Dysfunction/Disability and Evolutionary Biology

Mick · #1 by **Mick** » Feb 20, 2012 9:25 pm

When people born deaf or blind as a result of some aspect of their biology, we would normally label them as disabled. We say that their ear or its mechanisms or their eye and whatever mechanism of it has a dysfunction, or a lacking, or an impairment, or it is otherwise acting in some way which it should not (in the normative sense). We also say that it is something which needs to be fixed in light of it functioning improperly.

But, this sort of talk is heavily teleological in nature. It seems to imply that there is a sort of biological purpose or goal orientated function of the ear and eye. Yet, I'm puzzled how a modern, plausible, secular and evolutionary biology accounts for this. It seems to me that the basic mechanisms of a secular, human evolution involve no more than natural selection, drift, mutation and migration. But none of these mechanisms account for purpose or goal orientated processes. At most, we only have a basis to think that the ability to hear and see has proven useful for survival and procreation, not that the ear or eye has a purposeful function, namely to give the ability to hear or see.

Statistically speaking, I can certainly see the basis for inferring that some random human being should be able to hear or see. But this would be no more than inductive expectations for how human ears or eyes often do function rather than how they should function in the normative sense. But, these are no more than statistical inferences, it would not account for that implication of purpose or goal orientation we tend to attribute to our body parts.

Yet, if there is no secular and plausible biological interpretation of dysfunction/disability, then it seems as though we either need to alter our conception of dysfunction, drop our secular biology or eschew of any plausible biological basis for dysfunction, perhaps disability is more of a social construct than a biological one.

Catholics have a ready answer for this. We believe in a final causality, though I doubt this will be very popular here. I wonder how you account for it, or perhaps you don't account for it at all. Tell me stuff.

chairman bill · #2 by **chairman bill** » Feb 20, 2012 9:29 pm

The idea of disability as social construct has a long history. In the social model of disability, impairment & disability are seen as distinct & seperate issues.

Sityl · #3 by **Sityl** » Feb 20, 2012 9:53 pm

If it's seen to be detrimental to survivability, then doctors fix it, which improves survivabilty. I don't see how that would argue against evolution.

Mr.Samsa · #4 by **Mr.Samsa** » Feb 21, 2012 2:57 am

Mick wrote:When people born deaf or blind as a result of some aspect of their biology, we would normally label them as disabled. We say that their ear or its mechanisms or their eye and whatever mechanism of it has a dysfunction, or a lacking, or an impairment, or it is otherwise acting in some way which it should not (in the normative sense). We also say that it is something which needs to be fixed in light of it functioning improperly.

I think what you're missing is that we can say that something needs to be "fixed" in order to "function properly" without any teleological or evolutionary implications at all. When we discuss disease or disorder in fields like medicine and psychology, we aren't referring to some concept of how things "should" be, but rather it's an entirely relativistic claim that is based on an average or norm.

So even if, for example, deafness was an entirely normal evolutionary mutation, it would still be a disorder because it presents difficulties for the individual in functioning in their general environment, and because it is significantly different from the range of hearing in the general population.

Mick · #5 by **Mick** » Feb 21, 2012 3:07 am

Sityl wrote:If it's seen to be detrimental to survivability, then doctors fix it, which improves survivabilty. I don't see how that would argue against evolution.

There is no argument against evolution here.

Mick · #6 by **Mick** » Feb 21, 2012 3:25 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:I think what you're missing is that we can say that something needs to be "fixed" in order to "function properly" without any teleological or evolutionary implications at all. When we discuss disease or disorder in fields like medicine and psychology, we aren't referring to some concept of how things "should" be, but rather it's an entirely relativistic claim that is based on an average or norm. So even if, for example, deafness was an entirely normal evolutionary mutation, it would still be a disorder because it presents difficulties for the individual in functioning in their general environment, and because it is significantly different from the range of hearing in the general population.

I don't know what you mean by "it presents difficulty for the individual in functioning in their environment". What sort of difficulties? One's blackness could very well create difficulties for an individual living within a white racist environment, and we could easily envision a scenario of such skin color to be significantly different range of color from the skin in the general population.

You might object that a racist environment concerns people more than anything else, but why would that matter? They are part of his environment just the same as whatever delimitations are a part of the deafened individual's surroundings.

Moreover, I can't imagine why significant difference in range of hearing than the general population has anything to do with some normative element. So what if it falls outside some generalized statistical scope? What would that have any relevance about a dysfunction of the ear?

Mr.Samsa · #7 by **Mr.Samsa** » Feb 21, 2012 3:53 am

Mick wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:I think what you're missing is that we can say that something needs to be "fixed" in order to "function properly" without any teleological or evolutionary implications at all. When we discuss disease or disorder in fields like medicine and psychology, we aren't referring to some concept of how things "should" be, but rather it's an entirely relativistic claim that is based on an average or norm. So even if, for example, deafness was an entirely normal evolutionary mutation, it would still be a disorder because it presents difficulties for the individual in functioning in their general environment, and because it is significantly different from the range of hearing in the general population.

