[olalonde]

My comparison was aimed at your second point. Deaf people not considering it as a disability is a coping mechanism. If there was a cure for deafness, nearly all deaf people would take it and conversely, almost no one intentionally seeks to become deaf (of course, there are exceptions).

[keiferski]

It is not as simple as you're suggesting here. Deaf people have their own culture and language, and while it is built on a lack of something considered normal by others, that doesn't mean it's inherently just a disability that would / should be eliminated unquestionably.

Consider a similar example: if immigrant parents could instantly make their children forget their native languages and learn English fluently, many would choose to do so – as it would give the children more economic/social advantages. And yet I don't think we really want to say that not doing that, and instead retaining the native language and culture, would be a coping mechanism.

Culture and disability is a really complicated thing and deaf culture specifically should not be brushed away as just a coping mechanism.

(Side note: I am deaf in one ear and agree with the commenter above that it's actually a benefit for going to sleep, but of course this isn't considered a benefit by society at large.)

[terryf]

Thank you for this explanation. This is really interesting. I'm not deaf, so this is very difficult for me to understand, but that doesn't mean it's not important.

I'm trying to find something to compare to, but not sure if I'm getting this right.

I can't sense radio waves in the 87-110Mhz range, but let's imagine that most people can. This means that they can hear all the FM radios all the time.

Certainly, this would be very annoying, especially if you are not able to block it out. In this sense, I would be better off - one less annoying thing to deal with.

Of course, everyone else would be able to be up to date with all the news instantly, as they would always hear them from the radio. And, assuming you also had the ability to "tune the station" that you can hear, you would be able to listen to music or interesting shows all the time. This would be good and fun.

Would I miss the ability that everyone else has? This is a very interesting question and I don't know the answer.

But, I would think that if someone gave me a wearable FM radio that I could turn on/off at will, I would think that I certainly would accept that.

Again, I'm sorry if this is not a good analogy and as all analogies this doesn't really capture all the nuances of course, but would this be similar at least in theory?

[8372049]

> I would think that if someone gave me a wearable FM radio that I could turn on/off at will, I would think that I certainly would accept that.

In this way it is an apt analogy, since many deaf get CI. The implant process removes any residual hearing, so the moment they turn it off everything is completely quiet. It's nowhere near a fully qualified hearing, however, so it's useful as a supplement to sign language, not as a replacement.

I don't know of a good analogy for it, but sign language obviously also carries with it some advantages and disadvantages that vocal communication does not. You need a flashlight to talk in darkness, but you can talk (sign) as much as you want in a library, through a soundprood window or in a noisy environment.

The conversation dynamics are also completely different. Often everyone will sit in a big circle with multiple conversations going on at once, and you can "opt in" to the one you want by watching whoever is speaking.

[keiferski]

Yeah, it's complicated for sure. I think this is probably a good example, except that deaf people functionally get along fine in the world, for the most part. At least nowadays. Whereas in your example, it seems like the people without the radio ability are just inherently behind everyone else in terms of information access. And in your example world, the people without the radio ability would need to have their own unique subculture and language where they can communicate and relate to each other in ways inaccessible to the radio masses.

Personally, I do think the sense of hearing is important enough to be worth acquiring. But the underlying point, I think, is that deaf culture is not just a rationalization or coping mechanism. It's a fully-fledged culture. And while gaining the sense of hearing is probably "worth it" and a net gain, you're also losing something in the process.

To use myself as an example (although I'm not completely deaf) – while I wouldn't mind having my deaf ear fixed, being half-deaf has also shaped my personality and sense of self. So I wouldn't want to just label it as an unimportant coping mechanism, as it's much more fundamental than that – even if I ultimately did want to fix it. I imagine deaf people getting cochlear implants feel somewhat similar.

Evaluating it purely as a broken thing that is now fixed doesn't capture that aspect. And it's worth reflecting on how this idea that "useful = always better" is just a default assumption.

The language learning example I used is a good one in this instance: while it's nice that people can communicate more by learning English, it's also a process of destruction as local languages and cultures are eliminated and assimilated into a global English-language culture. The assumption that vocal communication + hearing is superior to sign language is a similar situation.

[8372049]

> Deaf people not considering it as a disability is a coping mechanism.

No, it's not, and this claim just shows your ignorance and prejudice.

> If there was a cure for deafness, nearly all deaf people would take it

This is pure conjecture, and I frankly think you are wrong.

> almost no one intentionally seeks to become deaf

Do you genuinely not understand that this has more to do with culture, language, habits and the familiar, not to mention ignorance of what it means to be deaf/Deaf, than an accurate judgment of the qualities of hearing vs. silence?