Dear Spock,

Dr. Bates said that if your Snellen is 20/70, and
you wear a full-strength minus, your
eye's will respond by going highly minus.

My remark is this:  OK PROVE that the
eye's refractive STATE FOLLOWS an
applied -3 diopter lens.

If it does, then Bates was RIGHT.  If it
does NOT, then Bates was wrong.

When you actually do the experiment -- here
are the results.


http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/DynamicEye.html

Oh, and beam me up Scotty.  I am surrounded
by hostile majority-opinion ODs.


Best,

Captain Kirk

Funny about the "Beam me up, Scotty"   You're deriving it directly from a sci-fi catch-phrase, "Beam me up Scotty. There's no intelligent life down here."

Well, I think you could be right. I am not an optometrist, so my understanding of testing out diopters is somewhat limited; despite this, I'm positive that many optometrists have the facts mixed up.

In the past, I have browsed through the groups at Google such as sci.med.vision and come across parts of your discussions with others, including Catmanx (Dr. Grant). Even so, much of it seems political, so instead of remaining on a purely platonic level, it has become a childish squabble where personal feelings/distrust of each other's judgment have become a real hindrance to reconciliation.

Nonwithstanding, I do not dismiss the idea that your statement could be correct, and that plus lens therapy could be a real benefit to people who have no other way around glasses in everyday task functioning. I think it could help anyone with a minus refraction (am I stating this correctly?) by reversing it; but my beliefs is that going without glasses can yield the most results under correct circumstances and the correct understanding of Bates Method.

Also, about the 20/70 claim, a referring quote from Bates would be helpful. Can you give me a direct quote by Bates and also tell me where you cited it so I can check it out? I have Quackenbush's Better Eyesight book so I can look it up if you give me the page number, or you could give me a direct link such as to Bates' own book Perfect Sight Without Glasses which is readily accessible on this site.

On something further, a problem with using this argument is that if I remember correctly from previous readings, optometrists will use counter-arguments such as that with the glasses off, the refractive state of the eye still worsened (at the same rate?) as minus glasses.... I know this is probably false, but since many people are going to believe nearly anything a so-called OD-"expert" tells them, how do you convince the people that the ODs are wrong? See, that poses a problem.

Dear Spock,

How do you "convince" the ODs that they are "wrong"?

Please do NOT believe that ODs are "monolithic". They
are not.  There is the "majority-opinion" arrogance
of Dr. Catman Grant, that anyone who "objects"
to the minus lens is a fool -- or worse.

And then there are prevention-minded second-opinion
ODs like Steve Leung at:

http://www.chinamyopia.org

As you know, I support the second-opinion MDs and ODs,
whether the method be Bates or plus -- or both.

I also support OUR education about prevention
so we START the effort before we lose to much
of our distant vision.

More commentary:

========

Spock> Nonwithstanding, I do not dismiss the idea that your statement could be correct, and that plus lens therapy could be a real benefit to people who have no other way around glasses in everyday task

Otis> Quite frankly, I do not call prevention medicine or "therapy",
although I have no problem if you do.  The concept
is just different.  Dave's "imagination blindness" comes
to mind in this discussion.  We can not "imagine" the
eye to be dynamic, and so we are blind to
the possibilities of prevention.  (Bates or plus.)

...functioning. I think it could help anyone with a minus refraction (am I stating this correctly?) by reversing it;

Otis> I believe (as Bates believed) that is was possible
to CLEAR your Snellen at the 20/70 level.  The
issue remains to ACTUALLY DO IT at this point.

...but my beliefs is that going without glasses can yield the most results

Otis> Here I totally agree -- provided you can PASS the 20/70 line
under YOUR measuremet and CONTROL.

Otis> Thus, with you SPOCK, I would say, check your
eye chart.  If 20/70 DO NOT USE A MINUS -- unless ABSOLUTLY
necessary.  Use Bates or plus and CLEAR that Snellen
to pass the 20/40 line under YOUR CONTROL  When
you pass the 20/40 line you can THEN throw away
your minus lens and SEE.  How may years
have we been Waiting to accomplish that
specific goal?

Spock>  ...under correct circumstances and the correct understanding of Bates Method.

Otis> Or the individual is informed of his preventive choice
at the 20/70 level (plus or Bates) institutes the
"method" and clears his Snellen to better-than
20/40.  Goes and PASSES the DMV at 20/40, and
no longer uses the minus lens.

Just one man's opinion.

Best,

Otis

Subject:  From the starship Enterprise,

Kirk>  Some people are having a hard time
understanding the facts concerning the
dynamic nature of the fundamental eye.