I don't know what you mean by "it presents difficulty for the individual in functioning in their environment". What sort of difficulties? One's blackness could very well create difficulties for an individual living within a white racist environment, and we could easily envision a scenario of such skin color to be significantly different range of color from the skin in the general population.

You might object that a racist environment concerns people more than anything else, but why would that matter? They are part of his environment just the same as whatever delimitations are a part of the deafened individual's surroundings.

I think the difference is that being black doesn't affect your functioning, it just affects how people treat you. But essentially we fall into the same arguments made for including homosexuality as a mental disorder, where it was included as the evidence of the time suggested that being homosexual resulted in a number of problems and that it needed to be "fixed", but later evidence found that the problems weren't a result of being homosexual, rather it was a result of how people viewed and treated homosexuals.

The important difference is that the trait is irrelevant, and the problems are caused by how they're treated. That is, the disorder that the person would have would be depression or anxiety or low self-esteem, not "homosexuality" or "blackness", and so the kid who gets picked on for not being very good at sports doesn't have the disorder/disease of "unathleticness". Contrast this with deafness where even in a perfect society where they are treated equally, and every effort is made to ensure that subtitles are made for movies, and sign language given for speeches and so on, they would still have some disabilities and difficulties functioning in society due specifically to their deafness.

Mick wrote:Moreover, I can't imagine why significant difference in range of hearing than the general population has anything to do with some normative element. So what if it falls outside some generalized statistical scope? What would that have any relevance about a dysfunction of the ear?

Because if it's statistically "normal" then it's argued not to be a disorder or disease as that would make the term functionally useless. So it's defined that way mostly for reasons of pragmatism. For example, if someone's mother dies and it makes them sad for a week, then it makes no sense to call this a "disorder", because whilst it affects the functioning of the individual (at least temporarily), it's an entirely normal response that doesn't require any form of treatment or intervention. Equally so, if someone finds that their eyes get blurry for a few minutes after reading in the dark for hours, then it makes no sense to call them "blind" or suggest that they need glasses to fix their problem.

It's important to remember that the axioms and assumptions made by fields like medicine and psychology are not based on the "objective" state of things, but instead are nearly entirely relevant to the society they find themselves in.

Mick · #8 by **Mick** » Feb 21, 2012 5:03 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:I think the difference is that being black doesn't affect your functioning, it just affects how people treat you.

Well, it's your functioning within your environment.

If you change the environment so that the restrictive element is not there (change the racist attitude), then a black person can function "better" within that environment, sure, I suppose. But that's no different than changing a restrictive environment for the people we commonly view as disabled today. In either case, we're changing the environment which neutralizes the problem. You'll notice that the Deaf are not so disabled within their respective cultures, and with good reason. And so I think this raises a good question: is the person disabled in virtue of his own property or is society a disabler?

In any case, you can't treat people and their attitudes as something other than his environment.

But essentially we fall into the same arguments made for including homosexuality as a mental disorder, where it was included as the evidence of the time suggested that being homosexual resulted in a number of problems and that it needed to be "fixed", but later evidence found that the problems weren't a result of being homosexual, rather it was a result of how people viewed and treated homosexuals.

My abovementioned point applies here too.

There are other problems with homosexuality which motivated this sort of treatment, and you can see it still today. Namely the thought is this: It is unnatural. It's a perversion. Here teleology raises its head again in the form of something like natural law theory.

The important difference is that the trait is irrelevant, and the problems are caused by how they're treated. That is, the disorder that the person would have would be depression or anxiety or low self-esteem, not "homosexuality" or "blackness", and so the kid who gets picked on for not being very good at sports doesn't have the disorder/disease of "unathleticness". Contrast this with deafness where even in a perfect society where they are treated equally, and every effort is made to ensure that subtitles are made for movies, and sign language given for speeches and so on, they would still have some disabilities and difficulties functioning in society due specifically to their deafness.

What society? A hearing society? Well, sure. But what Deaf societies such as those in Maryland? I'd fight you on that one. It seems as though you're using the hearing world as the norm to define the Deaf as disabled. They are disadvantaged only relation to the hearing society and its strictures. That's awfully self-serving! But the tables can be easily turned: Deaf brains are 'wired' to sense music in ways the hearing cannot. If their society was structured in such a way to depend on this ability at the exclusion of others, would the hearing be disabled in relation to Deaf society?

A far better word to use here is disadvantaged. Your society is structured in such a way which disadvantages the deafened person. The deafened person doesn't have some lacking, a deficiency, or whatever. He stands in a disadvantaged relation to society.

Because if it's statistically "normal" then it's argued not to be a disorder or disease as that would make the term functionally useless.

If the sun leaked radiation so that 90% of us and 90% of all new generations were blind so that blindness is then a statistical norm, would it cease to be a disease?

John P. M. · #9 by **John P. M.** » Feb 21, 2012 6:00 am

Mick wrote:
But, this sort of talk is heavily teleological in nature. It seems to imply that there is a sort of biological purpose or goal orientated function of the ear and eye.

