Technological progress: better hearing than normal hearing

dogmom said:
aren't there actual diseases and other health crises that money could be spent on?
Click to expand...

Yes, I wish there is a cure for Alzheimer's as I think it is one of the worst diseases to have.
 
Last edited:
HH scientist said:
The world is changing. We are moving away from mechanical work and 'hard skills' to brain work and 'soft skills'. There are both good and bad things related to that, but 'being tough' is becoming outdated.
Click to expand...

While I am certainly sympathetic to your struggles, your notion that being tough is becoming outdated in relation to manual labour- were you joking or were you interpreting that literally?

We are not talking about physical strength - we are talking about development of mental and spiritual strength that comes from enduring hard times in our lives.

I certainly believe you when you say you've had hard times and that dealing with deafness can seem like an olympic feat at times but I do notice your attitude needs some adjustment if you want to be a happier person. but having read many of your posts, I can see you are already changing your attitude for the better now that you've come here, see what others had to say and realize you are not alone.

So, I have faith that you will change some perspectives for the better and for your own good.

Welcome to AD, I think you've been officially initiated. :)
 
Buffalo said:
Yes, I wish there is a cure for Alzheimer's as I think it is one of the worst diseases to have.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly!!!!! What they should have done with you HH scienctist is not only given you spoken English, and stuff like that, but also things like exposure to other dhh kids and attendance at a Deaf Unit...If they had, i can guantee you that you would NOT be looking for a cure. You'd be up here horrified that people were looking for a cure.
They need to concentrate their research into things like Alzhiemers/bipolar/scheizophernia etc....REAL stuff that REALLY honestly affects people!
 
shel90 said:
Oh...so that gives a good excuse for the next generation to be weak and not accepting of their own fate? Just whine and play the blame game? Now, I know where my children are going wrong. I will enforce this "tough love" on them so they wont become soft and whiny as adults.
Click to expand...

Go ahead, but do it the right way.

I came to think of Michael Jackson's dad Joseph who was 'tough' but that made Michael develop a sense of insecurity (Joseph did it because he wanted the family to escape poverty). Even though Michael earned a huge fortune as a star, his strange personality became a trap that he did never manage to get out of. It is like a Greek tragedy.

DeafCaroline said:
While I am certainly sympathetic to your struggles, your notion that being tough is becoming outdated in relation to manual labour- were you joking or were you interpreting that literally?

We are not talking about physical strength - we are talking about development of mental and spiritual strength that comes from enduring hard times in our lives.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I was thinking that definitions are changing as society changes. Violence is less common in society today than it was in the past for a number of reasons. Take a look at this video (Steven Pinker on the myth of violence | Video on TED.com) where Steven Pinker says that violence is decreasing and it is a trend that goes back all the way since fixed settlements first developed 10,000-20,000 years ago. Pinker points out four reasons for that development: No. 1 [12:38-14:12], no. 2 [14:15-14:45], no. 3 [14:45-15:40] and no. 4 [15:45-16:36]. (There are subtitles)

No. 2 is that people get physically injured less often and enjoy better health care in life. I was thinking that the use of safer tools and shift towards 'brain work' are examples of this. 'Being tough' due to physical injury is more uncommon and hence less acceptable, and that was my interpretation.

'Mental and spiritual strength' might belong to reasons no. 1 (violence as a deterrent is decreasing), 3 (nonzero-sum games) and 4 (the Expanding Circle), I reckon.

DeafCaroline said:
I certainly believe you when you say you've had hard times and that dealing with deafness can seem like an olympic feat at times but I do notice your attitude needs some adjustment if you want to be a happier person. but having read many of your posts, I can see you are already changing your attitude for the better now that you've come here, see what others had to say and realize you are not alone.

So, I have faith that you will change some perspectives for the better and for your own good.

Welcome to AD, I think you've been officially initiated. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
HH scientist said:
Go ahead, but do it the right way.

I came to think of Michael Jackson's dad Joseph who was 'tough' but that made Michael develop a sense of insecurity (Joseph did it because he wanted the family to escape poverty). Even though Michael earned a huge fortune as a star, his strange personality became a trap that he did never manage to get out of. It is like a Greek tragedy.



Perhaps I was thinking that definitions are changing as society changes. Violence is less common in society today than it was in the past for a number of reasons. Take a look at this video (Steven Pinker on the myth of violence | Video on TED.com) where Steven Pinker says that violence is decreasing and it is a trend that goes back all the way since fixed settlements first developed 10,000-20,000 years ago. Pinker points out four reasons for that development: No. 1 [12:38-14:12], no. 2 [14:15-14:45], no. 3 [14:45-15:40] and no. 4 [15:45-16:36]. (There are subtitles)

No. 2 is that people get physically injured less often and enjoy better health care in life. I was thinking that the use of safer tools and shift towards 'brain work' are examples of this. 'Being tough' due to physical injury is more uncommon and hence less acceptable, and that was my interpretation.

'Mental and spiritual strength' might belong to reasons no. 1 (violence as a deterrent is decreasing), 3 (nonzero-sum games) and 4 (the Expanding Circle), I reckon.