Spock>  I don't see why.  It is all
very "logical".

Kirk> Well, just to clarify the dynamic-facts,
why not produce a animation of them.

Spock>  Sure, Kirk, take a look at these
blue-tinted eyes in this animation on
your monitor that I produced:

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

Kirk>  That is impressive.  I wonder why so many people
fail to understand the facts of the natural eye's
proven behavior.  I guess they attempt to jump
into a solution -- with out understanding the problem.

Spock>  Probably because they are not "logical".

Spock>  In any event, you can't please everybody,
so you got to please yourself.

Kirk>  Your right.  Tell Scotty to set cruise to
"Warp 9" and let's get OUT OF HERE.

Spock>  Fascinating!

Classic dialogue!

No, I do not think ODs are monolithic. I know there are ODs of divided beliefs. That is, optometrists who are prevention-minded, and others who aren't.

My goal in using my own "logic" to convince humans who are subject to illogical assumptions is perhaps the impossible, but I'm willing to give it a try. I am working on my communication and negotiating skills, and I've found that the secret to persuading people who can't be convinced by words alone is in this famous quote:

      "You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself." Galileo Galilei

I believe in doing the impossible. I've been able to do the impossible. This doesn't mean I don't know how stubborn people can be and that history repeats itself. I'm not ignoring that fact. But despite Galileo's quote, I think I could perhaps figure out a way to use words alone to help people find the truth in themselves, by using logic that seems so logical that it overrides their logic. And by using the Socratic method as well as rhetorical questioning to help people become active participants in the discussion to help them find the truth in themselves.

Using logic that can override another person's logic is possible if you catch them off guard, simply because they never thought of it that way before. Let's use one example. Many optometrists think the eye muscles are weak. I have yet to see the study they cited that information from, because many of the medical journals require a paid subscription, and I'm not sure exactly where the information came form, so it'd be helpful if you could show me, since I'm curious. But now for my "logic" about the eye muscles that I can use to catch others off guard, is this:  when you move your muscles, your muscles get stronger, right? Yet what organ of our body moves more than any other part of the body? The eyes. Wouldn't it make sense, then, to say that the eye muscles must be incredibly strong instead of weak?

Also, if people try to counter by saying: but there are some eye muscles that are strong, and others that are weak... I could say that the ODs themselves who prescribe eye 'exercises' should clarify this, instead of putting forth the presumption that all eye muscles are weak. They should also cite where they got the information from. Otherwise they lose credibility, and it's open to speculation. This may be enough to trick (I hate to use this word) many people into changing their beliefs about the eye muscles without going any deeper. While I know it's a dirty trick, it does give them a way to think about it critically yet in simple terms. Hopefully if enough people are convinced in such a way, it can cause a paradigm shift in people's way of thinking about how information may be misportrayed to them by the scientific community. The scientific community needs to be more clear regarding where its evidence is coming directly from, especially in the books that are being published to the general public regarding the purpose of doing eye exercises (among other things).

I'm not ignoring the fact that many great historic figures have been unable to convince people because they refused to listen. So I'm doing the impossible here by teaching myself how to be the best communicator possible to persuade these types of people. I had so many frustrations in communicating with people while growing up, due to the ignorance that's out there, and I sincerely wanted to do something about it, not only for myself, but for others who have been subject to unfair treatment. I've actually dedicated my life to convincing people, because I find that having the ability to use simple words and being able to convince people can be a lot of fun if you're good at it.

I'm not even close to where I think I will eventually be, although my communication skills have grown exponentially in the span of a single year. If I were to try to type a thing like this a year ago, I wouldn't have a clue where to start. A year ago, I hated education with a vengence; today, I appreciate the underlying value of education. To explain how this happened, it would be a long story; but since one year ago, I have worked hard on my reasoning ability and understanding who I am and what I want to do with my life.

Here are two things I have learned about communication: 1) keep it simple stupid (kiss), and 2) be sincere and honest, as well as a good listener.

As you see, it can be benefical to read books on communication if you want to learn how to convince people. Communication is an art in itself. Keeping things simple is a very efficient tool in persuading. People can oftentimes tell a person's sincerity by the words alone, and using correct emotional manipulation can have a psychological influence on them (if the conflicting side is doing it, I may as well do it) unless they are rational enough to interpret things on a purely platonic level. Either way, emotionally or platonically, they will realize that my argument is based on something that is concrete and more sound than what they've been taught in the past.