No, not teleological, just functional and pragmatic. The "goal" is to have senses that inform us of our environment to the best of the ability of these senses. Some people are born with, or develop, an impaired eyesight, to varying degrees - maybe not more than that they need glasses, like quite a few do. If so, they then don't reach the "goal" of having eyesight that would be to the best ability of a fully functioning eye - to the ability we know eyes are functionally capable. But that's not a final, teleological goal - it's just a stop at the maximum capacity for human eyesight. If there were people who were born with the ability to see a larger, wider range of the spectrum than is normal for us today, then we would probably say they had better eyesight (if everything else was up to par with 'normal' eyes). Then their sight might be the "goal".

A battery can be empty, half full, or full (or anything in between). When it is full, it doesn't mean it has reached a teleological goal of 'battery perfectness' - it has just reached the capacity of it's form and function. It's a practical limitation. It will work at less than full capacity as well, but we deem it to be "best" when it is full or nearly full, because then it functions at, or nearly at, peak performance.

Mr.Samsa · **#10** by **Mr.Samsa** » Feb 21, 2012 7:56 am

Mick wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:I think the difference is that being black doesn't affect your functioning, it just affects how people treat you.
Well, it's your functioning within your environment.

If you change the environment so that the restrictive element is not there (change the racist attitude), then a black person can function "better" within that environment, sure, I suppose. But that's no different than changing a restrictive environment for the people we commonly view as disabled today. In either case, we're changing the environment which neutralizes the problem. You'll notice that the Deaf are not so disabled within their respective cultures, and with good reason. And so I think this raises a good question: is the person disabled in virtue of his own property or is society a disabler?

In any case, you can't treat people and their attitudes as something other than his environment.

But the point is that "being black" isn't something that causes depression or anxiety or whatever, it's simply a mediating variable. As such, it makes no sense to say that "being black" is a disease or a disorder, as the particulars of the situation are just an arbitrary manifestation of the real problem - which is the underlying racist attitudes.

As for your latter question, the answer is (to a degree) both: a person is both disabled in virtue of his own property and society can be a disabler.

Mick wrote:
But essentially we fall into the same arguments made for including homosexuality as a mental disorder, where it was included as the evidence of the time suggested that being homosexual resulted in a number of problems and that it needed to be "fixed", but later evidence found that the problems weren't a result of being homosexual, rather it was a result of how people viewed and treated homosexuals.

My abovementioned point applies here too.

There are other problems with homosexuality which motivated this sort of treatment, and you can see it still today. Namely the thought is this: It is unnatural. It's a perversion. Here teleology raises its head again in the form of something like natural law theory.

This point is arguable. Yes, there may have been bigoted attitudes which made people less likely to question the decision to deem homosexuality a disorder, but it quite clearly wasn't the main motivation or justification. As historical evidence shows, the main reason for this line of thought was mostly ignorance (of homosexual culture of the time), and a false correlation (of observing that all homosexuals who visit the psychologist happened to have mental issues). When evidence was found to demonstrate that homosexuality was not a mental disorder, psychologists and psychiatrists reversed their earlier decision (despite the fact that most of them probably still thought it was "unnatural"). So appeals to teleology here aren't really appropriate, as people at the time also thought things like sex before marriage was "unnatural", but nobody tried to define that as a disorder.

Mick wrote:

The important difference is that the trait is irrelevant, and the problems are caused by how they're treated. That is, the disorder that the person would have would be depression or anxiety or low self-esteem, not "homosexuality" or "blackness", and so the kid who gets picked on for not being very good at sports doesn't have the disorder/disease of "unathleticness". Contrast this with deafness where even in a perfect society where they are treated equally, and every effort is made to ensure that subtitles are made for movies, and sign language given for speeches and so on, they would still have some disabilities and difficulties functioning in society due specifically to their deafness.

What society? A hearing society? Well, sure.

The society that the person lives in - which universally is one where there is sound.

Mick wrote:But what Deaf societies such as those in Maryland? I'd fight you on that one. It seems as though you're using the hearing world as the norm to define the Deaf as disabled. They are disadvantaged only relation to the hearing society and its strictures. That's awfully self-serving! But the tables can be easily turned: Deaf brains are 'wired' to sense music in ways the hearing cannot. If their society was structured in such a way to depend on this ability at the exclusion of others, would the hearing be disabled in relation to Deaf society?

A far better word to use here is disadvantaged. Your society is structured in such a way which disadvantages the deafened person. The deafened person doesn't have some lacking, a deficiency, or whatever. He stands in a disadvantaged relation to society.

No, "disadvantaged" is not an appropriate term to use here as deaf people are disabled - i.e. they have a limitation on the function of their senses. Don't worry, I'm not being "hearing-centric" or "privileged" when I discuss society as necessarily requiring hearing because I come at this particular issue from a fairly unique perspective, having been born and raised deaf before gaining some function in my hearing from about 8 onwards. I understand why people in the Deaf culture fight so hard to "save" their culture, and it's not because there are no disadvantages to being deaf or because they are perfectly fine and functional, but it is precisely because they are disabled. It's a very lonely world being deaf and the only people they can really communicate to are the ones who know sign language - when you limit that population, you limit the range of their possible interactions in the world. This is why it's a disability. We can make changes to make things easier, and being deaf and going through hardship does have some incidental advantages ("it's character building!"), but at the end of the day, you still miss out on the sound of music, have to constantly look around your environment to avoid being hit by cars, intensely concentrate on everyone taking part in a conversation to try to piece together a coherent narrative and always being the one who misses out on the joke, etc.

