Today Was the Hump with My Daughter's Bat Mitzvah

Hey man, better safe than sorry. We are your friends. We aren't trying to bitch at you.

 

We clearly aren't going to agree on any of this Bill, and that's okay.

I'll be interested to see your poll results too. I will.

That said, I will just say that you're playing a bit of a shell game with your hyperbole. You said that I may "make my body uninhabitable", and I claimed that the chances of *that* was "1/10th of 1/10th of a percent". While that number was clearly arbitrary, I stand by it's general sentiment.

To support your original claim, you have now completely switched tacks, and are now arguing that at least 1% of people "live to regret it", and imply that even "a small change in pitch or volume" would prove your case. These are, obviously, entirely different claims than your original argument, and it gets us nowhere to have you swapping one for the other mid conversation.

The question is, and must be, what are the chances that I will experience X increase in symptoms if I attend Y event. And unless X and Y are held constant, the entire discussion falls apart immediately, and you're moving X and Y around to suit your needs. You can appear to win your argument on this thread that way, but you won't actually get anywhere.

Your poll will be valuable regardless, but we can't get anywhere until you're willing to drop the hyperbole and actually talk through the issues fully logically.

 

You are right. My semi-educated estimate is that of the people who get a permanent spike, 1-10% will have it bad enough to think that their body is uninhabitable. So the confidence interval for that becomes from 0.0001 to 0.025 (from 1% of 1% to 2.5%).

 

What would you say to someone who drinks and drives and boasts about being ok afterwards?!

 

You use this analogy often. It's cute. But it's not analogous (which makes it a pretty poor analogy).

If you really want me to explain the poorness of the analogy, I will. But the reasons are numerous, and glaring, so I'll save the effort for now.

Alternately, we can play the analogy game all day:

* Drinking (without driving)
* Living in a city with pollution
* Drinking tap water instead of bottled water
* Not taking your vitamins
* Driving over the speed limit
* Eating that piece of cake

I could go on, but won't. Point is: we won't solve this with analogies any more than we will with shell games. When you *actually* want to discuss facts, get back to me.

 

Please do.

The only thing that would make an analogy invalid is if the risk profile of the two activities is significantly different. In both cases you willingly take a risk. You get some minor payoff, and you risk being plunged into a state of permanent despair for the rest of your life to get that minor payoff.

You need to choose activities that have between 0.01 and 2.5 percent of completely ruining your body every time you do them. Drinking and driving seems to have a good fit. The activities you listed above, don't seem to have that level of risk associated with them.

I guess driving 120 miles per hour when the speed limit is 60 miles per hour, would have a good fit too.

I have actually done that twice: once on a deserted highway in Alaska and once when I was driving in Australian outback. [Some #@#@#@ Australian truck driver phoned the police about me. Luckily I knew enough to slow down before getting close to a town. They stopped me and told me about the phone call they received, but they had nothing on me, as I haven't been speeding when they saw me.] It was fun, but if a wild animal were to run across the road and the timing were to be just right, I would have been a goner. I was in my 30s and acting like a teenager. I wouldn't do that now.

 

This isn't true. It's simply the only criterion you are considering.

D&D has many other consequences: fines, suspensions, jail time. Indeed, it's only when those things got attached to D&D that people started taking it seriously.

D&D also involves injury to others and not just yourself. Which, of course, changes the ballgame entirely.

Finally, D&D has a social stigma attached to it that makes it all that much more horrible. This is convenient for your use of it, as very few would argue when you say "would you say that to someone about their drunk driving". But it is nonetheless based on a false equivalency.

Plunged into permanent despair! What drama! Oh calamity!

I don't think this is correct.

What you said (and I quote) is that *for those who experience a permanent increase* the likelihood that their body will become "uninhabitable" is .01-2.5%. So then, the actual likelihood (using your own arbitrary numbers) is:

% chance of a permanent increase times .01-2.5%.

Which by my estimates would put things back into the astronomically low range I initially suggested.

Truthfully of course, arguing over these numbers is futile. We simply have no idea what the chances are - that's what fuels the drama and anxiety and calamity. You may be right. Or I may be right. We may never know. But we come back, full circle, always to this: everyone has to determine how risk averse they are, and then do what they feel is right for them. Plain/simple.

 

This corresponds to temporary spikes lasting days or months months. For any given fine or suspension or jail time, there exists a volume level and pitch frequency and spike duration that would cause the majority to choose the fine/suspension/jail time over that spike.

In case of tinnitus, it is your family and the others who will not enjoy seeing you reduced to a zombie state, being a shadow of your former self.

You ought to make the post above in the suicide thread.

If you read my posts more carefully, you will see that the .01-2.5% range was the result of that multiplication.

So 1% to 25% to get a permanent spike, and for 1%-10% of those people, their body will become uninhabitable. The lower bound is 0.01*0.01, so 0.0001 or 0.01% and the upper bound is 25% times 10% or 2.5%.

The resulting range is 0.01% to 2.5%.

 

I'm not looking to pick a fight or anything, but woukd you be able to tell me your THI score?

You sound like a person, who is not in very much distress due to Tinnitus (which is a good thing).
At least that is the impression, I get from reading your posts.

What I'm getting at is this:
People whom are in high state of distress over Tinnitus are usually not in any position to take on risks.
Their willingness to experiment gets lower, as the distress increases.

Those who score low on the THI scale on the other hand feel like they still have some buffer zone and many of them haven't really experienced the virtually permanent state of suicidal thoughts and anxiety, such as the high THI scorers.

In other words, if you were living the same nightmare, like some of us here are, there is no way you could have possibly written half of what you did,
especially the part about the chances of your body becoming uninhabitable being "astronomically low".

