In our discussion about cochlear implants, which, in my mind, seemed at times disgustingly eugenicist, I found myself grappling with some difficult questions: How different would my experience have been? of the world what would happen if you communicated through American Sign Language instead of English? Does the existence of sign language benefit the world in any meaningful way? What would be lost if the world lost sign language? In trying to answer these questions, I am reminded of an aphorism that my brother once shared with me and that I have never forgotten: "There are two types of narcissism," he told me: "That of taking for granted that one's experiences are unique, and to assume that one's experiences are universal." These two poles often clash in debates over the respective merits of universalism and relativism. Is assuming an experience as universal disrespectful of phenomenological differences between cultures? Or is assuming a culturally specific experience disrespectful of the spirit of humanity that unites all people? Here the specific question in question is that of linguistic relativity. Linguistic relativity (also known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) holds that the language you speak determines how you experience the world (in the strong version of this hypothesis) or influences how you experience the world (in the weak version ). The accuracy of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis would suggest in my opinion that the phenomenological experience of being deaf (and communicating via sign language) is significantly different from that of being hearing, and that the loss of sign language, or of any language, should be of concern to us. It turns out that one of the most useful areas for studying linguistic relativity is th...... middle of paper ......f. The first team member described to the second how to set up the dollhouse according to the picture. In the case of the auditory group, this task was tedious and ultimately not entirely successful: the instructions were often detailed, redundant, or nonspecific. The deaf describer, however, was able to orient the furniture in space precisely through the language he used! The results were more efficient and more accurate. Perhaps this study in itself does not demonstrate linguistic relativism between ASL and English; the study only tested language use and not language experience. But it's not a big leap to imagine experiencing space differently when our very language is spatial. In either case, it is clear that the experience of using ASL is a creative experience distinct from using English, and not simply a different way of describing.