Essentially, being deaf is definitely a disability. Any parent who has the opportunity to give their child hearing and refuses based on some romantic notion of "Deaf culture" or the idea that they're "not really disabled, they're just enabled in different ways", is simply a fucking moron. The same applies to the 'neurodiversity' movement and their ideas on autism being a "natural variation", therefore it's okay if their kid can't ever make eye contact, communicate or feed himself.

Mick wrote:
Because if it's statistically "normal" then it's argued not to be a disorder or disease as that would make the term functionally useless.

If the sun leaked radiation so that 90% of us and 90% of all new generations were blind so that blindness is then a statistical norm, would it cease to be a disease?

Yes, if it were some kind of wacky evolutionary adaptation, then it would no longer be a disease - in the same way that having skin susceptible to skin cancer is not a "disease", despite not being ideal for beings not wishing to die of cancer. This doesn't mean we can't work on trying to see though, in the same way we work on trying to fly, or hearts that pump for longer, or brains that are capable of higher intelligence, etc. It just wouldn't be defined as a "disease", as "blindness" would now be considered "normal functioning".

Mick · **#11** by **Mick** » Feb 22, 2012 5:58 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote:But the point is that "being black" isn't something that causes depression or anxiety or whatever, it's simply a mediating variable.

Well, so too with being deaf or blind, though you still wish to call them disabilities. :scratch:

As such, it makes no sense to say that "being black" is a disease or a disorder, as the particulars of the situation are just an arbitrary manifestation of the real problem - which is the underlying racist attitudes.

You gave a condition for which something would constitute a disability, I pointed out that blackness can fit that condition within a racist environment. You are now changing the criteria to specify some sort of special environment, namely one which isn't controlled on the basis of people's attitude. Would you agree?

As for your latter question, the answer is (to a degree) both: a person is both disabled in virtue of his own property and society can be a disabler.

Here then I see a social justice issue looming, one about minority rights.

The society that the person lives in - which universally is one where there is sound.

This is silly, and it is in disagreement with what the Deaf think of themselves too. In their community, there is no such disability, they get along just fine and are entirely functional and content. In fact, the Deaf have been stating this as far back as 1854, though the hearing world doesn't seem to get it. Instead, despite Deaf resistance, they keep insisting that they are, in fact, disabled. It's arrogance, and it is audism.

In fact, calling a deaf person disabled is often times offensive to them. They are differently abled, not disabled.

No, "disadvantaged" is not an appropriate term to use here as deaf people are disabled - i.e. they have a limitation on the function of their senses.

Limitation? hah. Well, so do the hearing people! I bet they can't hear as well as my dog. But if that's not what you meant by limitation, then perhaps you should use words which aren't so vague. And be careful to keep to your commitments of a social model rather than a biological one.

Don't worry, I'm not being "hearing-centric" or "privileged" when I discuss society as necessarily requiring hearing because I come at this particular issue from a fairly unique perspective, having been born and raised deaf before gaining some function in my hearing from about 8 onwards. I understand why people in the Deaf culture fight so hard to "save" their culture, and it's not because there are no disadvantages to being deaf or because they are perfectly fine and functional, but it is precisely because they are disabled. It's a very lonely world being deaf and the only people they can really communicate to are the ones who know sign language

I'm next to deaf too and I'm part of the Deaf community, so you hold no exclusive knowledge here.

I disagree with virtually everything you said. Loneliness strikes us all, neither the deaf nor the hearing are excluded. However, the Deaf world is not a lonely world, especially in our communities. We're a collective bunch who make good efforts to keep in contact with other deaf individuals and virtually anyone else who can communicate in ASL. Besides that, communication with the hearing world is relatively easy, we adapt and so do the hearing. I often write or lipread to communicate with them, as do many other deaf individuals. It's no hassle. In fact, it's fun; and by far, people are welcoming and interactive.

when you limit that population, you limit the range of their possible interactions in the world. This is why it's a disability.

You're using vague language again, and it's just as vulnerable to counterexamples such as blackness and homosexuality.

We can make changes to make things easier, and being deaf and going through hardship does have some incidental advantages ("it's character building!"), but at the end of the day, you still miss out on the sound of music,

No, no that's wrong. The Deaf can still very well enjoy music. As one article informs us:

"Deaf people sense vibration in the part of the brain that other people use for hearing – which helps explain how deaf musicians can sense music, and how deaf people can enjoy concerts and other musical events. "These findings suggest that the experience deaf people have when ‘feeling’ music is similar to the experience other people have when hearing music. The perception of the musical vibrations by the deaf is likely every bit as real as the equivalent sounds, since they are ultimately processed in the same part of the brain," says Dr. Dean Shibata, assistant professor of radiology at the University of Washington. "

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 035455.htm

I can attest to this on a phenomenological level, because I enjoy music. Hearing is just another form of feeling, and I'm telling you I can feel music, and it's very enjoyable. If your point is just that we don't enjoy music with our ears in the form of sound, then I'll just say, so what? We still enjoy it.

have to constantly look around your environment to avoid being hit by cars,

Oh, for Pete's sake, are you sure you're deaf? This is so automatic and fluid, that it's no problem at all. In fact, our brains are wired differently in such as way that we "capture more peripheral visual information" than hearing people. You sound like a hearing person interjecting his experience onto us, it's almost suspicious.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 171620.htm

intensely concentrate on everyone taking part in a conversation to try to piece together a coherent narrative and always being the one who misses out on the joke, etc.

