Can the difference in how people see be explained?

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Medicine - Vision Forum » Can the difference in how people see be explained?

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next

Author

Message

Katy via MedKB.com

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 3:19 pm

Guest

Can the difference in how people see be explained? By that I mean why people
who have the same prescription but don't appear to need them to the same
degree. I am -2.75 and get by without wearing glasses except for essentials
like driving, tv and movies and shopping. I know other people who are
surprised by that. Am I unusual and if I am why can I tolerate more than
other people seem to be able to?

--
Message posted via MedKB.com
http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200612/1

Mike Tyner

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 4:29 pm

Guest

"Katy via MedKB.com" <u12444@uwe> wrote

Quote:

Can the difference in how people see be explained? By that I mean why
people
who have the same prescription but don't appear to need them to the same
degree.

It's entirely subjective, as variable as personalities.

Sometimes there are physical differences - small pupils or squinting can
significantly reduce subjective blur.

-MT

Salmon Egg

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 4:35 pm

Guest

On 12/28/06 11:19 AM, in article 6b72f493f545c@uwe, "Katy via MedKB.com"
<u12444@uwe> wrote:

Quote:

A more meaningful question is: Why do some people visually perceive better
than others? Difference in prescription is at just about the bottom of the
list of explanations.

1. I have a friend who can spot fish in a moving stream and is able to
distinguish among rocks, plants and weeds. I am lucky just to see the
object.

2. Why are some radar (sonar) operators much better at picking out signals
from oscilloscope traces that look like grass (noise)?

3. As an aural analogy, some radio operators are able to pick out Morse
code from background noise in a way that boggles my mind. One time, as I was
listening to the "noise," I heard a slight change in the timbre of the
noise. I could not read it, but that slight change was the other person's
big signal.

4. When Sputnik was launched many decades ago I listened to a recording of
the signal. At the same time, the signal was sent to an oscilloscope. Even
when the trace seemed to be totally noise, it was easy to hear the Sputnik
tone. Do some people have the ability to see the tone from the scope trace?
I have no idea.

There is much more to seeing than the eyeball.

Bill
-- Fermez le Bush

otisbrown@pa.net

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:13 pm

Guest

Quote:

Neil Brooks

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:29 pm

Guest

otisbrown@pa.net wrote:

Quote:

There is a tendency to "over-prescribe" a minus lens.

There IS?? Really??

On what basis do you make this assertion??

Do you have any evidence (forget 'proof' for the moment), or is this
just a lie you have concocted to help you convince yourself that your
theory makes sense?

Thanks.

Dr. Leukoma

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:19 pm

Guest

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

DrG

otisbrown@pa.net wrote:

Quote:

Dear Katy,

There is a tendency to "over-prescribe" a minus lens.

Some people "tense up", and wind up getting an
excessive prescription.

Further in semi-darkness, vision can be profoundly
different.

It may be in room-illumination you have functional
vision (pass the DMV in some states), and thus
don't truly need glasses except for night vision.

It would be a good idea to read a Snellen chart
on your own, just to check this -- objectively.

Others indeed have "real" (non-pseudo) myopia, and
a strong minus is necessary.

Best,

Otis

Katy via MedKB.com wrote:
Can the difference in how people see be explained? By that I mean why people
who have the same prescription but don't appear to need them to the same
degree. I am -2.75 and get by without wearing glasses except for essentials
like driving, tv and movies and shopping. I know other people who are
surprised by that. Am I unusual and if I am why can I tolerate more than
other people seem to be able to?

--
Message posted via MedKB.com
http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200612/1

Salmon Egg

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:21 am

Guest

On 12/28/06 6:19 PM, in article
1167358755.614373.259110@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drg@leukoma.com> wrote:

Quote:

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Sometimes they look like thumbs or fingers.
Bill
-- Fermez le Bush

A Lieberma

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:41 am

Guest

"otisbrown@pa.net" <otisbrown@pa.net> wrote in
news:1167340437.990725.314240@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com:

Quote:

Dear Katy,

Dear Katy,

Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and
not in any position to give medical advice.

Thanks!

Allen

William Stacy

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:28 pm

Guest

Probably true, but the logical basis for rejecting him out of hand is
the garbage he actually has posted over the years. It doesn't exactly
take a rocket scientist to discern his fallacious thinking. Sure, he
sometimes expresses a reasonable thought, but those are scattered pretty
thinly, like pearls hear and there across the cow pasture of his universe.

Salmon Egg wrote:

Quote:

On 12/28/06 8:41 PM, in article
Xns98A7E6E7963F2liebermamyselfcom@216.77.188.18, "A Lieberma"
lieberma@myself.com> wrote:

Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and
not in any position to give medical advice.

During my lifetime, I have gotten plenty of poor medical advice from
professionals in medicine. This does not prove that Otis's advice is good.
It is not a logical basis for proving that it is not.