Thanks.
Click to expand...

Not in this country.
 
Buffalo said:
Yes, I wish there is a cure for Alzheimer's as I think it is one of the worst diseases to have.
Click to expand...

It is one of the more insidious condition to have. My mother in law passed away last month...on my wife's birthday...after a long illness and deteriorating health condition along with her progressively worsening Alzehimer condition.
 
deafdyke said:
Yes, exactly!!!!! What they should have done with you HH scienctist is not only given you spoken English, and stuff like that, but also things like exposure to other dhh kids and attendance at a Deaf Unit...If they had, i can guantee you that you would NOT be looking for a cure. You'd be up here horrified that people were looking for a cure.
Click to expand...

I think that you are trying to say that people develop strong bonds for each other when in case of disease, disability or injury. Those feelings are hardwired in our brains and they come naturally. But I also think that they emerge as a response to coping to a situation that people cannot change, which they think of as 'natural'.

Compare that attitude to those diseases that we have managed to reduce or eradicate. No one would say today that we should bring back those diseases (mainly infectious diseases and parasites) from the past. Even though people with such diseases were cured later on or simply avoided getting them, neither the patients nor those who were caretakers ever expressed any wish to change it.

Caring for people and developing feelings for them is the right thing to do. But I don't see what is right in saying that some disease/injury/condition should remain because it is 'natural' somehow.

deafdyke said:
They need to concentrate their research into things like Alzhiemers/bipolar/scheizophernia etc....REAL stuff that REALLY honestly affects people!
Click to expand...

Alzheimers, bipolar, etc are mental or neurological diseases, I think. It is really hard to determine which disease is more important. They often do 'basic' research which means generating knowledge and inventing technology that can be applied in various areas.

One interesting thing is that the way we are doing research is changing. Previously, you specialized in one disease and spent the rest of your career doing that (choice of research first, data later). With the rise of genomics (the science of DNA and genes) and proteomics (proteins), and other '-omics', scientists today are collecting lots of data and trying to find patterns in it for particular applications (data first, research later). One example is the Personal Genome Project (PGP) at Harvard which you can read about here: How the Personal Genome Project Could Unlock the Mysteries of Life. All participants have to register their diseases, what job they have, what they have done in life, and so on. By coupling particular patterns in the personal data with the DNA data, you can make discoveries which in turn can be used for developing drugs and changing treatment.

And they are increasing the number of people 10x every year, which is entirely due to falling costs of technology. It will probably be cheap enough to do it on every person in the entire world before the end of this decade. That means that can pinpoint all genetic diseases that afflict our species. When we gain that knowledge, we can also develop medicine (and hopefully cures) for those diseases.

Let me get one thing right. We will also be able to work out how bacteria, viruses and parasites work at the level of DNA and protein and use that knowledge for developing drugs, vaccines and cures.

Another thing is that the public can participate in public research if they want to by using their computer power. There is BOINC (BOINC) that I recommend using with an account manager, e.g. GridRepublic | Grid Republic | BOINC Volunteer Distributed Grid Computing or BAM. Stay away from those projects looking for aliens and other weird stuff. Stick to biology and medicine. I do.
 
HH scientist said:
Perhaps I was thinking that definitions are changing as society changes. Violence is less common in society today than it was in the past for a number of reasons. Take a look at this video (Steven Pinker on the myth of violence | Video on TED.com) where Steven Pinker says that violence is decreasing and it is a trend that goes back all the way since fixed settlements first developed 10,000-20,000 years ago. Pinker points out four reasons for that development: No. 1 [12:38-14:12], no. 2 [14:15-14:45], no. 3 [14:45-15:40] and no. 4 [15:45-16:36]. (There are subtitles)

No. 2 is that people get physically injured less often and enjoy better health care in life. I was thinking that the use of safer tools and shift towards 'brain work' are examples of this. 'Being tough' due to physical injury is more uncommon and hence less acceptable, and that was my interpretation.

'Mental and spiritual strength' might belong to reasons no. 1 (violence as a deterrent is decreasing), 3 (nonzero-sum games) and 4 (the Expanding Circle), I reckon.
Click to expand...

Or we could go with the actual meaning of "tough it out" -
"To get through despite hardship; endure."

There are also other definitions of tough:

"Able to withstand great strain without tearing or breaking; strong and resilient."

This is what we mean by tough. In no way were we referencing to physical labour or physical violence. I am rather fascinated by your interpretation though, it's so out of left field.
 
HH scientist said:
I think that you are trying to say that people develop strong bonds for each other when in case of disease, disability or injury. Those feelings are hardwired in our brains and they come naturally. But I also think that they emerge as a response to coping to a situation that people cannot change, which they think of as 'natural'.

Compare that attitude to those diseases that we have managed to reduce or eradicate. No one would say today that we should bring back those diseases (mainly infectious diseases and parasites) from the past. Even though people with such diseases were cured later on or simply avoided getting them, neither the patients nor those who were caretakers ever expressed any wish to change it.