On a hearing conversation with no good efforts made for inclusion? Well, sure, it's difficult, and we sometimes miss out if no good efforts are not made to be inclusive. But I don't see how that suggests anything special.

Essentially, being deaf is definitely a disability. Any parent who has the opportunity to give their child hearing and refuses based on some romantic notion of "Deaf culture" or the idea that they're "not really disabled, they're just enabled in different ways", is simply a fucking moron.

Well, we disagree. And I sincerely doubt you are Deaf. You might be deaf, or close to it. But you're not Deaf, I think.

Yes, if it were some kind of wacky evolutionary adaptation, then it would no longer be a disease - in the same way that having skin susceptible to skin cancer is not a "disease", despite not being ideal for beings not wishing to die of cancer. This doesn't mean we can't work on trying to see though, in the same way we work on trying to fly, or hearts that pump for longer, or brains that are capable of higher intelligence, etc. It just wouldn't be defined as a "disease", as "blindness" would now be considered "normal functioning".

Your idea of disease currently under scope is a social one, not a biological one. Thus, I don't see how you can appeal to evolutionary mechanisms.

Stormcrow · **#12** by **Stormcrow** » Feb 23, 2012 1:16 am

So, you are making the argument that, in the state of nature, a deaf person would suffer no disadvantage above and beyond the disadvantages suffered by an identical but non-deaf person?

IMO as a layman, disability or being "differently-abled" or whatever someone's preferred phrasing might be, lies in the factual situation that, in the absence of our modern society, the disabled person would be at a serious survival disadvantage. That doesn't imply teleological thinking, because in a different state of affairs, such as your example with the sun, being blind would confer a survival advantage and having vision might justly be termed a disability or handicap.

It is not unreasonable to think that, in time, being deaf or blind might not be seen as a handicap either, if society continues on to a point where a deaf or blind person is able to perfectly integrate into that society. Perhaps a society that relies on neural implants and cloud communication or something along those lines.

The teleology you're looking for is not here.

Mr.Samsa · **#13** by **Mr.Samsa** » Feb 23, 2012 2:03 am

Mick wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:But the point is that "being black" isn't something that causes depression or anxiety or whatever, it's simply a mediating variable.

Well, so too with being deaf or blind, though you still wish to call them disabilities.

Because being deaf results in you not being able to hear cars speeding towards you. If the fact of blackness resulted in similar deficiencies, then I would agree.

Mick wrote:
As such, it makes no sense to say that "being black" is a disease or a disorder, as the particulars of the situation are just an arbitrary manifestation of the real problem - which is the underlying racist attitudes.

You gave a condition for which something would constitute a disability, I pointed out that blackness can fit that condition within a racist environment. You are now changing the criteria to specify some sort of special environment, namely one which isn't controlled on the basis of people's attitude. Would you agree?

Not at all, I'm pointing out that being black in a racist environment would be similar to being "disadvantaged by society", whereas being deaf is being disabled by your particular traits and characteristics. The point is that there is no inherent disadvantage that is unique to "blackness", where there obviously is in regards to deafness.

If the majority of the population became deaf, and huge aspects of reality were changed to suit the now non-hearing people, then deafness would not be a disease/disorder. But as it stands now, sometimes being able to hang out with the Deaf community and then having to go out into the real world to buy groceries, or go to work, etc, means that there are still functional disabilities with regards to being deaf.

Mick wrote:

The society that the person lives in - which universally is one where there is sound.

This is silly, and it is in disagreement with what the Deaf think of themselves too. In their community, there is no such disability, they get along just fine and are entirely functional and content. In fact, the Deaf have been stating this as far back as 1854, though the hearing world doesn't seem to get it. Instead, despite Deaf resistance, they keep insisting that they are, in fact, disabled. It's arrogance, and it is audism.

In fact, calling a deaf person disabled is often times offensive to them. They are differently abled, not disabled.

I understand what the Deaf think of themselves, and a number of others groups feel the same; paraplegics, autistics, the blind, etc. But being able to cope, and even function quite successfully by making major changes in your life, does not suddenly make the disability disappear. Deaf people are, without a doubt, disabled - the only question is whether the disability will stand in their way to living a normal life or not.

Mick wrote:

No, "disadvantaged" is not an appropriate term to use here as deaf people are disabled - i.e. they have a limitation on the function of their senses.

