Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Integration into the normal society

Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 12:17:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is this sub culture, where people who were born deaf, or have a profound hearing loss, refuse to learn normal language. The reasoning is something along the lines of- "Because the normal people can't ever understand us, we'll make a disjoint elite group existing within the normal society that refuses to let the normal people engage with them." They learn sign language, and that's the only thing they know.

I'm not sure of how prevalent this thinking is in other disadvantaged groups, Im more interested in hearing disabled people in any case. Do you think its justified? Practical?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 12:21:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Elaborating a little, for instance, they won't learn English. They'll learn sign language, and live with other deaf people/ people with profound hearing loss. Attend a special school and restrict their dependence on 'normal' people.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 12:27:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 12:21:16 PM, Cermank wrote:
Elaborating a little, for instance, they won't learn English. They'll learn sign language, and live with other deaf people/ people with profound hearing loss. Attend a special school and restrict their dependence on 'normal' people.

There is also, sometimes, resistance to things like cochlear implants which can restore hearing.

I feel like it's all a sort of reflexive defensiveness stemming from our tendency to create groups.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 12:45:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 12:27:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/11/2014 12:21:16 PM, Cermank wrote:
Elaborating a little, for instance, they won't learn English. They'll learn sign language, and live with other deaf people/ people with profound hearing loss. Attend a special school and restrict their dependence on 'normal' people.

There is also, sometimes, resistance to things like cochlear implants which can restore hearing.

Yeah, people I know with cochlear implants are generally dissatisfied with it. Something about it causing headaches. Since they are normal hearing aids fitted inside your head, making you hear everything (even background noise that your brain mutes for better focus and understanding)


I feel like it's all a sort of reflexive defensiveness stemming from our tendency to create groups.

True. The defensiveness isnt without reason, though. The fact remains that proper integration into the society is something that would be extremely difficult, impossible even. The best they can hope for is an 'almost'. Almost being able to understand people, almost having normal conversations, almost making normal friends. Considering that happiness IS something everyone strives for in their lives, I sincerely think perhaps disaggregation is the best for them.

I've noticed that people who fight pretty hard for the challenge thrown their way, and have a clearer speech and can understand people to an extent, find it harder to live life normally. Considering then their disability is often overlooked- and they don't get the special consideration that they usually get. And for what? The extra challenge to integrate into the society that won't really give them a fair deal.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 1:05:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 12:45:57 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 2/11/2014 12:27:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/11/2014 12:21:16 PM, Cermank wrote:
Elaborating a little, for instance, they won't learn English. They'll learn sign language, and live with other deaf people/ people with profound hearing loss. Attend a special school and restrict their dependence on 'normal' people.

There is also, sometimes, resistance to things like cochlear implants which can restore hearing.

Yeah, people I know with cochlear implants are generally dissatisfied with it. Something about it causing headaches. Since they are normal hearing aids fitted inside your head, making you hear everything (even background noise that your brain mutes for better focus and understanding)

Not always, and your brain can learn to mute things post-implant, too. But yes, there are downsides--yet when I've seen folks who were resistant to it, it wasn't those things that made them reject the idea.

I feel like it's all a sort of reflexive defensiveness stemming from our tendency to create groups.

True. The defensiveness isnt without reason, though. The fact remains that proper integration into the society is something that would be extremely difficult, impossible even. The best they can hope for is an 'almost'. Almost being able to understand people, almost having normal conversations, almost making normal friends. Considering that happiness IS something everyone strives for in their lives, I sincerely think perhaps disaggregation is the best for them.

I've noticed that people who fight pretty hard for the challenge thrown their way, and have a clearer speech and can understand people to an extent, find it harder to live life normally. Considering then their disability is often overlooked- and they don't get the special consideration that they usually get. And for what? The extra challenge to integrate into the society that won't really give them a fair deal.

Well, I don't think that's fair. In the first place, I would argue they find it easier to live normally. They can actually communicate with the majority of people, even if it is not at peak efficiency. In an emergency they can actually get their point across, instead of standing there wishing people understood them. Attempting to integrate expands your options. Choosing to refuse to do that limits them.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 5:37:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 12:17:50 PM, Cermank wrote:
There is this sub culture, where people who were born deaf, or have a profound hearing loss, refuse to learn normal language. The reasoning is something along the lines of- "Because the normal people can't ever understand us, we'll make a disjoint elite group existing within the normal society that refuses to let the normal people engage with them." They learn sign language, and that's the only thing they know.

I'm not sure of how prevalent this thinking is in other disadvantaged groups, Im more interested in hearing disabled people in any case. Do you think its justified? Practical?

