My grandmother lost her hearing to meningitis around age 12, while my grandfather went deaf through his work as a machinist (presumably in his 20s). Her deafness was profound -- the only time I ever saw her react to sound was when balloon burst beside her. His was a bit better and could interpret some sounds with a hearing aid.
Neither of them knew ASL, but were fluent lip readers [They met at lip reading class!] To some extent I believe that my speech was influenced by their deafness. To make myself understood I needed to face them and an enunciate.
Stories aside, this article is a bit strange:
It is quite common for deaf people, when they are
dreaming, to not only communicate in their dreams using
sign language, but also to communicate telepathically
and sometimes even verbally even though they may not
know how to speak verbally in the waking world.
I'm a deaf person with some speech training. When I dream, I rarely use sign language. I often notice myself talking verbally more often and sometimes even use "telepathy" to communicate with other dream figures. I think these dreams that I have is a reflection of my desire to be "normal" or at least mask the reality of my disability from myself.
I don't think it's unique to deaf people though, but we might be able to notice the difference better. How would you know whether you're using your voice or "telepathy" in your dreams?
I have heard that babies do not realize that their thoughts are private and they assume that thinking by itself is a form of communication. I have always been skeptical of it and never understood how would anyone even figure that out or verify it. The paragraph you quoted gives me an anchor point and suggests it might be true.
I have a friend who was very nervous about speaking in English, but he dreamed fluently in it. We knew because he talked a lot, rather continuously, in his sleep. Extrapolating that I can imagine a deaf person dreaming verbal communication.
It's not a stretch to imagine this if you think of it not as "babies believe they can communicate with thoughts" but rather "babies haven't realized that they need to communicate". They simply neglect the step of ensuring that others know the same things as themselves. People who retain this flaw into adulthood are called programmers.
I have heard that babies do not realize that their thoughts are private and assume that thinking by itself is a form of communication.
I haven't heard this one before, but it wouldn't surprise me. Children up to age 7 or so can't appreciate the fact that other people's experiences are any different from theirs (egocentrism). This is why kids will do things like bury their faces and say "you can't see me!". They don't understand that just because they can't see you, you can still see them.
It's not a big stretch from there to them believing that if they hear their internal monologue, that other people hear it as well.
>This is why kids will do things like bury their faces and say "you can't see me!". They don't understand that just because they can't see you, you can still see them.
In the game of peekaboo (peepo, or whatever you call it) an adult pretends to be hidden by putting their hands over their eyes, they say "peekaboo" (or whatever) and reveal themselves as if appearing suddenly - this game is often played with very young (pre-vocal) children.
I wonder what the relationship is, whether the kids really feel internally they are hidden or if they mimic that which is presented to them? It seems straightforward, but perhaps it's an emperors new clothes thing - the kid thinks initially that the person isn't hidden (though their identity is) but comes to learn that they should think the person is hidden, that's what the game is.
Obviously it's complex, hiding your facial features from a myopic infant will make you appear no longer to be a person (or at least not the person they recognise, "where's Mummy gone all I see now is a blur", and then revealing those features is a surprise. One has effectively disappeared and reappeared just like an adult watching someone put on camouflage and disappear in to and return from undergrowth when that person didn't really leave your field of view.
>It's not a big stretch from there to them believing that if they hear their internal monologue, that other people hear it as well.
I think it's a huge leap.
Not that one shouldn't take it as an hypothesis, just that assuming hidden brain functions act on hidden sense data in a particular manner base on equivalence of senses seems like it would need a lot of effort to demonstrate.
This is the sort of leap people make in assuming thought in animals - "that dog smiled he must have a sense of humour an internal conscious function that responds to humorous situations just like I have".
> I have heard that babies do not realize that their thoughts are private and they assume that thinking by itself is a form of communication.
I've occasionally noticed other adults say odd things, followed a bit later by "oh crap, I said that out loud?", or more frequently people will "think out loud". I've also noticed once or twice (I think I might have to be fairly well distracted for this) that someone would say "hi" in passing and I'd say "hi" back... and then a few steps later realize I hadn't actually said anything, just thought it at them (rather like how on a sizable fraction of conference calls, there's at least one person who forgets to un-mute their phone when talking).
...also my wife sometimes says I'm supposed to be able to read her mind on a number of topics, but I think that's different.
Comments
I had two deaf grandparents.
