You cannot hear with CI .. ??

rockdrummer said:
Great points. At the end of the day its still a crap shoot. However, having information on success and failures would greatly prepare anyone to make a truly informed decision. As I mentioned in another thread, It's sad that soft failures are not tracked. Personally they could have greatly influenced our decision.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think the majority of parents don't want to be told the right way or the wrong way to do things. They simply want access to all of the information in order to weigh the costs and benefits for themselves.
 
jillio said:
I guess if I could reduce it down it would be the difference between actual understanding, and appearing to understand. Making a right guess on the way to respond is different definately knowing what response is expected. Goes back to the old story of doing fine and getting through in a hearing environment, but always feeling as if one doesn't quite belong or is a fraud.
Click to expand...
Isn't that called social bluffing? If someone is socially bluffing, have they truly assimilated?
 
jillio said:
Agreed. I think the majority of parents don't want to be told the right way or the wrong way to do things. They simply want access to all of the information in order to weigh the costs and benefits for themselves.
Click to expand...
AMEN!!!
 
rockdrummer said:
Isn't that called social bluffing? If someone is socially bluffing, have they truly assimilated?
Click to expand...

Actually its social referencing, and the answer would be no, they have not assimilated in the true sense of the word in that the behaviors have not been internalized. However, the majority of society would judge not on internalization, but on obserevable behavior, and therefore would consider such a person to have assimilated.
 
jillio said:
Actually its social referencing, and the answer would be no, they have not assimilated in the true sense of the word in that the behaviors have not been internalized. However, the majority of society would judge not on internalization, but on obserevable behavior, and therefore would consider such a person to have assimilated.
Click to expand...
Right but who is getting the short end of the stick on that one. The person that is faking their way through it. Think back to your original comments and perhaps then you will see my point. You said Shel was seperating comprehension with assimilation and you re-enforced that with comments about bluffing. My point is that you can't consider yoursef assimilated if you are bluffing. Thus the reason I don't seperate the two. You are not assimilated if you don't comprehend or have to bluff your way through situations. Leading me to believe you are assimlated becuase you are bluffing doesn't make you assimilated. I hope that makes sense.
 
rockdrummer said:
Right but who is getting the short end of the stick on that one. The person that is faking their way through it. Think back to your original comments and perhaps then you will see my point. You said Shel was seperating comprehension with assimilation and you re-enforced that with comments about bluffing. My point is that you can't consider yoursef assimilated if you are bluffing. Thus the reason I don't seperate the two. You are not assimilated if you don't comprehend or have to bluff your way through situations. Leading me to believe you are assimlated becuase you are bluffing doesn't make you assimilated. I hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense. But an individual can consider themself to not be assimilated, while the majority or dominant culture can sonsider that same individual to have assimilated. An example would be African Americans--because the African American population has been given equal opportunity (in theory, anyway), it is assumed that because a Black individual now functions in the same capacity as a white individual, assimilation has occurred, and that assumtion is based on observable behavior from the perspective of the dominant culture. However, African American continue to hold different value systems and accepted cultural norms. Therfore, assimilation is only on the surface--they have not internalized the standards held by the majority culture.
 
One more thing--why is the distinction important? Becasue in the case of theD\d/hh individual, determination regarding effectiveness of accommodations and educational methods is made by the majority hearing culture. It is based on subjective criteria that manifest as observable behavior. That is, appearing to understand=actual understanding. This is extremely misleading and results in inconsistent application for accomodations and educational planning.
 
jillio said:
And I think we can all agree that the professionals are woefully lax in making any information regarding limitations available to potential candidates and/or their parents.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it isn't a combination of the professionals not making sure all the pitfalls are understood and some parents/patients not wanting to listen past the "your child/you will hear!"

Seems like when a hearing person finds out their baby is deaf, they need to talk to some deaf people about how deafness isn't the key to a horrible life. Some accomidations need to be made, but that's easier every day, thanks to technology.
 
Wow to all these postings! I am too tired now to reply or I will say things that may contradict myself or wont make sense. Today was my first day back at work after a week and 1 day off for Spring Break so I am mentally worn out. Will get back to u to all these posts when I am more mentally alert. ;)
 
Last edited:
jillio said:
Makes perfect sense. But an individual can consider themself to not be assimilated, while the majority or dominant culture can sonsider that same individual to have assimilated. An example would be African Americans--because the African American population has been given equal opportunity (in theory, anyway), it is assumed that because a Black individual now functions in the same capacity as a white individual, assimilation has occurred, and that assumtion is based on observable behavior from the perspective of the dominant culture. However, African American continue to hold different value systems and accepted cultural norms. Therfore, assimilation is only on the surface--they have not internalized the standards held by the majority culture.
Click to expand...
We all know what happens with assumptions. Regarding perspective, I would not consider assimilation subjective if you go by definition. If you include assumptions and subjectivity, then all bets are off. On the flipside of the coin, an individual can consider themselves assimilated but not actually be. I guess it depends on weither you agree with standard defintions or not.
 
