[nabs-l] Body language and facial expressions
Humberto Avila
avila.bert.humberto2 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 26 05:56:15 UTC 2011
Hello there:
Ain't no difference if you're black or white, ain't no difference if you're
sighted or blind! I think that blind people should not be stressed out
about trying to look 100% like a sighted person, and try to display the same
face looks and body looks or expressions that the sighted people do. I say
this because, A, if I am blind, and I imitate a sighted person's exact looks
and body and face expressions, I'm not sure if I look, for example, crooked,
or my face is poiting to a different direction, or reacting in a way that
might look a little odd to a sighted person. And, B, if we ever do imitate
the sighted in their exact moves and imitate their facial expressions 100%
right like if we are sighted so as to look like society looks, we would only
be doing one half of the work. Think of our brains and ourselves as computer
programming. We can have every single sighted algorithm installed on our
brains so that the specific "software" (being our minds and thoughts) is
capable of triggering all exact facial motions and expressions with our
bodies and faces, as in input. We would be capable of doing input, but we
are not capable of the output process. Because our eyes can not see, or
residually, our "software" (again, as our minds and thoughts) will not be
able to interact with what is displayed in others, meaning that, we can not
see what others do or what faces or expressions they make. Am I making
sense? Or am I being too technical here? I'm pretty sure we are all familiar
with these aspects as we all are emailing to this list and we all use
computers and have knowledge of hardware and software. Back to being
virtually sighted without eyesight. In conclusion, we have all the hardware
(our eyes, our body and face) and software (our brains and all the habits
that we setup in our mind sets and our thoughts). Yes, a blind person can
imitate all the looks 100% of the way, as if he or she is looking like the
sighted society. But how is that blind person expected to react, or interact
with another sighted person when that sighted person is doing a face, or
expression. One example of this:
One day one of my cousins who is little said my name. I addressed her as if
we were to have a normal conversation. But instead she went, "look look."
then there was a very small but sudden pause and then I heard her laughing
as if she had done something that appeared to me funny according to my
assumption. I again said "what? What is that?" then she laughed again just
like the other time. Now, did she do a facial expression or did she try to
show me something that was funny through the use of a funny body or facial
expression? Yes! But do I know which expression or weird look that was
funny? Heck no! why? Because my brain does not support the "output" of
seeing and reacting to that funny expression. If my brain was able to
support that, I would have laughed along with my cousin. But because I am
blind, I do not. Do you know what I'm getting to?
My bottom line is: my fellow students, unless there was a revolutionary and
technological little device that did the most accurate automated audio
description like in the movies, please do not stress out about trying to
imitate the sighted population and trying to look like the majority in terms
of doing exact body and facial expressions. Relax! Yes, there is the thing
with job interviews and formal settings and school settings or professional
settings where one has to look great and presentable and look like others by
looking in the face when somebody speaks to one, and the like, but no
absolute need to try to do the same nonverbal visual face and body
expressions and worry about how you look in terms of total expressions and
movements like the sighted. Do I make sense? I myself don't want to suffer
by worrying about my looks and movements so much, otherwise it pays just 50%
of the hard work that will pay off. And where will that other 50% be?
Nowhere?
Just my 15 cents for what it's worth.
-----Original Message-----
From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Robin
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 9:05 PM
To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Body language and facial expressions
Good Evenin', Miss Ashley,
STOP! IMPOSIN' your BELIEFS and/or CONCERNS upon those, who EXHIBIT
mannerisms of the Blind variety. If you don't want Ol'Sighty to TREAT, you
like you are bein' treated LIKE. Bring it UP with Ol"Sighty and do NOT
expect others in "The Community" to ACT the way you THINK they should.
ACCEPT their DIFFERENCES. We're NOT a
Homogeneous community. We are very DIVERSE..
At 08:33 PM 11/25/2011, you wrote:
>Bridgit,
>Nicely said, and some of these examples point out apples and oranges.
