Do we have a challenge ahead of us to avoid becoming Hearing?

But please could someone update this thread for me, im too lazy to read the WHOLE LOT...i am aware of Marscmarks book i have read some of it in real life...well argued but i'm still leery of 'compromises'...hmmm
 
I don't care what you guys identify with, hearing, deaf, whatever, just don't be an asshole about it. :-D

We all are still members of a bigger community.. aka the human race. Everything else is gravy. Be true to yourself, blah blah.
 
Liza said:
I don't care what you guys identify with, hearing, deaf, whatever, just don't be an asshole about it. :-D

We all are still members of a bigger community.. aka the human race. Everything else is gravy. Be true to yourself, blah blah.
Click to expand...

Precisely my point. thank you for simplifying it for me. :)
 
DeafCaroline said:
hey GrendelQ - I was reading and re-reading from page 52 to page 60. All it states that the younger the kid is implanted, the more able they are at spoken language development which does not necessarily mean an increase in spoken dialogue - socially that is. Key word here is SPOKEN. There's nothing stating that kids who are NOT implanted are behind in linguistic developments. I am trying hard to find what other linguistic advantages CI kids have over HA kids, especially in relation to the age of their implantation. I'm not seeing it in the paper you linked to. If you can point them out to me I would appreciate it. However, it did state that the younger the child is implanted, the less likely parents will use sign. All in all, it's generally agreed with deaf kids, whether CI or HA, function far better in a bilingual teaching environment and function better with parents who use both speech and sign at home.
Click to expand...

DeafCaroline, who asked about Cis vs. HAs? There's no comparison of implanted vs. not implanted or of CIs vs. HAs. This document about the current deaf educational system in Sweden today, and the section I referred you to is about the benefits of implanting early vs. implanting later, which you brought up as having a strong interest in: the "difference between implanted babies and those implanted at a later age."

This piece references several studies by researchers -- scientists in the field -- and is in reference to the Swedish policy of encouraging early vs. later implantation. It contradicts the opinion of a person (who, as you say, I should not refer to as a writer or a blogger) reporting in a blog post on Swedish teacher curriculum in 1995, from which you quoted.
 
Hey GrendelQ: I was responding to what you said which was:

"Also, see pg 53 for the start of a section addressing your statement about early implantation. There is consensus among researchers that implanting at a young age improves speech perception and production more than those implanted later in life, as well as providing several other significant linguistic benefits, including several in the area of literacy."

I do see in the paper that they do say the younger the child is implanted, the greater their ability in spoken language development but you also said "other significant linguistic benefits, including several in area of literacy."

I am not seeing where that was written in the paper you linked to so i am asking if you could point them out to me. If I am going to launch a campaign against the Oral only school in my town, I need to make sure I understand all the facts first so I am as informed as possible. So any assistance is GREATLY appreciated.

there's no difference in between your paper and mine in terms of linguistic development in an implanted and non-implanted child when both are in TC program. Just that the younger the child is implanted, the greater their ability to pick up spoken language development. That's it. They still benefit far better in TC program because they are still struggling with hearing, albeit in varying degrees.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Hey GrendelQ: I was responding to what you said which was:

"Also, see pg 53 for the start of a section addressing your statement about early implantation. There is consensus among researchers that implanting at a young age improves speech perception and production more than those implanted later in life, as well as providing several other significant linguistic benefits, including several in the area of literacy."

I do see in the paper that they do say the younger the child is implanted, the greater their ability in spoken language development but you also said "other significant linguistic benefits, including several in area of literacy."

I am not seeing where that was written in the paper you linked to so i am asking if you could point them out to me. If I am going to launch a campaign against the Oral only school in my town, I need to make sure I understand all the facts first so I am as informed as possible. So any assistance is GREATLY appreciated.

there's no difference in between your paper and mine in terms of linguistic development in an implanted and non-implanted child when both are in TC program. Just that the younger the child is implanted, the greater their ability to pick up spoken language development. That's it. They still benefit far better in TC program because they are still struggling with hearing, albeit in varying degrees.
Click to expand...

if you meant TC as Total Communication, does it entail a sign and speech through out the learning? if so yes, indeed this is superior to Oral-only, but im still not convinced if we should be encouraging TC over total-sign...that is it would suit the Deaf Culture model (cultural model to be precise), but then again i can see there will be limits constraining the access to the hearing world's knowledge, but again im not so sure about that. Put is this way IF we had developed (fully or partially developed but well past the initalisation stage) an entirely new curriculum called "Hearing Culture" an accumultion of all aspects of hearing-style learning and knowledge made referrenced and accessible and thus taught in SIGN,,then this might change how we are thinking right now, for years /decades to come
just another 2 cents wasted...
 