jillio said:
One more thing--why is the distinction important? Becasue in the case of theD\d/hh individual, determination regarding effectiveness of accommodations and educational methods is made by the majority hearing culture. It is based on subjective criteria that manifest as observable behavior. That is, appearing to understand=actual understanding. This is extremely misleading and results in inconsistent application for accomodations and educational planning.
Click to expand...
I completly concur. If assumptions are made leading to ineffective support and resources, something should be done. If this has been going on for long, what is being done to resolve it? Given your experience and knowledge, what would you do to fix it?
 
Capmeister said:
I wonder if it isn't a combination of the professionals not making sure all the pitfalls are understood and some parents/patients not wanting to listen past the "your child/you will hear!"

Seems like when a hearing person finds out their baby is deaf, they need to talk to some deaf people about how deafness isn't the key to a horrible life. Some accomidations need to be made, but that's easier every day, thanks to technology.
Click to expand...

**nodding agreement** It is definately a combination of the two. That is why I am so insistent on separating and operationally defining hearing as a fuction of sound perception, from hearing as a method of perceiving and making sense of one's world. Just because an individual can perceive sound does not mean that they process information congitively in the same way that a person who has always had use of their auditory function does.
 
rockdrummer said:
I completly concur. If assumptions are made leading to ineffective support and resources, something should be done. If this has been going on for long, what is being done to resolve it? Given your experience and knowledge, what would you do to fix it?
Click to expand...

The ethnocentric perspective of the educational community as a whole needs to shift. Deaf children should not be treated as hearing children who cannot hear. Leave the "can't hear" out of it, and concentrate on the differences in cognitive processing that occur not only with visual spatial comprehension, but the influence of culture on perception. I am doing everything I can to contribute to the solution at this point in time by advocating, staying involved, using every opportunity that is presented to me to correct the misperceptions in the educational communtiy, and continuing my research efforts. Some days my efforts pay off--some days I am personally attacked for attempting to shake people out of their limited views. Oh, well. If one person gets it, and changes their perspective so that one deaf child receives benefit, then it will be worth it.
 
jillio said:
The ethnocentric perspective of the educational community as a whole needs to shift. Deaf children should not be treated as hearing children who cannot hear. Leave the "can't hear" out of it, and concentrate on the differences in cognitive processing that occur not only with visual spatial comprehension, but the influence of culture on perception. I am doing everything I can to contribute to the solution at this point in time by advocating, staying involved, using every opportunity that is presented to me to correct the misperceptions in the educational communtiy, and continuing my research efforts. Some days my efforts pay off--some days I am personally attacked for attempting to shake people out of their limited views. Oh, well. If one person gets it, and changes their perspective so that one deaf child receives benefit, then it will be worth it.
Click to expand...
I applaud you for your efforts and wish you all the best. I am a bit concerned though that there must be means of proving that one method is better than another and since the problem is not new, it makes me wonder how many others share your views. And why aren't there more experts pushing for what is proven to work the best? As a parent of a deaf child I believe that all of the things that I keep hearing that are broken with the educational system are yet another reason to opt for a CI. If a child does benefit from a CI as some do, then why put them through a broken system of teaching deaf kids instead of mainstreaming. In other words, if I elect to not have my child implanted he/she will be subjected to this broken educational system for teaching deaf. That would play a major role in my decision.
 
rockdrummer said:
I applaud you for your efforts and wish you all the best. I am a bit concerned though that there must be means of proving that one method is better than another and since the problem is not new, it makes me wonder how many others share your views. And why aren't there more experts pushing for what is proven to work the best? As a parent of a deaf child I believe that all of the things that I keep hearing that are broken with the educational system are yet another reason to opt for a CI. If a child does benefit from a CI as some do, then why put them through a broken system of teaching deaf kids instead of mainstreaming. In other words, if I elect to not have my child implanted he/she will be subjected to this broken educational system for teaching deaf. That would play a major role in my decision.
Click to expand...

Quite simply because a CI does not correct the problems inherent in the education of deaf children. If anything, it has contributed to the huge numbers of deaf children that are mainstreamed and thus educated under the philosphy that they are identical to hearing chioldren in the way they perceive and integrate information because they can now perceive sound. Mainstreaming is one of the hugest contributors to the broken system. The deaf educational system worked very well until attempts to make it a replication of the hearing educational system polluted it.

The experts don't push because the experts are by and large hearing, and therfore approaching things from the ethnocentric perspective I spoke of earlier. You cannot fix what is wrong with the education of deaf children by taking the same action you would to correct a problem in the education of hearing children.