>Like you, I do not want to give people a reason to think Im
>cognitively or developmentally delayed when I'm not. The disabilities
>are very different. Those with those disabilities function at a teen or
>child level; their body is grown, their mind is not.
>It is not their fault, it is the way they are built. And I just loved
>your anecdotes to back up your point.
>
>I find it degrading when people talk over me to a sighted companion or
>assume I need extra help or something just because I'm blind. I have
>been treated like I'm not the college educated adult I am. Its
>definitely degrading and frustrating. I think we should change
>behaviors that we can; after all a sighted person growing up would be
>expected to extinguish these behaviors. So if we want to fit in and be
>treated like everyone else, then we should follow those same rules.
>
>Ashley
>
>-----Original Message----- From: Bridgit Pollpeter
>Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 8:12 PM
>To: nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>Subject: [nabs-l] Body language and facial expressions
>
>Marc,
>
>First, touché! I concede you have a point in your salutation, smile!
>
>However, personally, I don't use the word retarded especially with
>negative connotations. And my point was not to say that one disability
>is worse, but each disability presents its own barriers. Developmental
>disabilities can offer obstacles making it difficult to maneuver
>through life without cognitive barriers. Again, I have quite a few
>family members with varying degrees of developmental disabilities so I
>know a little about it.
>
>Disabled or not, we all have our limitations, whether they be mental or
>physical. Where some struggle, others succeed. A developmental
>disability, however, adds another layer making ones comprehension level
>more difficult to navigate through situations.
>
>I've witnessed these family members of mine struggle to understand
>basic information that the average person with no cognitive problem
>understand with no effort. When we have physical and sensory
>disabilities only, we don't require most information, basic
>information, to be broken down and simplified. We're not talking about
>Steve Jobs or Stephen Hawkings intellect here, but the average intellectual
capacity most of us have.
>
>While at a recent doctor visit, the nurse, who was suppose to explain a
>test procedure, asked if I wanted my companion to come in so I could
>understand what she was saying. I told her that I not only was there on
>my own, but that I would understand her explanation just fine, and she
>was so worried about this until I finally put my foot down and made a
>few things clear. I had no intellectual barrier keeping me from
>understanding the information provided to any patient. I later asked
>the doctor if that was a standard procedure and they told me no. This
>woman assumed without ever asking a question, that I couldn't
>comprehend information stated to all patients just because I was blind.
>Regardless of a developmental disability or lower comprehension level,
>disabled or not, I don't like when my mental capacity is questioned
>being a 30-year-old college-educated woman with a family. If some
>people all ready think this, why give them more fuel to feed their
>grossly misinformed notions?
>
>Trust me, it's very frustrating to have people assume you can't
>intellectually understand something. We shouldn't automatically assume
>either that people with developmental disabilities can't comprehend
>something either; they certainly deserve the same respect we demand as
>blind people, but why be considered to have a developmental issue if
>you don't have one at all? This doesn't mean one disability is
>necessarily "worse" than another, but it does mean one disability can
>present unique barriers that are difficult to hurdle.
>
>Let's say you work to become a doctor or teacher or lawyer or even a
>parent but are blind, you don't want future employers or, people in
>general, to assume you have a developmental disability because yes,
>even with a mild developmental disability, you won't be a doctor or
>lawyer, and because of cognitive barriers, certain things just can't be
>done. It does depend of the severity of developmental problem, but even
>higher functioning developmentally disabled people won't have the
>intellectual capacity to do these things. . This is just a fact.
>Blindness, however, isn't necessarily holding us back in an
>intellectual way. Individual people may question our ability, but we
>have the capacity in which to prove how capable we are. Many blind
>people face discrimination because of their blindness. In my experience
>though, if you present yourself with confidence, look and act polished,
>people are more likely to give you an opportunity. If you don't appear
>put-together, exhibit mannerisms even considered inappropriate for
>sighted people and don't carry yourself with confidence and/or
>intelligence, it doesn't matter what your resume says, what
>recommendations refer you to the job/ situation, people will be more
>wary and unsure as to if you can do much. It's reality, dude.