I think I could find a logical system of persuading people, such as in the order information is presented. Two other requirements would be that the information would have to be as clear-cut and short as possible, yet convincing in the least time possible. If there is so much misinformation out there about how the eye works, someone may need to set the record straight and I may as well use my persuading abilities and knowledge to your own advantage.

The skeptics won't even know what hit them. By the way, you are correct for thinking I got the name Spock from the Star Trek series. Spock was half-human, half-vulcan. The human aspect caused him to be capable of emotions, while the vulcan aspect caused him to be capable of impeccable logic. I'm not saying this is true for me, but I feel I have a good balance between both emotion and logic, so I can identify closely with Spock. But human nature is tricky, so I always leave open the possibility that I could be wrong about anything. This doesn't mean I don't have full faith in the mind's ability to change how we see.

Dear Spock,

I used to wonder why these majority-opinion ODs
were so screwed up.

Until I found out how screwed up the general
public is about plus preventing.

Captain Kirk

+++++++++++++++++++++

It is IMPOSSIBLE to deal with the public that
expect extremely sharp vision INSTANTLY -- and
I DO MEAN NOW, and also prevention.

I do not "give up" on true-prevention, but
I do give up on the "logic" of some people.

Spock -- please explain to me how Raphaelson
could help anyone -- when they rejected
that proposed help -- out of hand?

Kirk>  It is illogical.
----------------------


Dear prevention-minded friends,

I used to "wonder" why I got no help from
an optometrist. And further, you must
wonder why I insist that you learn
to "do it youself" once all medical issues
are eliminated.

If a person argues with me and INSISTS that
ONLY an optometrist can "prescribe", and then
I ask, how is an optometrist supposed to help
you -- when you reject it out-of-hand.

The only answer that I believe is possible is
that the parents should have the child read the
chart (at say 20/60), insist the child
read the Snellen, until THEY VERIFY that
the child's Snellen is better than 20/40.

This is why Ron did with his son.

I consider this "transfer" of authority to
the parent and child critical to plus-prevention.

Here is the statement of a prevention-minded
optometrist for your thoughtful review.

Otis

+++++++++++++++++


WHY ISN'T THE PREVENTATIVE APPROACH OFFERED?

With this type of scientific understanding of the eye's behavior, you
would think that the insightful and motivated optometrist or
ophthalmologist could introduce a practical and effective method of
solution. Dr. Jacob Raphaelson did exactly that in the following
example -- with the following result:

THE PRINTER'S SON


"It was the year 1904 that I met a mother at a social lodge meeting.
She told me about her son's trouble with his eyes in school. I gave
her my card and told her to bring him to my office and I would fit
him with a pair of spectacles.

"She said that she had no money at the time and that her husband was
a printer working in another city. She did not expect him home for
the next six weeks. I told her all this would not matter, that she
should bring the boy over and I would fit him with a pair of
spectacles. I told her that she could pay for them when her husband
returned home.

"She brought the boy in and I examined his eyes. I found that his
vision for distance was poor. It was less than 20/40. I made him a
pair of plus 1.00 diopter spectacles. She was to pay me when her
husband came back home.

"In about six weeks she came back and returned the glasses to me. She
stated that her husband was provoked with her for getting the
glasses. He had tried the boy's eyes with different prints, far and
near, and had found him to have perfect vision with his naked eyes.
In fact, she said, the boy could see even better without the glasses
than with them.

"I was surprised that the plus lens could produce recovery that
quickly. I could hardly believe this story. I persuaded the mother to
bring the boy back to let me check to see if he could really see well
with his naked eyes. She again brought the boy in and I checked his
vision. I found that the father was indeed right. The boy had good
eyes, with 20/20 vision and better.

"I was in a dilemma. I did not have the nerve to say anything to the
mother. I just let her go. How was I to prove that the boy had poor
vision before he received his glasses? And who would believe that
vision could be restored by just wearing a pair of plus 1.00 glasses
for a few weeks?

"My experience with the printer's son aroused my inborn tendency for
exploration. It gave me an incentive to try to do special work on
children's eyes and on vision restoration. It also enticed me to
investigate myopic (nearsighted) eyes because I was myself
nearsighted.

"On the other hand, this experience was a warning to be cautious in
doing such work. For selling spectacles to persons who, supposedly,
did not need them was almost a crime. And the fitting of glasses
without the advice or consent of a medical doctor to unhealthy or
diseased eyes, or even to an unhealthy person who might need or be
under medical attention, was, and is now, and encroachment on the
medical profession.