My grandmother lost her hearing to meningitis around age 12, while my grandfather went deaf through his work as a machinist (presumably in his 20s). Her deafness was profound -- the only time I ever saw her react to sound was when balloon burst beside her. His was a bit better and could interpret some sounds with a hearing aid.
Neither of them knew ASL, but were fluent lip readers [They met at lip reading class!] To some extent I believe that my speech was influenced by their deafness. To make myself understood I needed to face them and an enunciate.
Stories aside, this article is a bit strange:
I'm a deaf person with some speech training. When I dream, I rarely use sign language. I often notice myself talking verbally more often and sometimes even use "telepathy" to communicate with other dream figures. I think these dreams that I have is a reflection of my desire to be "normal" or at least mask the reality of my disability from myself.
I don't think it's unique to deaf people though, but we might be able to notice the difference better. How would you know whether you're using your voice or "telepathy" in your dreams?
I'm also hard-of-hearing, but went to a school for the deaf for several years.
When rooming with others (say, on school trips, which were fairly frequent), some of my schoolmates would talk in their sleep, and others would sign.
According to my college roommates, I used to do both with some regularity.
As for telepathy: you're probably correct in asking "How would we know?" Perhaps self-reporting after dreams?
I have heard that babies do not realize that their thoughts are private and they assume that thinking by itself is a form of communication. I have always been skeptical of it and never understood how would anyone even figure that out or verify it. The paragraph you quoted gives me an anchor point and suggests it might be true.
I have a friend who was very nervous about speaking in English, but he dreamed fluently in it. We knew because he talked a lot, rather continuously, in his sleep. Extrapolating that I can imagine a deaf person dreaming verbal communication.
It's not a stretch to imagine this if you think of it not as "babies believe they can communicate with thoughts" but rather "babies haven't realized that they need to communicate". They simply neglect the step of ensuring that others know the same things as themselves. People who retain this flaw into adulthood are called programmers.
I have heard that babies do not realize that their thoughts are private and assume that thinking by itself is a form of communication.
I haven't heard this one before, but it wouldn't surprise me. Children up to age 7 or so can't appreciate the fact that other people's experiences are any different from theirs (egocentrism). This is why kids will do things like bury their faces and say "you can't see me!". They don't understand that just because they can't see you, you can still see them.
It's not a big stretch from there to them believing that if they hear their internal monologue, that other people hear it as well.
>This is why kids will do things like bury their faces and say "you can't see me!". They don't understand that just because they can't see you, you can still see them.
In the game of peekaboo (peepo, or whatever you call it) an adult pretends to be hidden by putting their hands over their eyes, they say "peekaboo" (or whatever) and reveal themselves as if appearing suddenly - this game is often played with very young (pre-vocal) children.
I wonder what the relationship is, whether the kids really feel internally they are hidden or if they mimic that which is presented to them? It seems straightforward, but perhaps it's an emperors new clothes thing - the kid thinks initially that the person isn't hidden (though their identity is) but comes to learn that they should think the person is hidden, that's what the game is.
Obviously it's complex, hiding your facial features from a myopic infant will make you appear no longer to be a person (or at least not the person they recognise, "where's Mummy gone all I see now is a blur", and then revealing those features is a surprise. One has effectively disappeared and reappeared just like an adult watching someone put on camouflage and disappear in to and return from undergrowth when that person didn't really leave your field of view.
>It's not a big stretch from there to them believing that if they hear their internal monologue, that other people hear it as well.
I think it's a huge leap.
Not that one shouldn't take it as an hypothesis, just that assuming hidden brain functions act on hidden sense data in a particular manner base on equivalence of senses seems like it would need a lot of effort to demonstrate.
This is the sort of leap people make in assuming thought in animals - "that dog smiled he must have a sense of humour an internal conscious function that responds to humorous situations just like I have".
> I have heard that babies do not realize that their thoughts are private and they assume that thinking by itself is a form of communication.
I've occasionally noticed other adults say odd things, followed a bit later by "oh crap, I said that out loud?", or more frequently people will "think out loud". I've also noticed once or twice (I think I might have to be fairly well distracted for this) that someone would say "hi" in passing and I'd say "hi" back... and then a few steps later realize I hadn't actually said anything, just thought it at them (rather like how on a sizable fraction of conference calls, there's at least one person who forgets to un-mute their phone when talking).
...also my wife sometimes says I'm supposed to be able to read her mind on a number of topics, but I think that's different.