I hope that you don't take this the wrong way, as no attack was intended on my part.
I'm simply putting forward an observation, which does not only apply to you.
There are many regular posters on this forum, who's views are somewhat alligned with yours as well, so it is a more of a general comment.

 

Also it would also be interesting to know the maximum THI score that you have ever experienced.

 

No, I don't take it the wrong way at all Harley. And thanks for being so direct, yet polite in your comments.

Truthfully, you're mostly correct: last I checked (a month ago?) my THI was approx. 30, which - while not extremely low - is nowhere near the level of those with catastrophic tinnitus and/or suicidal thoughts (@Bill: not sure of my max score, but probably in the mid 30s). I fully admit that, and don't in any way mean to be unsympathetic to those who are suffering more than me. I know people with truly catastrophic tinnitus exist, and my heart bleeds for them. In no way are any of my comments intended to undermine their plight, or suggest that they should be listening to my advice. What I'm saying (here) is likely entirely inappropriate for them.

However - and please don't take this the wrong way, in return - not everyone is in that situation. And the advice given to someone with catastrophic tinnitus - which is essentially what Bill is giving - may be a quite poor fit for the average tinnitus sufferer. Indeed, for someone with a THI of 30, the right advice may actually be to be generally careful, to carry plugs with you as precaution, to keep music nice and low, to avoid loud noise when you can, and to wear plugs when you can't.

And that's been my general point throughout: that everyone needs to figure out what makes the most sense for them. This is something you clearly understand, because you pretty much summarized it all in your post: I do indeed currently feel that I may still have some 'buffer zone' left. And since I feel that way, the implications of avoiding all loud noises, period, seem like too much. Maybe they won't one day; but they do for now.

Moreover, they will for many others who come to this site for advice as well. And so while I don't (at all) want to suggest they shouldn't worry about their symptoms, I also don't want them to feel their situation is catastrophic unless it actually is. One's psychological health is as important for how one deals with their tinnitus as much as their physical symptoms, and so having new people come to the site, only to read that their life as they know it is over, can cause as much harm as good. So I want to buffer against this type of thinking, unless it's truly appropriate.

I do sympathize with you, as I know you are not in a good place. That's terrible and I wish there was something I could do. I appreciate that you're doing what you can to cope.

 

You are missing the point. The point is that for a considerable fraction of people who have tinnitus - their ears have been compromised. Noise exposure that the healthy people won't even notice can get one into that high THI zone. The advice is for the people whose tinnitus isn't there yet, and its goal is to reduce the chance that they get there.

That has been my point throughout too.

 

Well, that's one hot take.

 

Thank you for the kind words my friend.

I cannot really disagree with anything you wrote, knowing where you are at in regards to Tinnitus distress.

To be honest, if I was in your place (assuming I didn't experience the Tinnitus induced suicidal turmoil), I could see myself very much alligned with your opinions about taking on risks.

But I want to give you an idea as to where I'm at right now (just for your own refference point):
I stopped buying new clothing anymore.
I could really use new shoes, as my old ones are all worn out, but as ridiculous as this may sound, I don't want to be lying in a coffin with brand new pair of shoes.
My fridge only has enough food for 3 days max.
I pretty much live on borrowed time, as I consider my Tinnitus to be a medical emergency...except nobody is coming to save me any time soon.

Any day could be my last day as my rage and hate towards Tinnitus is growing daily.
Unfortunatelly, it lives inside my head so a retaliation on my part is going to kill both of us.
That is my reality right now.

If there is any takeaway from this, it would be caution.
Each person needs to do what makes most sense to them given the situation they are in.
All we can really do is generalize and in that case "proceed with caution" should be the modus operandi for anyone affected by this POS condition.

 

Does this mean you are out of arguments?

 

Yeah, I think I'm done here. Having Harley largely agree with my take was both sufficient, and eye-opening, simultaneously. I believe many in this forum require the type of advice I'm giving; and I believe many require yours. Perhaps we needn't argue at all, and just accept our Cagney/Lacey relationship.

 

I'm happy all went well for you Matt.I also agree that we need both positive messages about living our lives to the best of our abilities,while not forgetting that T can get worse if we are not careful.It's a risk/reward balancing act that we all have to ultimately make for ourselves.

 

What do you think about what I wrote?

 

I can't really disagree with you either Bill.
Both of you guys write from your own angle, based on your personal experiences and levels of distress.

As it stands right now, any more increases in my Tinnitus intensity would be equivalent to a death sentence, so I will deffinitelly avoid anything louder than Starbucks, as my willingness to experiment is pretty much sitting at zero right now.

It is my belief, that everyone should expose themselves to only what they themselves feel comfortable with, remain resilient to peer pressure and be very cautious, since a permanent increase in Tinnitus could destroy everything for them.
Tinnitus does not seem to have any limits as to how loud and intrusive it can get.

 

Harley, the grand mediator.

(P.S. I, too, avoid anything louder than Starbucks at this point - this one family event notwithstanding. I hope to increase my resiliency further, but will have to judge day-by-day whether this is happening or not.)

 

When have you had your last increase?

 

I just like that Harley has implied that he is going to find a way to make his current tinnitus level work, and that it would take *another* increase to put him over the edge.

 

That would be close to a year ago and it hasn't really settled down.

Was exposed to some kids setting off very loud fireworks near by, which I wasn't expecting.
Of course as luck would have it, they went off while I was helping my friend move a large, heavy dresser down a steep set of stairs.

Letting go of my end, so I could plug my ears was not an option at that moment.

 

Final update: I'm 100% recovered from the noise exposure, and have been experiencing some off my lowest, least reactive tinnitus days since inception. It's been 5+ months now... hopefully the downtrend can continue.