"To shield myself against possible enmity and involvement, I took the
following precautions: First, I quit using the title 'doctor' in any
form, in print or verbally. I was to be known as a spectacle fitter
and nothing more. Second, I charged a reasonable price for the
spectacles I sold but nothing extra for any special work or relief I
gave. I did not advertise about this special work. I just did it as a
matter of routine whenever or wherever I was given the opportunity.

"Thus I became an independent researcher on the relationship of the
eye's behavior to spectacles, vision, and health. I have kept it up,
and will continue to do this work as long as I continue to have the
incentive and capability.

"Who would believe it? Who would believe that by just wearing a pair
of plus one (+1.00) glasses for a few weeks, that normal vision to
the naked eye could be restored?

++++++++++++++++++++

I have learned with sorrow that Dr. Raphaelson
was right.

You can not deal with the public walking
in off the street, when they expect
EXCLUSIVELY a magic "pill" in five
minutes. And get upset when
they find that a plus does not
"snap" them into clear vision if 5
minutes.

It takes and intelligent person to
figure out that you got INTO IT by
long-term "near" environments (proven
by the blue-tint animation) and that
only YOU can get youself out of it.

And that can NEVER be done in 5 minutes
in an office.

Best,

Otis

Otis,

The story of the Printer's Son is about dealing with people who have hereditary prejudices, and the main point is that convincing people is much harder than it would appear, so just give up and don't fight the prevalent mindset except in privacy.

Problem with this is, Dr. Raphaelson gave up too easily. Did he try different ways to communicate with the public? 'What's the use, the public won't listen anyway,' you might wonder... but who do you know that has studied all facets of communication and tried alternate approaches of communication? With due respect, what about Bates? Bates had a dogmatic way with words, stating things in absolutes such as 'always' and 'never'. If one example was found to be tentative instead of 'always' or 'never', then illogical people will dismiss his other teachings based on one example alone. It is one thing to be very smart and publicly demonstrate facts, but it is another matter entirely to change people's beliefs. You cannot always change people's beliefs simply by providing evidence in one way or another. These two men, as great as they may have been, did not know how to communicate using a Socratic-like method consisting of rhetorical questions that force the reader to become an active participant and to find it within as to why a prejudice would need to be changed.

I can see your point when you're saying it's 'impossible' to deal with the public. But the example above is where you're both correct and possibly wrong at the same time. I'm not criticizing, just sharing my observation in a platonic way. What you see as impossible, I see as possible. I wish you could see how much difficulty I had in expressing my thoughts articulately without jumbling and tangling things up about a year and half ago, and how much different I am at it now; it's a world's difference. What happened to me was similar to what happened to Charlie in the book Flowers for Algernon- initally very confused and unsure, only to become brilliant at an incredible pace. It's like it nearly happened overnight. It's as if in one year alone, I learned more than I had in the previous 20 years. Now, who would believe me? Probably no one. Because it would seem impossible, yet that was around the time I read and learned about the power of the subconscious mind. It's almost like resurrecting oneself from the dead.

And it wasn't long after that, that I acquired a strange habit of being able to repeat exact quotes by famous people... I wasn't taught through school or books or other people to use quotes, but inituitively it made sense that if you quote a famous person that is respected by other people, you could persuade other people. My newfound inituition of how to persuade people was very strange indeed, and I found this quote: "Educated men are as much superior to uneducated men as the living are to the dead." --Aristotle -- and while it's a harsh statement, it is true nonetheless. This does not mean just academic education, but includes being educated about the world around you, as well as other things like communication and so on.

In my last post, I mentioned that I have taken great measures to cultivate my communication skills. Here is my point of view. I think most people are not good communicators, even though they may believe they are. Since we are dealing with illogical people who won't adhere to logic, you have to deal with them illogically. So, what illogical ways have you thought of? One way of being illogical is to understand that excellent communication may include the need to resort to dirty tricks, or in other words, "to be innocent as a dove, shrewd as a snake." It is communication as a means to an end. If you can't convince them logically, then do it illogically (in a way that is not considered normal logic).

Start by addressing their hereditary prejudices directly using the Socratic method, rather than trying to convince them about an idea of yours. There are many creative ways to do this. True logic can see the logic even in the illogical, or the possible in the impossible.

Stated elsewhere is this: "Socratic method is widely used in contemporary legal education by many law schools in the United States. In a typical class setting, the professor asks a question and calls on a student who may or may not have volunteered an answer. The professor either then continues to ask the student questions or moves on to another student." People often don't pay attention or listen closely until they become active participants.