Its not the deaf system that's broken. Its the hearing approach to the deaf system that is broken.
 
jillio said:
Quite simply because a CI does not correct the problems inherent in the education of deaf children. If anything, it has contributed to the huge numbers of deaf children that are mainstreamed and thus educated under the philosphy that they are identical to hearing chioldren in the way they perceive and integrate information because they can now perceive sound. Mainstreaming is one of the hugest contributors to the broken system. The deaf educational system worked very well until attempts to make it a replication of the hearing educational system polluted it.

The experts don't push because the experts are by and large hearing, and therfore approaching things from the ethnocentric perspective I spoke of earlier. You cannot fix what is wrong with the education of deaf children by taking the same action you would to correct a problem in the education of hearing children.

Its not the deaf system that's broken. Its the hearing approach to the deaf system that is broken.
Click to expand...
How then do you explain the kids with CI's (that are successful) able to learn and keep pace with the mainstream system? I am also curious about all deaf schools. Are they managed from the hearing perspective or do all deaf schools not suffer the woes you speak of in mainstream schools?
 
rockdrummer said:
How then do you explain the kids with CI's (that are successful) able to learn and keep pace with the mainstream system? I am also curious about all deaf schools. Are they managed from the hearing perspective or do all deaf schools not suffer the woes you speak of in mainstream schools?
Click to expand...

To be perfectly honest with you, I work at the college level, and of all the prelingually deaf students I work with that have CI, none have walked away from the mainstream without deficits based on educational needs not being met. So it depends on what you categorize as success. If I encounter a student who is functioning at a level consistent with an average IQ, but obviously possesses a superior IQ, and I have done this frequently, then I don't consider that a success. The school system has failed to give that student what he needed to successfully use his innate intellectual skills to his full potential. If you consider 75% communication successful, then great--but unless that student has received 100% communication, or at least the oppportunity for 100% communication, then that is not a success to me. Maybe some are satisfied with adequate. I personally believe that does a disservice to the entire Deaf community. The woes the Deaf schools suffer are created by the failure of the mainstream. Shel and I have discussed this extensively in other posts. Perhaps you would like to reread them.
 
one thing i hate is when people assume that just because i have a CI, that i can hear normally and that i may consider myself hearing.

well, it's NOT true! yes, i do have a CI, but this doesn't mean that i can hear just as well as everyone else. and yes, i may have good speech and listening skills, but i still consider myself deaf.

i mean, even today, i still struggle to follow conversations, especially in noisy situations and group settings. i get accomodations from school such as real time captioning in order to follow my lectures in class, because i know i would be totally lost in understanding what's going on if i didn't take advantage of the accomodations.

so, i have adapted and assimilated successfully into the mainstream. i really did have to work hard because of my hearing loss to get to where i am today. but i'm proud of my achievements and hope to continue to make accomplishments in the future, such as graduating from college with a degree.

also take note that the earlier you put your deaf kids into the mainstream, the less far behind they'll be academically, and the more successful they'll be in life, in terms of life after high school. just make sure to request the right accomodations to best fit their needs, such as FM systems, speech therapy, etc, even if you have to fight for it.
 
jillio said:
To be perfectly honest with you, I work at the college level, and of all the prelingually deaf students I work with that have CI, none have walked away from the mainstream without deficits based on educational needs not being met. So it depends on what you categorize as success. If I encounter a student who is functioning at a level consistent with an average IQ, but obviously possesses a superior IQ, and I have done this frequently, then I don't consider that a success. The school system has failed to give that student what he needed to successfully use his innate intellectual skills to his full potential. If you consider 75% communication successful, then great--but unless that student has received 100% communication, or at least the oppportunity for 100% communication, then that is not a success to me. Maybe some are satisfied with adequate. I personally believe that does a disservice to the entire Deaf community. The woes the Deaf schools suffer are created by the failure of the mainstream. Shel and I have discussed this extensively in other posts. Perhaps you would like to reread them.
Click to expand...

Sorry to say...it is totally unrealistic to ever expect 100% communication even with a CI. I can attest to that since I'm in the 90-95% plus category myself (I never kid myself thinking that I have reached the so called 100% plateau). Am I bothered by that? Heck no, as for all practical purposes I catch everything I need to hear and can communicate in so many ways via many means. So, that miniscule percent I miss is totally irrelevant in the scheme of things.

The trick is knowing when you need to find out if it is important or not. Most of the time, I find that it is not. To make an even more profound point, nobody hearing or not ever gets 100% communication anyway. There is always something everybody misses and that is a natural part of life. It could be due to expectations, misunderstandings, inattentiveness, or any number of other explanations.
 
Back
Top