If you can't communicate in the dominant language of your country (even by reading/writing), then you need to learn. If you refuse to learn, you're an idiot.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 12:52:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 1:05:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/11/2014 12:45:57 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 2/11/2014 12:27:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/11/2014 12:21:16 PM, Cermank wrote:
Elaborating a little, for instance, they won't learn English. They'll learn sign language, and live with other deaf people/ people with profound hearing loss. Attend a special school and restrict their dependence on 'normal' people.

There is also, sometimes, resistance to things like cochlear implants which can restore hearing.

Yeah, people I know with cochlear implants are generally dissatisfied with it. Something about it causing headaches. Since they are normal hearing aids fitted inside your head, making you hear everything (even background noise that your brain mutes for better focus and understanding)

Not always, and your brain can learn to mute things post-implant, too. But yes, there are downsides--yet when I've seen folks who were resistant to it, it wasn't those things that made them reject the idea.

I feel like it's all a sort of reflexive defensiveness stemming from our tendency to create groups.

True. The defensiveness isnt without reason, though. The fact remains that proper integration into the society is something that would be extremely difficult, impossible even. The best they can hope for is an 'almost'. Almost being able to understand people, almost having normal conversations, almost making normal friends. Considering that happiness IS something everyone strives for in their lives, I sincerely think perhaps disaggregation is the best for them.

I've noticed that people who fight pretty hard for the challenge thrown their way, and have a clearer speech and can understand people to an extent, find it harder to live life normally. Considering then their disability is often overlooked- and they don't get the special consideration that they usually get. And for what? The extra challenge to integrate into the society that won't really give them a fair deal.

Well, I don't think that's fair. In the first place, I would argue they find it easier to live normally. They can actually communicate with the majority of people, even if it is not at peak efficiency. In an emergency they can actually get their point across, instead of standing there wishing people understood them. Attempting to integrate expands your options. Choosing to refuse to do that limits them.

Easier to live, yes. Easier to be happy? I'm not sure.

Their point is to shun the normal society and live with people that 'understand' them. People with similar disability. How is it too different than what we usually do? And given that usually emergencies are not that common, it isn't really a make or break judgement point for a life choice.

The difficulty portion comes because hearing impaired people who try to learn a language can't really grasp the nuances of the language- and often struggle with pronunciations. So having a 'normal' conversation with normal people is often a task- for both the parties. With people who know ONLY sign language, communication is obviously naught. Given the disability, learning two languages is often too ambitious. However, if you forego English, for example- and learn sign language- you have the option of inducting yourself into the community of people like you. A better chance at normal social interactions, a normal life.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 12:54:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 5:37:46 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/11/2014 12:17:50 PM, Cermank wrote:
There is this sub culture, where people who were born deaf, or have a profound hearing loss, refuse to learn normal language. The reasoning is something along the lines of- "Because the normal people can't ever understand us, we'll make a disjoint elite group existing within the normal society that refuses to let the normal people engage with them." They learn sign language, and that's the only thing they know.

I'm not sure of how prevalent this thinking is in other disadvantaged groups, Im more interested in hearing disabled people in any case. Do you think its justified? Practical?

If you can't communicate in the dominant language of your country (even by reading/writing), then you need to learn. If you refuse to learn, you're an idiot.

Why? [ Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd do away with the ad homs. ]
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 12:58:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 8:55:24 AM, virender.singh wrote:
Is this about people with only hearing loss or about disadvantaged people in general?

I personally am a lot more invested in the deaf culture, so I'm more informed about particularly the deaf culture. Not sure about other disabilities, but I can't imagine why not. The reasoning would be the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Members of the deaf community tend to view deafness as a difference in human experience rather than a disability.[3][4]

The community may include family members of deaf people and sign-language interpreters who identify with deaf culture and does not automatically include all people who are deaf or hard of hearing.[5] As one author writes, "it is not the extent of hearing loss that defines a member of the deaf community but the individual's own sense of identity and resultant actions."[6] As with all social groups that a person chooses to belong to, a person is a member of the deaf community if he or she "identifies him/herself as a member of the deaf community, and other members accept that person as a part of the community."[7]
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 12:59:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 12:52:55 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 2/11/2014 1:05:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/11/2014 12:45:57 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 2/11/2014 12:27:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/11/2014 12:21:16 PM, Cermank wrote:
Elaborating a little, for instance, they won't learn English. They'll learn sign language, and live with other deaf people/ people with profound hearing loss. Attend a special school and restrict their dependence on 'normal' people.

There is also, sometimes, resistance to things like cochlear implants which can restore hearing.

