Which would you rather be?

[Beachguyj]

Blind or deaf?

 

[Lukeee]

Blind, I think.

 

[Ram]

Deaf. I rather see the world than to hear it.

 

[belamy]

It would seem that keeping your sight is a wiser choice but... http://alviento.cuatrovientos.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/darkages.jpg

http://es.geocities.com/jminguillon2/Dan_Defensor/Dan_Defensor_38.JPG

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_D4gpX86Id...AAANs/gJPkEuAgNfc/s400/maestro+de+kung+fu.bmp

 

[Dodger712]

Funny. We discussed this in my group just the other day. Deaf. I am too visual a person to adjust to being blind. Unfortunatly, it seems my sight is getting worse and worse due to diabetes. Bummer.

 

[belamy]

^ Oh, I'm terribly "visual" myself but...

 

[Swellegant]

I think I'll go for deafness, too... aside from being an extremely visual person, I think it would be easier for me to adjust to life without hearing, where I can substitute the written for the spoken word while I was learning to sign, than to go without sight where I would have to rely on touch and sound more.

On the other hand, I've always wondered: if you become deaf, rather than being born deaf, what do you do if you get a song stuck in your head? What if you get "It's A Small Small World" going in rounds and can't listen to something else to flush it out?

Makes me shiver to think about.

 

[Ram]

On the other hand, I've always wondered: if you become deaf, rather than being born deaf, what do you do if you get a song stuck in your head? What if you get "It's A Small Small World" going in rounds and can't listen to something else to flush it out?

What a terrible thought. Argh, I can't think about it.

 

[LoveIsNow]

Blind. Sound is so warm and I would be much harder pressed to give it up than sight.

 

[BabiGayPimp]

I would think deaf. The visual world seems to offer a greater bandwidth of information for our purposes. For instance, you can see objects objects objects right next to you or millions of miles away in outer space, but you can only hear things that are relatively close by. You can also process a greater variety of visual information sources simultaneously than multiple, competing audio sources, which quickly become garbled. That's why we use the term eyewitness versus earwitness. A person who saw a murder being committed could tell you a lot more about it than a person who heard a murder being committed, but did not see anything.

 

[spooger]

dumb

 

[belamy]

I would think deaf. The visual world seems to offer a greater bandwidth of information for our purposes. For instance, you can see objects objects objects right next to you or millions of miles away in outer space, but you can only hear things that are relatively close by. You can also process a greater variety of visual information sources simultaneously than multiple, competing audio sources, which quickly become garbled. That's why we use the term eyewitness versus earwitness. A person who saw a murder being committed could tell you a lot more about it than a person who heard a murder being committed, but did not see anything.

That means it's also easier to make up visual information?

 

[BabiGayPimp]

No. The mind can also play tricks on a deaf person's auditory perceptions, particualry when there are fewer confirmatory elements to observe, like the plate number of the getway car.

You'd be surprised at the number of suspects that were placed at the scene of the crime because independent eyewitnesses separately and accurately recorded their plate number.

I know this. I watch all the crime shows.

 

[geloge]

Deaf. I get more information from eyes than from ears. And I could do my job being deaf but no being blind.

 

[belamy]

No. The mind can also play tricks on a deaf person's auditory perceptions, particualry when there are fewer confirmatory elements to observe, like the plate number of the getway car.

You'd be surprised at the number of suspects that were placed at the scene of the crime because independent eyewitnesses separately and accurately recorded their plate number.

I know this. I watch all the crime shows.

I wasn't discussing the obvious possibility, but the amount of info that could oftener be made up with visual than auditive processing. It's precisely because people are more used to use and rely on visual information that the accurate can turn more easily into the false out of mere habit and prejudices based on expectations.
Accurate visual info would not rely so much on a reflective process as much as in following set patterns repetitively.
I'm not questioning in essence or in practice how valuable visual info IS (I said I'm pretty "visual" myself, which I consider makes me a sort of idler), not even how much info THERE IS, but how much PROCESSED (it would also seem that there is more input available through the eyes than the ears) CAN be of higher value.

 

[DeafFoxDemon]

Nothing wrong with being either deaf and blind. i am proud to be deaf. sometime i have a nosie in my head that won't go away for hours.

 

[JarodA]

Deaf. Giving up music and the like would be hard though. But deaf.

 

[Horschallen]

On the other hand, I've always wondered: if you become deaf, rather than being born deaf, what do you do if you get a song stuck in your head? What if you get "It's A Small Small World" going in rounds and can't listen to something else to flush it out?

Sure! Even I was born deaf, I listened to lots of music growing up and I still have some old favorites stuck in my head. I learn to enjoy them.

And to answer whether if I'd rather be deaf or blind. I will probably appear biased if I said deaf because it is convenient.

 

[2243]

I would hate to lose either one, but If I had to choose it would definitely be deaf.

 

[ozguy]

Oooooooo love it when old threads get revived ... and I'd never have known that if I was blind ... so I think I'd rather be deaf!






































(Besides, my eyesight has already deteriorated enough over the years .... too much wanking, so they tell me! )