Grummer said:
*wish i can ban KN from this thread* Alex should be thinking about ways of adding a OP's prestiage to block out an undesired poster...but then again i think if it is possible it should 'be granted on reasonable grounds' in this case -WE ALL know he's just a ranting raver nothing more nothing less.
Click to expand...

Um, I'm not the one who's ranting. I certainly did not put up that avatar myself.
 
People certainly seem to get their kicks ranting ABOUT koko way, way more than I've ever read him ranting about anything or anybody.

Why not just talk about the topic rather than constantly harping on someone else you don't happen to care for? Let's get some substance into this instead of all the silly personal attacks.
 
inmate23 said:
Can you any insight as to why? Am I right in my thinking that it is part of normalise therapy(oralism when talking about deaf kids)
In saying that I have meet some amazing fathers at para sport. But they know there kids are diffident and accept their childs way of life

But what about the tools for them to be able "see" that "Let them pull themselves up by their boot straps!" is possible
Click to expand...

Yes, it is in part an attempt to normalize. But the male gender, by and large, has been socialized in a way that makes it more difficult for them to deal with a disability being diagnosed in their offspring. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. This is just a generalization of what happens in most cases.

Oh, I agree. They need the tools to develop insight. I propose that vehemently. It seems to be the conservative thought that programs providing assistance aren't necessary.
 
Grummer said:
if you meant TC as Total Communication, does it entail a sign and speech through out the learning? if so yes, indeed this is superior to Oral-only, but im still not convinced if we should be encouraging TC over total-sign...that is it would suit the Deaf Culture model (cultural model to be precise), but then again i can see there will be limits constraining the access to the hearing world's knowledge, but again im not so sure about that. Put is this way IF we had developed (fully or partially developed but well past the initalisation stage) an entirely new curriculum called "Hearing Culture" an accumultion of all aspects of hearing-style learning and knowledge made referrenced and accessible and thus taught in SIGN,,then this might change how we are thinking right now, for years /decades to come
just another 2 cents wasted...
Click to expand...

Well, the Swedish studies have proven that when a child has access to language, ANY language, be it vocal or signed, at a young age and is able to have access to education taught in the language they can follow, they do better.

However, the reality is - you live in an English speaking country, so do I, so does Berry, AJWSmith, Shel90 and it IS an advantage to be able to speak and lipread. Can one function without speaking and lipread? Certainly. Of course. But does one function better in an English-speaking hearing world if they are able to at least lipread, of course. Just open your front door and sign at someone. They won't understand. They speak back to you, and you have no lipreading skills, you don't understand.

If we lived on a Deaf island where there are no hearing speaking people, we could totally live in a fully industrious society with no need for hearing or speaking but we don't.

so, we have to be realistic and ask ourselves, what edge can we give ourselves in a hearing speaking world? It's not a threat to our identity to be able to communicate in more than one language, to add more tools to our communication abilities. My son is anglo, he's fluent in French, does that mean he's no longer anglo? Not at all. It just means he's fluent in more than one language.

And obviously, the younger the person, the greater they are able to acquire a language so if we want kids to be able to lipread and speak, we do have to start young. The Swedish paper GrendelQ linked to said however that the younger the child is implanted, the less likely parents will use sign and that affects the child's linguistic development in any language. That's very concerning.
 
drphil said:
Thanks Berry: re Miller's law "thinking style" believed by the person- "true' as such only to person who so believes. Used to be called "circular thinking"-at one time.
As a deaf person don't believe I am "oppressed". Cheers deaf militant!


Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07
Click to expand...

You are neither in the academic market, nor the job market. You are elderly and not as active in society as a younger person is. It is only natural that you would not be engaged in those activities that make oppression so obvious.
 
BecLak said:
Wirelessly posted



Kokonut then is in the wrong thread. He should take note of the name of thread and OP.
Click to expand...

Yes. He is very consistent in vehemently expressing his disdain for Deaf culture, yet feels the need to comment negatively in every thread dealing with cultural issues. If he has no need for Deaf culture, and has as much disdain for such as he has expressed, he simply needs to stay away from those matters.

