Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The cochlear implant question

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 158 posts

Re: The cochlear implant question

#111

Post by throw894389 »

mapt wrote: post #29
throw894389 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My deaf coworker does not even know sign language, she uses phone for everything. She lives perfectly normal life. Entire office is not going to learn new language, just to speak with an odd deaf person. And communicating specialized stuff like technical programming is not possible, gestures only cover basic words.

"Not possible" is a vast overstatement. We've negotiated imperial territory disputes and hired mercenaries on contract with pantomine. You get there eventually if you're motivated & creative. It's about how efficient using the language for that purpose is. If it lacks a lot of specialized jargon, that jargon needs to be unpacked into symbology that does exist in the language both people are trying to use. With any la…

> "Not possible" is a vast overstatement.

Perhaps I should say "not economically viable". We could also use morse code, but it is just not very practical.

> you revert to more basic forms in a sort of puzzle of "How do I say that?

So we are playing "guess what" and pantomime at working hours. Wonderful!

> reverting to fingerspelling to bridge gaps in either person's vocabulary

Typing on phone or keyboard just seems more practical. Or using pen and paper....

Re: The cochlear implant question

#112

Post by throw894389 »

bluGill wrote: post #40
throw894389 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My deaf coworker does not even know sign language, she uses phone for everything. She lives perfectly normal life. Entire office is not going to learn new language, just to speak with an odd deaf person. And communicating specialized stuff like technical programming is not possible, gestures only cover basic words.

When you need to communicate something technical you finger spell what you mean once, and the you make up a sign on the spot for that one thing and use that sign there after. The next conversation you can make up a different sign for the same thing, or reuse the old sign. If a sign is used often enough it enters the common language. By doing such you can communicate anything technical.

What if the other person does not know the sign you made? In my experience there are multiple dialect in sign language, because every school just manufactures their own gestures.

Re: The cochlear implant question

#113

Post by GianFabien »

I can't see anywhere any mention of the fact that the implant portion of the Cochlear implant has been improving. It might be prudent to consider that in the future more capable implants might be available. AFAIK implants can't be removed and upgraded. So it might be a consideration that a child could have a superior implant by waiting a couple of years.

Of course the external portion of CI are being upgraded over time. But they will always be constrained by the implanted portion.

Re: The cochlear implant question

#114

Post by Balgair »

crystal_revenge wrote: post #90
James_K wrote: post #47

I feel like the narrative around disabled people has advanced to the point where some now insist that they aren't disabled. In reality, it's a pretty objective fact that being disabled means being unable to do something. It is a net negative on someone's quality of life. I'd be jolly pissed off if my parent decided not to get me an implant that enabled me to hear just because someone had told them that being deaf was…

> being deaf was actually the same as being able to hear. That's not even close to the argument being presented. The fundamental crisis within the deaf community is around the fact that deaf people share a common language . This is very different than most other disabled communities. Language is fundamental to shared culture. To be clear, I'm not saying that deaf children should not be given cochlear implants, but th…

Aside: We're teaching the kiddos ASL but all of us are hearing.

Yeah, it is a different language and culture as a result. Not any worse or better, just different.

You have to be a lot more expressive in ASL to get the points across and just more active in general. Also more patient as it takes longer to communicate, but maybe that an 'us' thing.

We like it a lot, and it's a lot of fun really. We;re thinking of tutoring in ASL for the fam, but like, we don;t have the time to even cook dinner, haha.

I'd say give it a try with your kids.

Re: The cochlear implant question

#115

Post by brenns10 »

throw894389 wrote: post #112
bluGill wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you need to communicate something technical you finger spell what you mean once, and the you make up a sign on the spot for that one thing and use that sign there after. The next conversation you can make up a different sign for the same thing, or reuse the old sign. If a sign is used often enough it enters the common language. By doing such you can communicate anything technical.

What if the other person does not know the sign you made? In my experience there are multiple dialect in sign language, because every school just manufactures their own gestures.

You missed the initial part, where the signer finger spells the concept the first time they use it, and then they come up with a sign representing it. By doing so, they've shown the other person what sign they're using and its meaning.

It's like if you write a long jargon phrase and then define an abbreviation in parentheses. Next time you can use the abbreviation. If the abbreviation becomes well known enough (especially in certain groups) then you may be able to omit the definition altogether, especially if you already know your audience.

I'm not sure about schools "manufacturing their own gestures" but sign languages tend to have regional dialects and shared jargon, much spoken dialects and jargon. It could be that these signs are simply regional variations, or that a single sign hasn't become dominant.

Re: The cochlear implant question

#116

Post by anondude24 »

James_K wrote: post #47

I feel like the narrative around disabled people has advanced to the point where some now insist that they aren't disabled. In reality, it's a pretty objective fact that being disabled means being unable to do something. It is a net negative on someone's quality of life. I'd be jolly pissed off if my parent decided not to get me an implant that enabled me to hear just because someone had told them that being deaf was…

> Children with autism or ADHD might struggle in some ways, but be better off in others. It seems clear that there is no objective reason they are worse than a neurotypical person, so if a "cure" to these conditions was developed, you would have some degree of moral quandary.