Limitation? hah. Well, so do the hearing people! I bet they can't hear as well as my dog. But if that's not what you meant by limitation, then perhaps you should use words which aren't so vague. And be careful to keep to your commitments of a social model rather than a biological one.

No need to appeal to biological issues, as social issues are necessarily limited to the society you're discussing and the population within it - i.e. humans.

Mick wrote:

Don't worry, I'm not being "hearing-centric" or "privileged" when I discuss society as necessarily requiring hearing because I come at this particular issue from a fairly unique perspective, having been born and raised deaf before gaining some function in my hearing from about 8 onwards. I understand why people in the Deaf culture fight so hard to "save" their culture, and it's not because there are no disadvantages to being deaf or because they are perfectly fine and functional, but it is precisely because they are disabled. It's a very lonely world being deaf and the only people they can really communicate to are the ones who know sign language

I'm next to deaf too and I'm part of the Deaf community, so you hold no exclusive knowledge here.

I disagree with virtually everything you said. Loneliness strikes us all, neither the deaf nor the hearing are excluded. However, the Deaf world is not a lonely world, especially in our communities. We're a collective bunch who make good efforts to keep in contact with other deaf individuals and virtually anyone else who can communicate in ASL. Besides that, communication with the hearing world is relatively easy, we adapt and so do the hearing. I often write or lipread to communicate with them, as do many other deaf individuals. It's no hassle. In fact, it's fun; and by far, people are welcoming and interactive.

You say you disagree with what I say but then discuss all the difficulties and limitations to your world, thus confirming my points above. It's great that you find it fun, but a lot of people don't. They find it tedious, and frustrating, and difficult to communicate very simple messages to people.

Mick wrote:

when you limit that population, you limit the range of their possible interactions in the world. This is why it's a disability.
You're using vague language again, and it's just as vulnerable to counterexamples such as blackness and homosexuality.

I can't see how.

Mick wrote:

We can make changes to make things easier, and being deaf and going through hardship does have some incidental advantages ("it's character building!"), but at the end of the day, you still miss out on the sound of music,
No, no that's wrong. The Deaf can still very well enjoy music. As one article informs us:

"Deaf people sense vibration in the part of the brain that other people use for hearing – which helps explain how deaf musicians can sense music, and how deaf people can enjoy concerts and other musical events. "These findings suggest that the experience deaf people have when ‘feeling’ music is similar to the experience other people have when hearing music. The perception of the musical vibrations by the deaf is likely every bit as real as the equivalent sounds, since they are ultimately processed in the same part of the brain," says Dr. Dean Shibata, assistant professor of radiology at the University of Washington. "

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 035455.htm

I can attest to this on a phenomenological level, because I enjoy music. Hearing is just another form of feeling, and I'm telling you I can feel music, and it's very enjoyable. If your point is just that we don't enjoy music with our ears in the form of sound, then I'll just say, so what? We still enjoy it.

I never said you can't enjoy it, I said that you miss out on the sound of music.

Mick wrote:
have to constantly look around your environment to avoid being hit by cars,

Oh, for Pete's sake, are you sure you're deaf? This is so automatic and fluid, that it's no problem at all. In fact, our brains are wired differently in such as way that we "capture more peripheral visual information" than hearing people. You sound like a hearing person interjecting his experience onto us, it's almost suspicious.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 171620.htm

Just because it's become automatic doesn't make it any better. It can make you neurotic, paranoid and anxious whenever you cross a road - just because it's not an issue for you doesn't mean you can just ignore it when it affects other people.

Mick wrote:
intensely concentrate on everyone taking part in a conversation to try to piece together a coherent narrative and always being the one who misses out on the joke, etc.

On a hearing conversation with no good efforts made for inclusion? Well, sure, it's difficult, and we sometimes miss out if no good efforts are not made to be inclusive. But I don't see how that suggests anything special.

It suggests that in standard conversations and discourse, deaf people are unable to participate and socialise due to their inability to hear. This is what a disability is.

You can say the same thing about people in wheelchairs having no problem getting to the top floor of buildings, as long as the building has installed ramps and/or elevators and "good efforts" are made to be inclusive. It doesn't change the fact that their legs don't work and most buildings only have stairs.

Mick wrote:

Essentially, being deaf is definitely a disability. Any parent who has the opportunity to give their child hearing and refuses based on some romantic notion of "Deaf culture" or the idea that they're "not really disabled, they're just enabled in different ways", is simply a fucking moron.

Well, we disagree. And I sincerely doubt you are Deaf. You might be deaf, or close to it. But you're not Deaf, I think.

Which is why I never claimed to be Deaf.

Mick wrote:
Yes, if it were some kind of wacky evolutionary adaptation, then it would no longer be a disease - in the same way that having skin susceptible to skin cancer is not a "disease", despite not being ideal for beings not wishing to die of cancer. This doesn't mean we can't work on trying to see though, in the same way we work on trying to fly, or hearts that pump for longer, or brains that are capable of higher intelligence, etc. It just wouldn't be defined as a "disease", as "blindness" would now be considered "normal functioning".

Your idea of disease currently under scope is a social one, not a biological one. Thus, I don't see how you can appeal to evolutionary mechanisms.