Bill
-- Fermez le Bush

A Lieberma

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:23 pm

Guest

Salmon Egg <salmonegg@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:C1BAA72C.558F2%salmonegg@sbcglobal.net:

Quote:

During my lifetime, I have gotten plenty of poor medical advice from
professionals in medicine. This does not prove that Otis's advice is
good. It is not a logical basis for proving that it is not.

Good or bad, your professionals are much more in a position to give medical
advice as they received training in doing so. What happens afterwards,
well, only 20/20 hindsite tells.

Inso far for Katy, she needs to be aware that Otis has nothing to do with
the medical profession, and his advice should be ignored.

That's not to say, others may play "doctor", but it's been proven Otis
doesn't have any medical background whatsoever, and first time posters need
to be aware of it.

He sure doesn't put an caveats on his postings, and not to alert new
posters is in my opinion just as bad as Otis himself.

Allen

Mike Ruskai

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:36 am

Guest

On or about Thu, 28 Dec 2006 19:19:26 GMT did "Katy via MedKB.com"
<u12444@uwe> dribble thusly:

Quote:

This is probably more a question of psychology. Why are you less
bothered by blurry vision?

Perhaps you dislike glasses so much, you simply don't wear them unless
absolutely necessary.

I went through such a phase when I was 12, but grew out of it as I
realized how much I was missing by leaving the world in a blur.
--
- Mike

Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.

Katy via MedKB.com

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:09 pm

Guest

Quote:

This is probably more a question of psychology. Why are you less
bothered by blurry vision?
Is that a rhetorical question? I'd be interested to know myself!

Quote:

Perhaps you dislike glasses so much, you simply don't wear them unless
absolutely necessary.
No, I don't dislike them, in fact I think they can be a stylish fashion

accessory.

Quote:

I went through such a phase when I was 12, but grew out of it as I
realized how much I was missing by leaving the world in a blur.
Yes but then I guess your glasses were maybe stronger than mine are?

--
Message posted via MedKB.com
http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200701/1

otisbrown@pa.net

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:19 pm

Guest

Dear Bill,

Quote:

During my lifetime, I have gotten plenty of poor medical advice from
professionals in medicine. This does not prove that Otis's advice is good.
It is not a logical basis for proving that it is not.

I have received poor advice also from majority-opinion medical people.

They MIGHT think they are PERFECT, but that only makes
you doubt them more.

I PERSONALLY would like to hear the unvarnished TRUTH of the
matter. That respects my intelligence, and above all else,
my right of choice in the matter.

If I am too young, then my parents should be supplied with
the appropriate second-opinion information.

If a given person in a professions does not "like" the
second-opinion, then he should say so -- and EXPLAIN
why he does not "like" the second-opinion.

That would be ethical and reasonable.

He does have the obligation to make you aware
of the preventive second-opinion, and supply
internet "links" so you can personally evaluate
the scientific facts and truth behind the
preventive second opinion.

I would respect a professional who respects
me in that regard.

It is clear from our discussion that that type
of RESPECT is not shown to the public
at this time.

You can draw your own conclusions.

Best,

Otis

Salmon Egg wrote:

Quote:

Neil Brooks

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:18 pm

Guest

otisbrown@pa.net wrote:

Quote:

I have received poor advice also from majority-opinion medical people.

But surely orders of magnitude LESS than YOU have GIVEN to others!

otisbrown@pa.net

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:25 pm

Guest

Dear Bill,

Bill> During my lifetime, I have gotten plenty of poor medical advice
from
professionals in medicine. This does not prove that Otis's advice is
good.
It is not a logical basis for proving that it is not.

Subject: The OPINION about the plus -- according to highly
qualified S.O. optometrists

Regarding: How to JUDGE an OD who advocates PREVENTION
at the threshold.

Or, if you begin wearing that wretched minus, your eye "adapt"
to it, any your distant vision is permanently lost -- like
so much spilt milk, or water over the dam.

Wake up!

Yes, you should get advice from a qualified PROFESSIONAL.
The question is -- WHICH professional.

You will hear the majority-opinion every day, that
nearsightedness CAN NOT BE PREVENTED, and you are wasting your
time if you even attempt to do so.

The majority opinion OD will give you the impression that ALL
ODs believe that myopia CAN NOT BE PREVENTED. This is simply
false.

While difficult (as we all acknowledge) it is indeed possible
to clear your Snellen from 20/70 to pass all DMV VA requirements
and continue and pass the 20/30 and 20/20 line. But it truly
takes personal resolve and persistence to do it. On that we can
all agree.

Here is a statement by an optometrist who "woke up" to the
NECESSITY of plus-prevention for his own children.

That is why most clearly defines the nature of and honest
second-opinion on the subject -- what a man will do for his own
children.

Here is the statement:

==================

From:

Steve I.H. LEUNG Optometrist

Hong Kong, SAR, China

May 2003

steveleung@chinamyopia.org

Subject: An optometrist's personal experience or MY AWAKENING

Dear Myopic Folk,

I am a practicing optometrist working in the field of optics
for more than 16 years. During these years I faced an excessive
high rate of children developing nearsightedness (myopia). It is
very hard to resist the obvious need to use a minus lens (concave
lens) for these children. I deeply appreciate that we all value
clear distant vision for life. Achieving this goal would be of
great value for all of us.