Caring for people and developing feelings for them is the right thing to do. But I don't see what is right in saying that some disease/injury/condition should remain because it is 'natural' somehow.
Click to expand...


You're seeing it as a pathology. Deafness isn't bad or good. It just is. It's like being gay. Being gay isn't bad or good. It just IS. You're thinking of being without hearing as something that's pathological. Yet we can adapt to and live without it. It doesn't cause pain or anything like that. Sure we don't have the abilty to hear....but we can process things visually. It's just like the way blind/low vision people can't see, but they can process things aurally. See now?
 
deafdyke said:
You're seeing it as a pathology. Deafness isn't bad or good. It just is. It's like being gay. Being gay isn't bad or good. It just IS. You're thinking of being without hearing as something that's pathological. Yet we can adapt to and live without it. It doesn't cause pain or anything like that. Sure we don't have the abilty to hear....but we can process things visually. It's just like the way blind/low vision people can't see, but they can process things aurally. See now?
Click to expand...

He is a scientist. He is trained to logically categorize things. I wouldn't be surprised if this encourages seeing deafness/hoh as a pathology.

HHScientist, I hope that you'll come to see your d/hh as something that doesn't limit you. By that I mean, yes, one doesn't function in the hearing world "perfectly" with deafness. But at this point, it sounds like you are just opening up to the deaf world and the deaf community. I think once you make connections with other deafies, your whole social world is going to open up. And things will look differently.

That's what I am coming to realize as I engage more and more with the deaf community. It's incredible. I really hope that you avail yourself of opportunities to connect with the Irish deaf community. :)

Really, the only thing that makes deafness a 'problem' is the fact that we are compelled to function in the hearing world. That's it.

If everyone was deaf, I can't imagine that deafness would be considered a pathology. The truth is, that deafness is not a limiting factor in and of itself. What is limiting is that we are expected to keep playing by hearing rules.

But there are ways around that, too, depending on the situation.

Even though medicine and science may view deafness as a pathology, it isn't in social terms, particularly in the deaf community.

That's my developing view anyway. :)
 
HH scientist said:
I think that you are trying to say that people develop strong bonds for each other when in case of disease, disability or injury. Those feelings are hardwired in our brains and they come naturally. But I also think that they emerge as a response to coping to a situation that people cannot change, which they think of as 'natural'.

Compare that attitude to those diseases that we have managed to reduce or eradicate. No one would say today that we should bring back those diseases (mainly infectious diseases and parasites) from the past. Even though people with such diseases were cured later on or simply avoided getting them, neither the patients nor those who were caretakers ever expressed any wish to change it.

Caring for people and developing feelings for them is the right thing to do. But I don't see what is right in saying that some disease/injury/condition should remain because it is 'natural' somehow.
Click to expand...

Is it the right thing for them to refuse to learn sign language and demand that we learn to speak in spite of our hearing loss - especially back in time when there was no hearing aids or CIs???? They want to include us in the world but at our huge expense. Maybe we should do the research to help them learn sign language via stem cell therapy. Do you think they will want that? Exactly that is why I don't want their so-called help.
 
DeafBadger said:
He is a scientist. He is trained to logically categorize things. I wouldn't be surprised if this encourages seeing deafness/hoh as a pathology.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't he see that a person with all working parts but doesn't sign as pathology? Oh, it is the hearing society teaching us that there is nothing wrong with NOT signing. That is why I am very impressed with hearing people who sign and also accept us the way we are because it takes alot of guts and hard work to learn a language that many tend to look down on.
 
Buffalo said:
Why doesn't he see that a person with all working parts but doesn't sign as pathology? Oh, it is the hearing society teaching us that there is nothing wrong with NOT signing. That is why I am very impressed with hearing people who sign and also accept us the way we are because it takes alot of guts and hard work to learn a language that many tend to look down on.
Click to expand...

You're right. It is a hearie perspective, a hearie bias.

I suppose that it's only a scientific perspective to the point where science or medicine defines what is a "normal" human being and considers deviations from that to be "abnormal." Not in a moral sense, just in a categorical sense.
 
Buffalo said:
Why doesn't he see that a person with all working parts but doesn't sign as pathology? Oh, it is the hearing society teaching us that there is nothing wrong with NOT signing. That is why I am very impressed with hearing people who sign and also accept us the way we are because it takes alot of guts and hard work to learn a language that many tend to look down on.
Click to expand...

:hmm: It has always been my impression that sign is seen as a crutch and those hearing who learn sign must be very independent from the mainstream since signing only has a stigma among the hearing.
 
This thread is AWESOME!!!!!! You know in the early 70's I bet there were simlair conversations and dialoges with the Mattiechine Society and Daughters of Bilitas.
 
deafdyke said:
This thread is AWESOME!!!!!! You know in the early 70's I bet there were simlair conversations and dialoges with the Mattiechine Society and Daughters of Bilitas.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, what are the Mattienchine society and the Daughters of Bilitas? Just a question from a ignorant deafie. :Oops:
 
Back
Top