Yeah, people I know with cochlear implants are generally dissatisfied with it. Something about it causing headaches. Since they are normal hearing aids fitted inside your head, making you hear everything (even background noise that your brain mutes for better focus and understanding)

Not always, and your brain can learn to mute things post-implant, too. But yes, there are downsides--yet when I've seen folks who were resistant to it, it wasn't those things that made them reject the idea.

I feel like it's all a sort of reflexive defensiveness stemming from our tendency to create groups.

True. The defensiveness isnt without reason, though. The fact remains that proper integration into the society is something that would be extremely difficult, impossible even. The best they can hope for is an 'almost'. Almost being able to understand people, almost having normal conversations, almost making normal friends. Considering that happiness IS something everyone strives for in their lives, I sincerely think perhaps disaggregation is the best for them.

I've noticed that people who fight pretty hard for the challenge thrown their way, and have a clearer speech and can understand people to an extent, find it harder to live life normally. Considering then their disability is often overlooked- and they don't get the special consideration that they usually get. And for what? The extra challenge to integrate into the society that won't really give them a fair deal.

Well, I don't think that's fair. In the first place, I would argue they find it easier to live normally. They can actually communicate with the majority of people, even if it is not at peak efficiency. In an emergency they can actually get their point across, instead of standing there wishing people understood them. Attempting to integrate expands your options. Choosing to refuse to do that limits them.

Easier to live, yes. Easier to be happy? I'm not sure.

Their point is to shun the normal society and live with people that 'understand' them. People with similar disability. How is it too different than what we usually do?

It isn't. But there's a difference between hanging out with your in group and cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And given that usually emergencies are not that common, it isn't really a make or break judgement point for a life choice.

Well, emergencies aren't common, but "emergencies" are...though that's a whole different complaint/rant from me.

Regardless, though, there are negatives to refusing to learn how to integrate. And no benefits--because it doesn't preclude the person from continuing to hang out with their "in group", except inasmuch as their in group frowns on it.

The difficulty portion comes because hearing impaired people who try to learn a language can't really grasp the nuances of the language- and often struggle with pronunciations. So having a 'normal' conversation with normal people is often a task- for both the parties. With people who know ONLY sign language, communication is obviously naught. Given the disability, learning two languages is often too ambitious. However, if you forego English, for example- and learn sign language- you have the option of inducting yourself into the community of people like you. A better chance at normal social interactions, a normal life.

But this discussion seemed predicated on not an inability, but a refusal. Those are two different things. By all means, learn sign language first. But to refuse to learn any spoken English, if you're capable of learning spoken English, is a recipe for disaster with no upside.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 1:09:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 12:59:47 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/14/2014 12:52:55 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 2/11/2014 1:05:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/11/2014 12:45:57 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 2/11/2014 12:27:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/11/2014 12:21:16 PM, Cermank wrote:

Well, I don't think that's fair. In the first place, I would argue they find it easier to live normally. They can actually communicate with the majority of people, even if it is not at peak efficiency. In an emergency they can actually get their point across, instead of standing there wishing people understood them. Attempting to integrate expands your options. Choosing to refuse to do that limits them.

Easier to live, yes. Easier to be happy? I'm not sure.

Their point is to shun the normal society and live with people that 'understand' them. People with similar disability. How is it too different than what we usually do?

It isn't. But there's a difference between hanging out with your in group and cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Lol, interesting analogy.

And given that usually emergencies are not that common, it isn't really a make or break judgement point for a life choice.

Well, emergencies aren't common, but "emergencies" are...though that's a whole different complaint/rant from me.

Regardless, though, there are negatives to refusing to learn how to integrate. And no benefits--because it doesn't preclude the person from continuing to hang out with their "in group", except inasmuch as their in group frowns on it.


The difficulty portion comes because hearing impaired people who try to learn a language can't really grasp the nuances of the language- and often struggle with pronunciations. So having a 'normal' conversation with normal people is often a task- for both the parties. With people who know ONLY sign language, communication is obviously naught. Given the disability, learning two languages is often too ambitious. However, if you forego English, for example- and learn sign language- you have the option of inducting yourself into the community of people like you. A better chance at normal social interactions, a normal life.

But this discussion seemed predicated on not an inability, but a refusal. Those are two different things. By all means, learn sign language first. But to refuse to learn any spoken English, if you're capable of learning spoken English, is a recipe for disaster with no upside.

The refusal stems from inability though, in a sense. Because they *can't* do justice to both the languages, they are choosing the one which gives them a better shot at life. They regard deafness as a different way of life, rather than a disability, in traditional sense.