Because evolutionary factors shape our biological makeup, which in turn determines statistical norms. Importantly, I have not appealed to evolutionary mechanisms as a criteria for assessing dysfunction and disability, so your assertion is irrelevant.

Mick · **#14** by **Mick** » Feb 23, 2012 4:04 am

Here's what you said, Samsa:

I think what you're missing is that we can say that something needs to be "fixed" in order to "function properly" without any teleological or evolutionary implications at all. When we discuss disease or disorder in fields like medicine and psychology, we aren't referring to some concept of how things "should" be, but rather it's an entirely relativistic claim that is based on an average or norm.

This was in reference to deafness and blindness. Here you state that we can talk about it without any evolutionary implications at all. But your above reference does just that, namely it depends on the idea of there being some evolutionary adaption for the statistical norm. And this point of mine doesn't depend on there being an evolutionary criteria to assess disability, but that there are implications regarding evolution.

What's more, I don't see why you'd need it to be a evolutionary adaption. If the sun leaked radiation and caused 90% of present and future human beings to go blind, then the statistical norm of the human population would be blind. But, according to your logic, then it fail to be a disease or a disorder: "Because if it's statistically "normal" then it's argued not to be a disorder or disease as that would make the term functionally useless." There's no need to talk about adaptions, this is a matter of frequency.

Not at all, I'm pointing out that being black in a racist environment would be similar to being "disadvantaged by society", whereas being deaf is being disabled by your particular traits and characteristics. The point is that there is no inherent disadvantage that is unique to "blackness", where there obviously is in regards to deafness.

No, you're being inconsistent. Your conception of disability is a social one, at least in part. It has an essential environmental aspect to it. Thus, there is no inherent disability to deafness on your model. On your model, if the disability is there at all, it is there in a relationship to the environment. Likewise, for blackness and racist societies. Blackness is an inherent trait of black people which in relationship with racist environment causes functional problems.

Again, let me remind you what you said:

So even if, for example, deafness was an entirely normal evolutionary mutation, it would still be a disorder because it presents difficulties for the individual in functioning in their general environment, and because it is significantly different from the range of hearing in the general population.

You're failing to be consistent with your own statements.

Aside from this, I think you're an audist, and I think your shots at the Deaf are horribly biased. For instance, when faced with a source which states we can enjoy music just as the rest of you, you resort to reaching for straws--but you can't hear the sound with your eyes, you say. Well, so the fuck what? We enjoy it just the same! And the hearing do not perceive it the same way we do, but that's no basis for disability. And then you reference some speeding car--I can't hear it approaching. But, again, so what? I easily notice it. You can't call it a deficiency without begging the question.

But as it stands now, sometimes being able to hang out with the Deaf community and then having to go out into the real world to buy groceries, or go to work, etc, means that there are still functional disabilities with regards to being deaf.

And this? the real world? Can you be any more offensive? I don't think I will pay attention to you much longer.
--------------

If anyone can provide an evolutionary, biological or medical account of disability, I'd love t hear it.

Mick · **#15** by **Mick** » Feb 23, 2012 4:35 am

One more thing:

You say you disagree with what I say but then discuss all the difficulties and limitations to your world, thus confirming my points above. It's great that you find it fun, but a lot of people don't. They find it tedious, and frustrating, and difficult to communicate very simple messages to people.

Your first sentence is false. What I mentioned are difficulties and limitations, they are differences. I communicate differently, just as hearing people need to communicate differently in very loud environments.

Mr.Samsa · **#16** by **Mr.Samsa** » Feb 23, 2012 10:08 am

Mick wrote:Here's what you said, Samsa:

I think what you're missing is that we can say that something needs to be "fixed" in order to "function properly" without any teleological or evolutionary implications at all. When we discuss disease or disorder in fields like medicine and psychology, we aren't referring to some concept of how things "should" be, but rather it's an entirely relativistic claim that is based on an average or norm.

This was in reference to deafness and blindness. Here you state that we can talk about it without any evolutionary implications at all. But your above reference does just that, namely it depends on the idea of there being some evolutionary adaption for the statistical norm. And this point of mine doesn't depend on there being an evolutionary criteria to assess disability, but that there are implications regarding evolution.

It was an example which did not depend on evolution. The important part of the example was that something had now become a statistical norm. Hence why the evolutionary part of it was irrelevant.

Mick wrote:What's more, I don't see why you'd need it to be a evolutionary adaption. If the sun leaked radiation and caused 90% of present and future human beings to go blind, then the statistical norm of the human population would be blind. But, according to your logic, then it fail to be a disease or a disorder: "Because if it's statistically "normal" then it's argued not to be a disorder or disease as that would make the term functionally useless." There's no need to talk about adaptions, this is a matter of frequency.

The difference is that the statistical norm would be taken from people before exposure in this scenario. If we released a chemical into the water supply of the world's population so that 90% will develop cancer, then cancer would still be a disease because it's a deviation from the statistical norm (where statistical norm takes in to account standard development). If there were an evolutionary adaptation where everyone, or most people, developed cancer at birth, then it's debatable whether it would still be a "disease".