Everyday, a great many people are developing the vision
problems of nearsightedness, farsightedness, aged vision -- as
well as crossed and lazy eyes. These people come to my office and
require immediate vision correction. They all need glasses.

Among the visual problems, the case of myopia correction
bothers me greatly. It is a dilemma and tragedy of using a
"correcting" lenses, which in fact these glasses eventually become
a crutch for life.

In the early years of practice, I was not aware the long-term
bad effect that a minus lens has on the eye. This is because
neither the curriculum textbooks nor the professors pointed out
the ultimate side effect that a minus lens has on the eye --
during my many years of doing course work in optometry.

After graduation, I practiced the full scope of optometry,
from refraction to fundus eye examination, and vision correction
by optical means. But once these means are removed, the vision is
neither improved nor restored.

The minus lens is merely an aid to vision, i.e., compensation
by external means.

In the majority of cases, naked-eye vision gets worse with
the traditional minus lens correction.

The children will need stronger power glasses in the
following years. It is a matter of treating the symptom -- but
does not achieve an effective cure.

I have been mulling over in my mind -- to think about
alternative and better methods to manage myopic eyes, because I
also am nearsighted.

With my accumulating experience, I am well aware that
constant wearing of minus lens glasses are harmful especially the
full power ones. However, there is no choice but to use a minus
lens if the child cannot see well in his class.

At times, the best that I can do is to emphasize that the use
of (minus lens) glasses be restricted to chalk board, and always
must be removed after class. This is the first step in goal of
avoiding the glasses' side effect.

But being myopic is unfortunate and inconvenient. At times
it seems that none of us can escape the use of a minus lenses to
restore clear vision.

I have been driven into deep thinking about a way of, "how to
restore clear vision from myopic and how to maintain distant
vision for life."

As a father and an optometrist, I felt a strong commitment to
protect my own child's vision. It was because my child (age 4) in
her curiosity asked me, "Dad, why do you always wear glasses? Why
are the kids I play with in school wearing glasses?"

Her statement had a serious impact on me, and I woke up to
the fact that a child should not be fitted with minus lens glasses
-- if there are means to doing so.

Why? The earlier age you begin wearing the minus lens, the
faster vision deteriorates. The minus lens can make vision worse
all by itself! Many scientists, engineers and health workers have
formed this opinion -- that the minus lens is definitely harmful
to young kid's long-term vision.

Because I was sensitive to both the requirement to use the
minus lens, but also understood the secondary effect (vision
deteriorates )I began much broader research into the subject
matter. This included the judgment of engineers and scientists
(and some ophthalmologists )who "object" to the use of the minus
lens.

Fortunately, I met several enthusiastic engineers, physicists
and scientists via internet in 2001 by chance. They provided
excellent postings in their web sites where I got a deep insight
about the development and management of child's acquired myopia --
to include the potential of preventing it in the first place by
wise use of a (reading) plus lens. They are Donald Rehm, Otis
Brown, James Arthur, Dr. Stirling Colgate and Alex Eulenberg.

In fact, researchers such as Dr. Jacob Raphaelson and Dr.
Francis Young had conducted pioneering work to determine the
cause, effect, and remedy for myopia acquired in school. As early
as 1904, Dr. Jacob Raphaelson had used the plus (convex) lens to
effectively cure a child's myopia. Further, Dr. Francis Young
has revealed the true cause of acquired myopia with his large
number of insightful experiments and scientific publications in
the 1960s. All the above mentioned scientists advocate that
preventative measures be instituted to help children avoid getting
into myopia in the first place.

In view of their spirit and fortitude, I felt that I bore a
responsibility as an optometrist if I did nothing to assist in the
prevention of myopia.

I regret that I became part of the system (use minus lens)
that was put in place long time ago -- and that this system has
not changed in any significant detail since its inception.

My goal is to look to the future and begin preventive methods
which can be effective for the child who is on the threshold of
myopia. Today, I make it clear that my mission and task is to try
my best to discuss the alternate opinion on the therapeutic use of
the plus lens -- instead of the compensatory use of minus lens. I
do everything in my power to explain the long-term effect that the
minus lens has on the eye's refractive status, and I encourage
parents to review this issue for themselves.

I have supported several hundred children with the plus lens
since 2001. The long term effect of the lens is developing, and
results will become better as the use becomes more complete. Most
of the children retain their current refractive (focal) status and
few of them achieved significant vision improvement. Although it
is unusual, there have been several cases of complete vision
recovery! I also felt that making this commitment is a matter of
my personal integrity, and is necessarily part of my work and
career.

====================

An optometrist to will do this with his own children will
also help you -- if you will let him and accept his guidance and
support.

In other words, what man among us, would, if his
child asked for bread -- would give him a stone?

In the final analysis, an OD who has figured out plus-prevention
will have his own child wearing the plus to avoid entry
into it.

Otis

Salmon Egg wrote:

Quote:

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:08 pm Science Forum Index