids :) gotta love homophones , heaven forbid anyone see all my typos lol
 
Last edited:
LoveBlue said:
That's all well and good but why do you feel it's ok to put down the deaf, and yes, that is what you and TOD are doing in this thread, by posting these studies on a deaf forum?
Not only is your English bad, your sensitivy to other human beings is sorely lacking.
Click to expand...
First of all, I didn't post it. I just responded to it. The study just points out what to me was common sense. The more language you hear the more you will understand through hearing. This wasn't meant to upset anyone, but it clearly did and I'm sorry if I offended anyone. The reality is that 80% of todays parents are getting their children who were born deaf implanted and those doing the implanting are having studies conducted or conducting their own to find out what will get these children the most bang for their parents bucks. How do you feel about children who are born with defective hearts receiving heart transplants? My cousins son was born with HLHS and the only thing that saved his life was a heart transplant within a day of his birth.
 
seb said:
First of all, I didn't post it. I just responded to it. The study just points out what to me was common sense. The more language you hear the more you will understand through hearing. This wasn't meant to upset anyone, but it clearly did and I'm sorry if I offended anyone. The reality is that 80% of todays parents are getting their children who were born deaf implanted and those doing the implanting are having studies conducted to find out what will get these children the most bang for their parents bucks. How do you feel about children who are born with defective hearts receiving heart transplants? My cousins son was born with HLHS and the only thing that saved his life was a heart transplant within a day of his birth.
Click to expand...
Heart transplants are life saving. CI's are not life saving. BIG DIFFERENCE!

And I'm not against giving babies CI's. What I'm against is dismissing the importance of ASL because these babies are still deaf and having a back up language is vital...from the beginning.
 
LoveBlue said:
Heart transplants are life saving. CI's are not life saving. BIG DIFFERENCE!

And I'm not against giving babies CI's. What I'm against is dismissing the importance of ASL because these babies are still deaf and having a back up language is vital...from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that is only your opinion and not based on scientific fact. Time will tell if your opinion or their study will be proven to be the right course of action to take.

Years ago in the state of California they decided to institute sight reading into the curriculum to teach kids how to read. What they basically did was show flash cards with a word on it and told the kids this is "kite" this is ball, etc. Well it didn't work! Unfortunately they didn't find this out until the kids were in high school and the lucky kids who went to the right school or school district got a crash course in being taught how to read. I know several people who were taught this way and even with the late intervention they only read at the second or third grade level. I know you're wondering what this has to do with the price of tea in China, well this is meant to show you that you only have one chance and you better get it right because you can't go back and undo what your actions did and in this case whether these kids get sign or nor sign, it needs to be done the right way and further studies will either prove it or dis prove it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top