4 ms·

"I suspect that hearing aids are firmly within the second category, which means getting people to wear them "openly" should be doable." You suspect wrongly. Ha

"I suspect that hearing aids are firmly within the second category, which means getting people to wear them "openly" should be doable." You suspect wrongly. Having seen the attitudes to my father change when he wore one. Ranging from outright verbal abuse, to assumptions of stupidity & senility.

72deluxe 12y ago
Really? Who from? That's terrible.
- adrianhoward 12y ago
  Just people. At the low end when eating out in restaurants occasionally having wait staff ignore him and asking other folk at the table "what would he like", or people assuming that he couldn't hear and talking about him — to at the high end having a guy shouting "deaf fuck" at him repeatedly on the street for no obvious reason. I'm not trying to say that this happened every day — especially the outright insults. But it was enough to be noticeable. I suspect, as @hibbelig commented, age had something to do with it.
hibbelig 12y ago
Maybe it's related to age? I've been wearing "behind the ears" aids since I was 7 and I never sensed any perception like that. (I have no idea what is the correct term for "behind the ears", I hope it's understandable.)
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  It would be pretty interesting to see people assume that a ten-year-old suffered from senility because he was wearing a hearing aid. By definition, it only applies to the old.
- R_Edward 12y ago
  17 years ago, I worked for a hearing aid manufacturer. The common terms in use there were BTE and ITE, for "behind the ear" and "in the ear." Frankly, I thought the initialisms were poorly conceived. ITE is three syllables, same as "in the ear," and less meaningful for the uninitiated. BTE only saves you one syllable, again at the cost of meaningfulness. But either which way, your terminology is both understandable and correct. Off-topic: While I was there, they asked employees to submit ideas for a new hearing aid marketing slogan, with the incentive of a free vacation to Vegas going to the person who submitted the one they used. For some reason, I did not win the vacation with my suggestion: "Stick It In Your Ear!"

72deluxe 12y ago

Really? Who from? That's terrible.

adrianhoward 12y ago
Just people. At the low end when eating out in restaurants occasionally having wait staff ignore him and asking other folk at the table "what would he like", or people assuming that he couldn't hear and talking about him — to at the high end having a guy shouting "deaf fuck" at him repeatedly on the street for no obvious reason. I'm not trying to say that this happened every day — especially the outright insults. But it was enough to be noticeable. I suspect, as @hibbelig commented, age had something to do with it.

hibbelig 12y ago

Maybe it's related to age? I've been wearing "behind the ears" aids since I was 7 and I never sensed any perception like that. (I have no idea what is the correct term for "behind the ears", I hope it's understandable.)

thaumasiotes 12y ago
It would be pretty interesting to see people assume that a ten-year-old suffered from senility because he was wearing a hearing aid. By definition, it only applies to the old.
R_Edward 12y ago
17 years ago, I worked for a hearing aid manufacturer. The common terms in use there were BTE and ITE, for "behind the ear" and "in the ear." Frankly, I thought the initialisms were poorly conceived. ITE is three syllables, same as "in the ear," and less meaningful for the uninitiated. BTE only saves you one syllable, again at the cost of meaningfulness. But either which way, your terminology is both understandable and correct. Off-topic: While I was there, they asked employees to submit ideas for a new hearing aid marketing slogan, with the incentive of a free vacation to Vegas going to the person who submitted the one they used. For some reason, I did not win the vacation with my suggestion: "Stick It In Your Ear!"