>
>A cousin of mine with a developmental disability became pregnant in her
>early 20's. It was determined she shouldn't have custody of the child
>since she was unable to demonstrate her ability to care for herself. My
>aunt stepped in to help raise the baby, and it was decided to finally
>award joint custody between my cousin and her mom. I know we're all
>thinking about I am Sam, but I know my cousin, she really wasn't able
>to care for a child on her own. Marc, do you care to equate this to a
>mere sensory disability like blindness? The differences are clear, at
>least to those of us who are blind, and it's comparing apples to oranges.
>
>And trying to compare abusive attitudes once deemed legal, and sadly
>behavior still in abundance even though, at least in this country, is
>now illegal, is a bit of an apple and oranges issue too. Correcting
>unusual body movements that can be changed, is nothing similar to
>attitudes, and physical violence, that hurts, demeans and demoralizes.
>Trust me, you won't win this argument with me; that's all I will say on
>this issue.
>
>If a person truly is in danger of harming themselves, or others, it
>makes sense that someone should help or assist. Blindness, itself, is
>not, or should not, be a factor causing people to automatically assume
>we are a danger to ourselves and others. Across the board, people with
>only blindness should not be penalized at all. With developmental
>disabilities, it depends on the level and type of cognitive problem.
>You can't equate the two here because the barriers aren't the same.
>
>You can equate them when we discuss respect. Everyone should be treated
>with dignity and respect. This thread has nothing to do with respect,
>but how one handles the barriers of a disability.
>
>And I've yet to hear an answer from those arguing we should be accepted
>even when exhibiting behavior like rocking or eye poking, in response
>to my question, how can you keep saying this when it's behavior also
>demonstrated by sighted people as well, and it's corrected in them?
>Stop making it a blind vs. sight issue when it doesn't have to be. As a
>former sighted person, I get sick of hearing how it's us against those
>with sight. That all sighted people are horrible and out to get us. I
>had disabled friends when I was sighted, and I didn't make assumptions;
>I treated them the same as our non-disabled friends. If I found
>something they did odd or weird, I didn't assume it was because of
>their disability. If I was like this, I'm sure others are too. In fact,
>I know some sighted people who have a similar attitude.
>
>And you argue the world should change how they view blind people who
>engage in such behavior instead of the other way around, but why not
>correct and change behavior that isn't unusual, and work towards
>changing minds about our actual abilities.
>
>Not all (please keep the "Not all" in mind before jumping on my back) ,
>but many blind people I know who exhibit some of these extreme
>behaviors are the ones who aren't independent and don't believe they
>are capable of much. Maybe we need to work on convincing the world,
>ourselves included, that we don't have limitations, which is the real
>problem, instead of concentrating efforts to accept physical movements
>not socially acceptable.
>
>You keep going on and on about how we shouldn't be shaped into what the
>sighted world wants to be or how sighted people need to accept us
>quirks and all, but does not language like this develop into a form of
>reverse prejudice? If we're simply people who, as it happens, can't
>see, why, once again I ask, do we keep playing the blind vs. sight
>card? I don't consider myself different from anyone else I know other
>than I can't use my eyes. This doesn't mean I don't work to end
>stereotypes and change negative attitudes, but I don't place
>distinctions that, though reverse, perpetuate the idea that we're
different.
>
>The reality is that the world is a bitch. Disabled or not, humans
>established certain ideas from the beginning of time. Whether disabled
>or not, male or female, blonde or brunette, people judge, people
>assume, people have stupid ideas about life. Experience of the world
>will show you how complex this is.
>
>On that note, Thanksgiving was great, and speaking for Americans, we're
>always right, giggle!
>
>Sincerely,
>Bridgit Kuenning-Pollpeter
>Read my blog at:
>http://blogs.livewellnebraska.com/author/bpollpeter/
>
>"History is not what happened; history is what was written down."
