Am I the only one who does this?
When someone says that they are nearsighted, I immediately assume they can’t see things up close.
Then, after a second or two, I remember – for the one-millionth time – that I must think counter-intuitively when it comes to vision impairment. Nearsighted people can only see things near them, and while this makes sense based on the actual meaning of the word, we don’t typically indicate someone’s impairment by what they can do.
People are partially deaf. Not “slightly hearing.”
Individuals have attention deficit disorder. Not “occasionally attentive ability.”
Marjorie Taylor Greene is stupid. Not microscopically smart.
When someone is suffering from a deficit, we typically identify the deficit by what it prevents the person from doing.
This is true even when it comes to vision. People who are blind are visually impaired.
But not when it comes to nearsightedness and farsightedness. In both of these cases, we identify the deficit by what the person can do instead of what they can’t.
This both confuses and annoys me constantly.
Am I alone on this one?
