= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Disability Culture Meets the Transhumanist Condition - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (150)
So, with that in mind, I go back to your original comment that there is a fundamental difference between being queer and being deaf.
If I understand correctly, the difference you were seeing was that being queer was a "value," which is related to it being something that queer people differentially approve of. Whereas deafness was an ability, which was importantly different.
But since then, you've concluded that being queer isn't actually something (at least some people, like me) differentially approve of.
But you also believe that many Deaf people approve of deafness... you just think they're mistaken to do so.
Have I got that right? I have to admit, I have trouble making all of that stuff cohere; it mostly seems to cache out as "Ghatananthoah believes being queer is different from being deaf, because Ghatananthoah disapproves of being deaf but doesn't disapprove of being queer."
Which I assume is an unfair characterization.
But perhaps you can understand why it seems that way to me, and thereby help me understand what I'm misunderstanding in your position?
I'm not sure what I wrote that gave you this idea. I do think that queer people approve of being queer. What I'm talking about when I say "approval" is preferences that are ego-syntonic, that are line with the kind of person they want to be. Most queer people consider their preference to be ego-syntonic. Being queer is the kind of person they want to be and they would not change it if they could. Those who do not are usually motivated by mistaken religious ideas, rather than clearly reasoned disapproval.
What I am trying to say is that being queer is a statement about what people want to do. When we say that someone is queer that means that they have a desire to engage in romantic and sexual relationships that are different from the heterosexual norm. This desire is ego-syntonic, it is approved of.
Being deaf, by contrast, is a statement about what people are able do. They lack the ability to hear things.
If you removed someone's deafness, none of their desires would change. They would still want everything they wanted before they were deaf. If they were really attached to their current lifestyle they could buy earplugs. By contrast, if you changed a queer person into a straight person, they would stop wanting to have non-heteronormative relationships. They'd be able to continue their current lifestyle (or at least, as able as anyone is in a heteronormative society), but they wouldn't want to.
There are some people who claim that they prefer being deaf to being able to hear, and that being deaf is ego-syntonic. I believe that they are confused. I think what they really value isn't being deaf, it's the community that they have built with other deaf people. They are confusing their preference to display loyalty to their community with with a preference to not be able to hear. In addition I think they are confused for some other reasons:
To sum it up, I believe that being queer is an ego-syntonic desire. I believe that being deaf is not ego-syntonic, but people say it is out of a desire to have self-esteem and be proud of and loyal to the deaf community.
I'm not sure what I wrote that gave you this idea.
(nods) Months later, neither am I. Perhaps I'd remember if I reread the exchange, but I'm not doing so right now.
Regardless, I appreciate the correction.
And much like Vaniver below (above? earlier!), I am unsure how to translate these sorts of claims into anything testable.
Also I'm wary of the tendency to reason as follows: "I don't value being deaf. Therefore deafness is not valuable. Therefore when people claim to value being deaf, they are confused and mistaken. Here, let me list various reasons why they might be confused and mistaken."
I mean, don't get me wrong: I share this intuition. I just don't trust it. I can't think of anything a deaf person could possibly say to me that would convince me otherwise, even if I were wrong.
Similarly, if someone were to say " I believe that being queer is not ego-syntonic. I know people say it is, but I believe that's because they're confused and mistaken, for various reasons: x, y, z" I can't think of anything I could possibly say to them to convince them otherwise. (Nor is this a hypothetical case: many people do in fact say this.)
One thing I consider very suspicious is that deaf people often don't just deny the terminal value of hearing. They also deny its instrumental value. The instrumental values of hearing are obvious. This indicates to me that they are denying it for self-esteem reasons and group loyalty reasons, the same way I have occasionally heard multiculturalists claim behaviors of obvious instrumental value (like being on time) are merely the subjective values of Western culture.
The typical defense of this denial (and other disability-rights type claims) is hearing only has instrumental value because society is structured in a way that makes use of it. But this is obviously false, hearing would be useful on a desert island, and there are some disabilities that society is not technologically capable of solving (there's no way to translate instrumental music into sign language). Plus, structuring society around disabilities is essentially having society pay to enable a person instead of having biology do it for free. Obviously it's better than not accommodating them, but it;s even better to have biology do the accommodation for free if that is possible.
I think another factor is simply my knowledge of the human brain structure, and the psychological unity of humankind. It seems like it would be a much smaller departure from standard brain design to switch the specific target of the "romance" module of the brain, than it would be to completely erase all desire to enjoy the pleasures that a sense of hearing can provide us, and to assign terminal value to being inconvenienced by things like not being able to talk to people who aren't in your visual range.
I think another thing that supports my intuitions is Bostrom's Reversal test. Imagine instead of discussing giving a preexisting sense to people who lack it, we were considering giving people a new sense that no human being has ever had before. Should we do that? If there were no side effects, I would say yes! As I told Vaniver in my reply to them, I really want to be able sense magnetic fields. Seeing infrared and ultraviolet would also be fun. The fact that my intuitions are the same in the Reversal Test provides evidence that they are not based on the Status Quo Bias.
I think some parallels still go through, if you consider the difference between "sex is for recreation!" (the queer-friendly view) and "sex is for procreation!" (the queer-unfriendly view). I don't see anyone claiming that heterosexual sex never leads to babies, but I do see a lot of people trivializing the creation of babies.