Mick wrote:
Not at all, I'm pointing out that being black in a racist environment would be similar to being "disadvantaged by society", whereas being deaf is being disabled by your particular traits and characteristics. The point is that there is no inherent disadvantage that is unique to "blackness", where there obviously is in regards to deafness.

No, you're being inconsistent. Your conception of disability is a social one, at least in part. It has an essential environmental aspect to it. Thus, there is no inherent disability to deafness on your model. On your model, if the disability is there at all, it is there in a relationship to the environment. Likewise, for blackness and racist societies. Blackness is an inherent trait of black people which in relationship with racist environment causes functional problems.

Again, let me remind you what you said:

So even if, for example, deafness was an entirely normal evolutionary mutation, it would still be a disorder because it presents difficulties for the individual in functioning in their general environment, and because it is significantly different from the range of hearing in the general population.

You're failing to be consistent with your own statements.

Not at all. Just because a problem is inherent to a person does not mean its importance is not relative to society. You still haven't demonstrated how "blackness" and deafness are comparable.

Mick wrote:Aside from this, I think you're an audist, and I think your shots at the Deaf are horribly biased. For instance, when faced with a source which states we can enjoy music just as the rest of you, you resort to reaching for straws--but you can't hear the sound with your eyes, you say. Well, so the fuck what? We enjoy it just the same!

Reaching at straws? You completely misrepresented what I was saying to make your own special point, and I corrected you saying that at no point did I say deaf people couldn't enjoy music, and suddenly I'm reaching at straws?

Mick wrote:And the hearing do not perceive it the same way we do, but that's no basis for disability. And then you reference some speeding car--I can't hear it approaching. But, again, so what? I easily notice it. You can't call it a deficiency without begging the question.

There's no begging the question there. The point is that being able to work around your disability to live a normal life doesn't suddenly make it not a disability. I also have eczema but it poses no problems at all for me as the symptoms can be entirely cured and cleared up with a steroid cream. Does this suddenly make eczema not a disease?

Mick wrote:
But as it stands now, sometimes being able to hang out with the Deaf community and then having to go out into the real world to buy groceries, or go to work, etc, means that there are still functional disabilities with regards to being deaf.

And this? the real world? Can you be any more offensive? I don't think I will pay attention to you much longer.

How is it offensive? I'm simply referencing the fact that the vast majority of the world are not members of the Deaf community. So if you could somehow generate some perfect community, where cars run with flashing lights, everyone knows sign language and/or speaks clearly and slowly, that all television shows have subtitles, etc etc, then it doesn't matter because if such a place currently exists, it's an exception to the current state of affairs.

Mick wrote:One more thing:

You say you disagree with what I say but then discuss all the difficulties and limitations to your world, thus confirming my points above. It's great that you find it fun, but a lot of people don't. They find it tedious, and frustrating, and difficult to communicate very simple messages to people.

Your first sentence is false. What I mentioned are difficulties and limitations, they are differences. I communicate differently, just as hearing people need to communicate differently in very loud environments.

Maybe it would help if you provided a definition of disease or disability that you think is appropriate. Currently you seem to be arguing that a disability cannot be something which can be overcome by major individual sacrifices or huge societal shifts.

John P. M. · **#17** by **John P. M.** » Feb 23, 2012 1:56 pm

Mick wrote:
If anyone can provide an evolutionary, biological or medical account of disability, I'd love t hear it.

Strange, you've quite clearly demonstrated that you rather wouldn't. Seems to me you'd hate to hear it.

But I'm curious (no, really); what would your account of disability be then, from whatever discipline you'd choose to view it?

Mick · **#18** by **Mick** » Feb 24, 2012 8:40 pm

I won't be conversing with Mr. Samsa any longer on this topic, I don't have the patience. For instance, in reply to my hypothetical scenario about the sun, he refers to standard development. But you'll notice he doesn't mention standard development in any of his earlier accounts; indeed, this is something new. It is a further development to help meet my criticism. But rather than admit that he needed to emend his initial account, he acts as if it was said all along.

His emendation can be easily met. I'd just need to cite hypothetical condition which would (1) apply to any a high majority of conceived human individuals (say, 90%) and (2) alter the standard development of such human individuals from the onset of development and (3) would result in a condition typically understood to be a disability.

In any case, I don't find his conception of disease/disability to be intelligible, he's too confused. It's entirely desultory, sometimes it depends on some social thing and other times it's about statistical norms predicated on our standard biology, or who the fuck knows. I doubt he can even keep up with his shit.

Stormcrow · **#19** by **Stormcrow** » Feb 24, 2012 8:51 pm

So, if the deaf aren't disabled, why did Jesus heal one? He didn't seem to be in the business of healing healthy people, so he must view deafness as some kind of deficiency.

CdesignProponentsist · **#20** by **CdesignProponentsist** » Feb 24, 2012 9:50 pm

Disability and dysfunction are not objective terms. But you can safely say one who has eyes but cannot see has dysfunctional eyes and has a visual disability. But there is no definitive line drawn where disability or dysfunction suddenly become ability or function. It is a qualitative scale.