I normally lurk HN but created an account because I see a lot of comments about this. Maybe I can offer some insight.

I was diagnosed with high functioning aspergers at a young age. After years of OT and work I am able to live a fairly normal life. I don't talk about it, and I could count the number of people who know on my fingers. It's hard for me to gauge this, but if you met me I doubt you'd realize unless you were looking for it.

To the world I look like I have things together, but there's nothing I wouldn't give to be normal. I don't understand the push to accept it over searching for a cure, if such a thing is possible.

Re: The cochlear implant question

#117

Post by adammarples »

snakeyjake wrote: post #101

Three years ago I paid $47k for my deaf nephew to get implants because his fully-insured deaf parents wouldn't pay for them. Not $47k just the out of pocket ($2k-3k-ish). I paid $47k and I got a deal because it was cash. They wanted him to live in and embrace the "deaf world". He wanted to live in the actual real world. They ended up nearly irreparably fucking up his life and denying him the only thing that he wanted…

While I agree with you, the culture is coming from the sign language. Liver disease doesn't come with a shared language.

Re: The cochlear implant question

#118

Post by 2dvisio »

GianFabien wrote: post #113

I can't see anywhere any mention of the fact that the implant portion of the Cochlear implant has been improving. It might be prudent to consider that in the future more capable implants might be available. AFAIK implants can't be removed and upgraded. So it might be a consideration that a child could have a superior implant by waiting a couple of years. Of course the external portion of CI are being upgraded over ti…

The internal part can be replaced too.

The gain you get from implanting as soon as possible is massive compared to waiting it off. No one truly considering it should be waiting and instead actually pushing for an implant as soon as possible.

For our son, in the UK in 2019, they asked us to wait until our son was one year old. We insisted to have him implanted as soon as possible and us being ready to do it at 6 months (possible already in US). We managed to do at 7 months only switching surgeon to a much younger and keen surgeon that was pushing to lower the implantable age in children on the back of the massive benefits gained and very similar complication rate as close age brackets.

Our son is currently in mainstream school and doing brilliantly.

Re: The cochlear implant question

#119

Post by stn8188 »

Balgair wrote: post #114
crystal_revenge wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> being deaf was actually the same as being able to hear. That's not even close to the argument being presented. The fundamental crisis within the deaf community is around the fact that deaf people share a common language . This is very different than most other disabled communities. Language is fundamental to shared culture. To be clear, I'm not saying that deaf children should not be given cochlear implants, but th…

Aside: We're teaching the kiddos ASL but all of us are hearing. Yeah, it is a different language and culture as a result. Not any worse or better, just different. You have to be a lot more expressive in ASL to get the points across and just more active in general. Also more patient as it takes longer to communicate, but maybe that an 'us' thing. We like it a lot, and it's a lot of fun really. We;re thinking of tutori…

I echo this same comment. Myself and my whole family are all hearing, so I can't/don't feel qualified to weigh in on the details of the article. That being said, we've just started learning ASL together this year and it's been wonderful. I have nothing but respect for the entire Deaf community: we've been to a few Deaf church events and it's been amazing to meet and get to know everyone. While our reasons for learning ASL are personal, it's really opened our eyes to both the challenges and the incredible feats of the Deaf community.

Re: The cochlear implant question

#120

Post by James_K »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #106
James_K wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we shy away from encouraging conversion therapy or height extension surgery by default Because these things are dangerous and ineffective. You can point to clear negative consequences that come from doing them at a mass scale. Again, I go back to the idea of "different, not worse". Being gay is not the absence of straightness, and being short is not the absence of tallness. But being deaf is the absence of hearing.…

Are people who wear glasses disabled? They have an impairment that can prevent them from full participation in work, family, social life. But they also have an accessible accommodation that mitigates most of the practical consequences of their impairment. The impairment doesn't go away, but the extent to which is it disabling is a function of the individual's relationship to society. Two people with the same impairme…

> but the extent to which is it disabling is a function of the individual's relationship to society

No it's not. It's a function of the person's relationship to glasses. The same way deaf people are no longer disabled when you restore their hearing. The only difference is that we can all obviously see that depriving children of glasses for the sake of forming a "blind community" is an utterly ridiculous thing to do.

What I'm saying is that there are two different cures for deafness. The first is to engineer a world in which it is not necessary to hear, and the second is to restore the individual's hearing. I am of the belief that there is no substantive difference between these two methods as it relates to the argument being made against cochlear implants. Of the two different cures, that is more effective which is the soul issue people take with it.

> This is the social model of disability, it's a well established framework that has had immense practical value in the medical treatment of a huge range of disability, including adhd and hearing loss.

The conclusion they reach is that a disability can be treated by altering the environment of the person with it. I reach this same conclusion without the need to reference some abstract "society" which causes all these problems.

> It's so so shitty to dismiss it as "they are wrong" when you clearly don't even know the absolute basics of the history and practice of this field.

Well they are wrong. If you find the truth to be shitty, I suggest you bury your head in the sand.

Post reply on HN