However, he is not content with that. He has an unhealthy need to attempt to bully and patronize those that do value Deaf Culture.
 
DeafCaroline said:
I'm reading right now about Sweden's implementation of bilingualism for the Deaf in the education system. What I really loved learning was that Swedish CI doctors greatly encourage parents to learn sign with their kids before implantation and that the claims that babies must be implanted right away to keep their auditory nerve stimulated is misleading because there is hardly a significantly incremental difference between implanted babies and those implanted at a later age. Very interesting!

I also appreciated learning that teachers wanting to be Educators for the Deaf have to be expertly fluent first before teaching the Deaf. It's absolutely mandatory. Very smart criteria.

Changes in Teacher Education:

"Within that context, they are having a big challenge from the cochlear implant movement. Still different than here, though. There are only 2 doctors in Sweden who do implants, and they recommmend that the family and child first learn sign language and become well-acquianted with deaf people and support from other parents before they proceed. The danger in that is that some of the audiologists are promoting a bilingual--sign language plus Swedish through implants--panacea. Which is it not. Careful study of the research shows that when separated out from post-lingually deafened children, the results for pre-lingually deaf implanted children show minute gains in small aspects of production and perception, but no evidence of intelligible speech or increase in mean length of utterance that is greater than that seen through maturation and training. Two Swedish reserachers have just surveyed the literature and found--as did Harlan Lane in his recent letter in the Journal of Otolarygology--that claims about implants in pre-lingually deaf children are very misleading. What is different there is that I see a greater level of outrage and involvement in fighting this threat among teachers, parents, and especially the deaf association. There is no question among those involved with teaching deaf children that they don't want cochlear implants to result in a denial of the linguistic rights of deaf children. Again, a sign to me that support for sign language is alive and well among those who have an opportunity to observe children growing up well-adjusted and increasingly more literate."
Click to expand...

I have been following Sweden's educational system as it pertains to deaf students for several years now. The States could certainly learn a thing or two from their model. The medical establishment could learn much from their protocol regarding CI implantation, as well.
 
DeafCaroline said:
If you still don't know after several posts I've made to you directly and frankly about your attitude and how you speak to others then that's pitiful. It really is.
Click to expand...

Many more than you have told him the same thing. He just is not capable, evidently, of accepting personal responsibility.
 
kokonut said:
I think you have a deeper underlying issue. First you bragged about how you had me on ignore. Then suddenly you've been responding to my comments. Then recently you commented out loud hoping that I put you on ignore. You keep re-directing your comments toward me rather than providing an argument to counter mine. I have no beef towards you. You make it personal. :dunno:
Click to expand...

There is definately someone involved that has deeper underlying issues, but it is not DC. You are really blind to your own faults.:roll:
 
jillio said:
Yes. He is very consistent in vehemently expressing his disdain for Deaf culture, yet feels the need to comment negatively in every thread dealing with cultural issues. If he has no need for Deaf culture, and has as much disdain for such as he has expressed, he simply needs to stay away from those matters.

However, he is not content with that. He has an unhealthy need to attempt to bully and patronize those that do value Deaf Culture.
Click to expand...

true prevent to bully serious protect! cause on inappropriate negative deaf culture express! that is why expression!
 
Beach girl said:
People certainly seem to get their kicks ranting ABOUT koko way, way more than I've ever read him ranting about anything or anybody.

Why not just talk about the topic rather than constantly harping on someone else you don't happen to care for? Let's get some substance into this instead of all the silly personal attacks.
Click to expand...

Here you go again, jumping in to advise on situations of which you know very, very little. Kokonut is well known, and not well liked, within the Deaf community, or the deaf community. He has quite a history, and that history follows him here. Many members of this forum have a history with koko that you are completely unaware of. There is more than one member that goes all the way back to his college days. Many more that have had frequent contact with him regarding deaf issues. He has been guilty of ranting in more than one forum. Likewise, he takes issues from AD and comments on them negatively, to include making inflammatory and dishonest statements regarding specific individuals. Again, I would advise you to gather more facts regarding situations before you give unsolicited advise.
 
smithtr said:
true prevent to bully serious protect! cause on inappropriate negative deaf culture express! that is why expression!
Click to expand...

Yes, he is a bully, here and on his blogs, as well. But we all know that bullies suffer from a severe lack of self esteem and try to make themselves feel superior by trying to make other people look bad.
 
Back
Top