>The Expected One- Kathleen McGowan
>
>, Message: 6
>Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 12:15:16 -0800
>From: Marc Workman <mworkman.lists at gmail.com>
>To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
><nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Body language and facial expressions
>Message-ID: <CD9FBD09-7AF9-40AE-996B-31776B1974B6 at gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>Bridgit wrote,
>why be assumed to have an intellectual barrier if you don't have one?
>Most people will already make assumptions about us as blind people; why
>give them more reasons to make snap assumptions? The fact is blind
>people, who are just blind, have no barriers other than the ones
>society, and themselves, put in our path. People with developmental
>disabilities have an actual intellectual barrier.
>
>Now let's rewrite this from the perspective of an intellectually
>disabled person who is trying to convince other intellectually disabled
>people not to look blind.
>
>why be assumed to have a sight limitation if you don't have one? Most
>people will already make assumptions about us as intellectually
>disabled people; why give them more reasons to make snap assumptions?
>The fact is intellectually disabled people, who are just intellectually
>disabled, have no barriers other than the ones society, and themselves,
>put in our path. People who are blind have an actual sight limitation.
>
>Ashley wrote,
>I was never told not to look blind. But I was told not to rock because
>it looks like something a cognitively delayed/retarded person would do.
>Why have people assume we have another disability when we don't? It
>makes us look worse.
>
>It makes us look worse only if you assume it's worse to be cognitively
>delayed/retarded. Again, would it be okay to say, hey, stop that
>rocking, you look blind. You're not blind; you're just cognitively
>disabled, and you don't want to look worse, so stop looking like a
>blind person.
>
>I think this whole line of argument that we don't want to look
>"retarded", and I use that word in quotes because it's a degrading
>word, is incredibly ironic considering that it expresses the same
>negative attitudes towards intellectual disability that we are all
>supposed to be fighting against with respect to blindness.
>
>Bridgit wrote,
>Blind, sighted, purple, blue, certain behaviors and mannerisms are not
>appropriate no matter the circumstance, and it should be corrected.
>
>What I'd like to know is: who exactly decides this and how is it
>decided? Does Bridgit get to say what is an isn't appropriate? Is it
>this thing called society that decides? Does not what is considered
>appropriate change over time? So how does it change? There was a time
>when it was considered inappropriate for women and African Americans to
>talk back to white men. It seems obvious to me that what is considered
>to be appropriate changes over time and that this change occurs because
>people challenge attitudes. Is it not at least possible that some of
>the behaviours that we've been discussing are like some of the
>attitudes about women and minorities that have been challenged and changed?
>
>Ashley wrote,
>Just goes to show that if you behave naturally, people may not think of
>your blindness or focus on it; they focus on you as a human.
>
>I don't know about you, Ashley, but my blindness and my humanity are
>not mutually exclusive. It's not seeing me as a blind person that
>bothers me. I am a blind person. It's the negative attitudes about
>blindness that bother me. Specifically, it's viewing blindness as bad,
>as ugly, as weird, as abnormal, as wrong that bothers me. One way to
>deal with these attitudes is to train blind people to look and act like
>most people look and act. A second way is to educate people, to teach
>them that blindness may lead to looking and acting differently, but
>that this is not bad, ugly, weird, abnormal or wrong. The latter path
>is of course the harder one. It's much easier to change the minority
>than the majority. I believe, though, that the latter path leads to
>the world that is better for everyone.
>
>I know many of you are celebrating Thanks Giving. We in Canada
>celebrated it at the appropriate time in October, but for all you
>Americans, I hope you're enjoying the holiday.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Marc
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>nabs-l mailing list
>nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nabs-l:
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/bookwormahb%40earth
>link.net
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>nabs-l mailing list
>nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nabs-l:
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/robinmel71%40earthl
>ink.net
_______________________________________________
nabs-l mailing list
nabs-l at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nabs-l:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/avila.bert.humberto2%40g
mail.com
More information about the NABS-L
mailing list