Regardless, how much English do you think they must learn, if they should. The few words, as in "stop", "help", "pain", "food" -esque, or enough to express themselves fully?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 1:18:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 1:09:06 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 2/14/2014 12:59:47 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/14/2014 12:52:55 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 2/11/2014 1:05:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/11/2014 12:45:57 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 2/11/2014 12:27:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/11/2014 12:21:16 PM, Cermank wrote:

Well, I don't think that's fair. In the first place, I would argue they find it easier to live normally. They can actually communicate with the majority of people, even if it is not at peak efficiency. In an emergency they can actually get their point across, instead of standing there wishing people understood them. Attempting to integrate expands your options. Choosing to refuse to do that limits them.

Easier to live, yes. Easier to be happy? I'm not sure.

Their point is to shun the normal society and live with people that 'understand' them. People with similar disability. How is it too different than what we usually do?

It isn't. But there's a difference between hanging out with your in group and cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Lol, interesting analogy.

And given that usually emergencies are not that common, it isn't really a make or break judgement point for a life choice.

Well, emergencies aren't common, but "emergencies" are...though that's a whole different complaint/rant from me.

Regardless, though, there are negatives to refusing to learn how to integrate. And no benefits--because it doesn't preclude the person from continuing to hang out with their "in group", except inasmuch as their in group frowns on it.


The difficulty portion comes because hearing impaired people who try to learn a language can't really grasp the nuances of the language- and often struggle with pronunciations. So having a 'normal' conversation with normal people is often a task- for both the parties. With people who know ONLY sign language, communication is obviously naught. Given the disability, learning two languages is often too ambitious. However, if you forego English, for example- and learn sign language- you have the option of inducting yourself into the community of people like you. A better chance at normal social interactions, a normal life.

But this discussion seemed predicated on not an inability, but a refusal. Those are two different things. By all means, learn sign language first. But to refuse to learn any spoken English, if you're capable of learning spoken English, is a recipe for disaster with no upside.

The refusal stems from inability though, in a sense. Because they *can't* do justice to both the languages, they are choosing the one which gives them a better shot at life. They regard deafness as a different way of life, rather than a disability, in traditional sense.

Regardless, how much English do you think they must learn, if they should. The few words, as in "stop", "help", "pain", "food" -esque, or enough to express themselves fully?

Frankly, the more, the better. I mean, it's obviously their choice. And if they have trouble, they have trouble. But they should be learning as much as they can--because every chunk of the dominant language they don't learn has the potential to harm them, whether it's in terms of personal interaction or in terms of things like business transactions.

I feel like the refusal is often, as I said before, more of a reflex than a considered position.

More of a "Well, screw you guys!" than a "I've tried, and have been unsuccessful".

Not always, of course. But I'm speaking of those who refuse, and that's been my general impression of certainly a subset. It's not unlike certain immigrant populations that refuse to learn the dominant language. Yes, they have their connection to their in group. But they'd get that either way. When they outright refuse to bother learning any of the dominant language, it only hurts them, and it's not as though learning it precludes their membership in the "in group" of their choice.

I know some sign language. And some Spanish. (And, for no reason, a bit of latin). Not enough that I'm fluent by any means. But enough that I can usually get my point across (and dangit, I'll just spell it in sign if I have to). It's not the dominant language anywhere I live, but I do have to enter those cultures on occasion, and I want to facilitate communication when I do. Deaf folks, and other subset groups, have to enter the "majority" culture all the time. Shun as much as you want, but it's going to happen--and so a refusal to even try seems foolish.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 12:55:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 12:54:29 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 2/11/2014 5:37:46 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/11/2014 12:17:50 PM, Cermank wrote:
There is this sub culture, where people who were born deaf, or have a profound hearing loss, refuse to learn normal language. The reasoning is something along the lines of- "Because the normal people can't ever understand us, we'll make a disjoint elite group existing within the normal society that refuses to let the normal people engage with them." They learn sign language, and that's the only thing they know.

I'm not sure of how prevalent this thinking is in other disadvantaged groups, Im more interested in hearing disabled people in any case. Do you think its justified? Practical?

If you can't communicate in the dominant language of your country (even by reading/writing), then you need to learn. If you refuse to learn, you're an idiot.

Why? [ Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd do away with the ad homs. ]

It's not an ad hominem because I'm not using it to support an argument, it's just disparaging is all.

You're an idiot because you are deliberately hampering your ability to communicate with other people. It's one thing to be uninformed, like if you're a recent immigrant, or unable, like if you're Deaf, but willful ignorance is never okay.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 1:08:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you can live with it without harming anyone, then go for it.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown