Author Topic: Episode #607  (Read 2635 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr. Beagle

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3708
Re: Episode #607
« Reply #30 on: March 01, 2017, 01:05:20 PM »
I have been using hearing aids for about six months and still getting used to them. My audiologist gave me a definition of tinnitus that makes sense to me and reflects my experience.

He made the analogy of phantom leg syndrome. Your brain is set up to interpret the detection of frequencies of sound waves as tones. If those frequencies are no longer being detected, your brain makes them up, thus tinnitus.

So, as in my case, amplifying those frequencies for natural sound makes the tinnitus, once awful, virtually unnoticeable.

Does that explanation hold up?

Sounds reasonable, but it seems for me that those higher frequencies are no longer there to be amplified.
When you view the graph of my frequency response vs the norm for my age, the frequencies are there but at diminished sensitivity. Basically the hearing aids are multi-band EQs, boosting the finished frequencies while leaving others untouched.

The audiologist also boosts the tinnitus frequencies, which reduces the sensation.

These come with Bluetooth connection to my iPhone, and multiple presets for special situations like restaurants or an auditorium, and I can use the phone to customize graphically new presets.
Mister Beagle
The real world is tri-color

Offline Gravity Allen

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 51
  • Hi! I'm a linguist!
    • The Ling Space
Re: Episode #607
« Reply #31 on: March 01, 2017, 08:40:57 PM »
(click to show/hide)

I keep hoping that someone will notify them of this on Facebook. Pretty sure they don't read these forums, and if we can't reach them via e-mail, there is not way to let them know there is a problem. I'm not a Facebook user, but hopefully someone with similar issues is.

I got in touch with :cara: through Facebook, to pass along my question; I also let her know my e-mails keep bouncing back. Hopefully, this'll call their attention to it. :-\

Offline fuzzyMarmot

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 403
Re: Episode #607
« Reply #32 on: March 02, 2017, 01:17:50 AM »
Thanks, Gravity Allen!

I'll be curious if they ever got my e-mails. If not, my little bits of fan worship are bouncing around cyberspace waiting to be read :)

Offline Willy

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 2
Re: Episode #607
« Reply #33 on: March 02, 2017, 12:11:41 PM »
I agree with Mr. Beagle. My audiologist told me exactly the same thing and, with my hearing aids in, I do not experience tinnitus. My tinnitus is/was not very severe, but it persists when my hearing aids are not in.

A note for those who may be considering hearing aids. GO TO COSTCO! They sell SOTA devices for $1,800--my brother in law spent $9,000 for a virtually identical pair. It turns out the cost of the devices themselves is only a couple hundred dollars; the rest covers the audiologist's services. 

Offline Willy

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 2
Re: Episode #607
« Reply #34 on: March 02, 2017, 12:27:36 PM »
To be more clear: I am not suggesting that all cases of tinnitus can be solved with hearing aids.

Offline RMoore

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: Episode #607
« Reply #35 on: March 03, 2017, 12:33:09 AM »
That is an interesting point, about both the sociology of tobacco use, and the misunderstanding of political labels in American politics.
...
Someone who whines because they can't do what they want, without thinking about how their action affects other people, is a liberal. Liberalism is associated with being young and not acknowledging your place in society. Conservatives are more law-and-order oriented and probably care more about their health. American neo-liberalism is basically the most vapid kind of right-wing—those people ain't right, if you know what I mean, but they definitely think they are.

Then again with things such as recreational drugs, libertarians believe that people have a right to disobey civil law when it does not directly affect others. You'll never see a libertarian complaining that they can't smoke some illegal substance in public. With freedom comes the responsibility to not be stupid.

Libertarianism tends to be more center-left than people realize. Who is going to protect my access to clean air, or even my right to own property and have physical security and privacy? Certainly no capitalist or corporation. The government has to be exist to do what selfish people could never be trusted to do. American politics is more historically rooted in Left Libertarianism than contemporaries acknowledge.

Well look at you, making up definitions to suit your bias!

It is specious to say that liberals "whine because they can't do what they want". The best way I know how to put it is: Liberalism is oriented toward rights rather than privileges, while conservatism is oriented toward privileges rather than rights.

Neoliberalism has nothing to do with actual liberalism (I think you got that one right), and neoconservatism has little to do with conservatism (except that neoconservatism embraces nationalism and exceptionalism, as conservatism often does).

The view that "The government has to be exist to do what selfish people could never be trusted to do" is not typical of libertarianism, especially if you are discussing the use of "political labels in American politics", as you purport to do.

There are, of course, many nuanced variations within these broad labels. Libertarianism in particular tends to be all over the left-right spectrum, though most American libertarians tend toward the right, often favoring corporations (a privileged class) over individual rights when the two are in conflict. That may not sound like a classical libertarian view, but many would argue that regulating corporations to protect individual rights goes against libertarian laissez-faire economic philosophy, a view that is common in the U.S.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3426
  • mooh
Re: Episode #607
« Reply #36 on: March 03, 2017, 08:17:56 AM »
There is a long, well documented history of people who are sometimes referred to as "free market fundamentalists" trying to undermine science because they associate any kind of government intervention in the free market with their big boogeyman, communism. That's why you see the exact same people and think tanks involved in the tobacco wars, and denialism around climate change, acid rain, DDT, CFCs, and other such environmental regulation issues, as well as, originally, the Star Wars program. See, for example, Naomi Oreskes' work for a detailed history of these think tanks (particularly, the George C. Marshall Institute, though they touch on several others as well). These people are most decidedly not "liberals" in any modern sense of the term that I've ever come across, but I think the term "extremist libertarian" fits them to a tee.

Of course, probably not all of them are ideologues. Being on the side of big business against science can be pretty profitable. But the anti-government narrative is a definite recurring theme.
Mooohn!

Offline Mr. Beagle

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3708
Re: Episode #607
« Reply #37 on: March 03, 2017, 08:32:33 AM »
My point is that libertarian interests get moderated by self-interests. Thus Ron Paul espoused a lot of libertarian views except he held very traditional views on women and their rights. His son Rand positions himself on some libertarian issues, but is also often Christianist.
Mister Beagle
The real world is tri-color

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9708
Re: Episode #607
« Reply #38 on: March 03, 2017, 09:39:58 AM »
The view that "The government has to be exist to do what selfish people could never be trusted to do" is not typical of libertarianism, especially if you are discussing the use of "political labels in American politics", as you purport to do.

Well, I don't want to start a political debate in this thread. But we can discuss this further in Politics; I already made a thread about this topic (Left Wing, Right Wing) last week. My central point is the post you quoted is that libertarianism is incorrectly thought of an being Rightist, and that moreover people don't seem to have a good understanding of what Rightism is overall.  You then proceed to argue against a caricature of Rightism for which no one has espoused support.

Of course you need a legal system that will allow you to pursue companies that wrong you. Being pro-business isn't the same thing as being Rightist. I think free enterprise should be allowed to make money, but there should be strict regulation to prevent abuse and moderate taxes to pay for public goods. I think most libertarians are more Centrist than you realize.

I also gave a more politically charged answer to your post in that thread.

Offline RMoore

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: Episode #607
« Reply #39 on: March 03, 2017, 07:13:42 PM »
Well, I don't want to start a political debate in this thread. But we can discuss this further in Politics; I already made a thread about this topic (Left Wing, Right Wing) last week. My central point is the post you quoted is that libertarianism is incorrectly thought of an being Rightist, and that moreover people don't seem to have a good understanding of what Rightism is overall.  You then proceed to argue against a caricature of Rightism for which no one has espoused support.

I do not think I caricatured rightism at all, nor argued against it. And please don't make such an accusation in the wake of your inflammatory caricature of a liberal as "someone who whines because they can't do what they want". Doing so makes you appear trollish. Actually, your caricature itself was already quite trollish, but I replied based on a good faith assumption that you might actually be open to meaningful dialog. For now, I will continue to entertain that possibility.

Nor did I equate rightism with simply being pro-business. I did say that "most American libertarians tend toward the right, often favoring corporations...", but the intended message here is that right-libertarianism, the more common flavor in the US, prioritizes deregulation over protection via regulation. Many rightists see regulation as anathema to private ownership of resources, or as an inherently socialist undertaking. I do not believe this characterization (not caricature) is off the mark.

Further, my remark does grant that libertarianism isn't exclusively rightist. I maintain that it isn't a monolithic ideology but encompasses a range of views from left to right. I think you are off the mark when you say it is "more center-left". That only describes a segment of the libertarian population, and therefore is equally incorrect as the claim that it is a rightist ideology.

Living in the US, I don't think I have ever met a left-libertarian, though I know they exist. I just think they are rare here. Or maybe they are concentrated in regions such as the Northeast, which would not surprise me. I live in a right-wing dominated county of California, surrounded by many right-libertarians as well as right-authoritarians, and have also lived in the South.

Offline RMoore

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: Episode #607
« Reply #40 on: March 03, 2017, 07:20:32 PM »
Interesting that you say,

Being pro-business isn't the same thing as being Rightist.

But in the left-right thread you linked to, you say:

Rightism is the idea of trusting market economics and for-profit companies.

The view you expressed in that post is closer to my first comment than your response to that comment was, but you back-pedaled it in your attempt to contradict me.

 

personate-rain