Quote:So let's see - what's been said here, basically, is that there was no improvement in sight because I lacked understanding.
That if only I had 'the understanding' I would be able to see the rings of saturn with the naked eye??? You forget, I read the book, and it's partly BECAUSE of outlandish claims like that that I think it's fake.
As for your statement on lacking understanding - it's fascinating. This to a person who was understanding books on astronomy at the age of six; who maxes most I.Q. tests, and has mastered the intense meditations and complex physical techniques of seven martial arts.
I'm willing to look at the Bates method again, but if at a younger age I recognized it to be fake... what I think is that the Bates method WAS A WAY TO MAKE MONEY - for Bates and his original publisher. It's that simple.

Andrea Major Wrote:Reading doesn't cause myopia. If reading caused any problems with the sight it would have to be hypermetropia (farsightedness) rather than shortshightedness. Myopia is caused by straining to see at the distance. It would be more helpful to think of myopia as simply another form of amblyopia (general weak vision) with an advantage. The advantage is that the sight is still quite perfect at the near point. Reading, actually, the faster it can be done, the smaller the letters and the dimmer the light, is very beneficial for the sight because it is impossible to do without the use of central fixation. The letters, words read appear to be seen all alike not because of eccentric fixation but because of an illusion of the mind. Do the words seen all alike appear quite sharp and black? That is proof of the existence of central fixation. As Bates describes it, there are two illusions that take place: 1. only a small area regarded is seen best at once, 2. the shifts of the eyes are so rapid that the image of small areas appear to be seen all alike. If there were no shifts, if the eye "defocused" as in the phenomenon of eccentric fixation, the words seen would be blurry, the black print would appear grey and impossible to make out.

Blaming reading or any of our methods of reading for our vision troubles is actually 18th Century Opthalmology and has been disproven by Bates and others for quite a while now. The theories created around it are quite interesting, including this newest one by armagdn03 but I am afraid are terribly wrong....
In fact, I believe, it is important to encourage people to keep reading (without glasses, of course), even if they are unable to do anything else for their vision, as that may be the one thing that will preserve their eyesight for a long time to come.

Thanks,
Andrea

Quote:"I have made many dogs myopic by inducing them to strain to see a distant object. One very nervous dog, with normal refraction, as demonstrated by the retinoscope, was allowed to smell a piece of meat. He became very much excited, pricked up his ears, arched his eyebrows and wagged his tail. The meat was then removed to a distance of twenty feet. The dog looked disappointed, but didn't lose interest. While he was watching the meat it was dropped into a box. A worried look came into his eyes. He strained to see what had become of it, and the retinoscope showed that he had become myopic."

Quote:Children with normal eyes who can read perfectly small letters a quarter of an inch high at ten feet always have trouble in reading strange writing on the blackboard, although the letters may be two inches high. A strange map, or any map, has the same effect. I have never seen a child, or a teacher, who could look at a map at the distance without becoming nearsighted. German type has been accused of being responsible for much of the poor sight once supposed to be peculiarly a German malady; but if a German child attempts to read Roman print, it will at once become temporarily hypermetropic. German print, or Greek or Chinese characters, will have the same effect on a child, or other person, accustomed to Roman letters. Cohn repudiated the idea that German lettering was trying to the eyes.(1) On the contrary, he always found it "pleasant, after a long reading of the monotonous Roman print, to return 'to our beloved German."' Because the German characters were more familiar to him than any others he found them restful to his eyes. "Use," as he truly observed, "has much to do with the matter." Children learning to read, write, draw, or sew, always suffer from defective vision, because of the unfamiliarity of the lines or objects with which they are working.

Quote:The fundamental reason, both for poor memory and poor eyesight in schoolchildren, in short, is our irrational and unnatural educational system. Montessori has taught us that it is only when children are interested that they can learn. it is equally true that it is only when they are interested that they can see.

Andrea Major Wrote:Hi Armageddon,

Simply put again, You are Wrong! You are confusing Reading/Learning To Read with the Educational System/Process. One has almost nothing to do with the other, other than the fact that usually people learn to read in school, where the Educational Process takes place...
None of the excerpts you have gathered from Bates support your theories about the evil effects of reading. You need to read the book again and some of the articles to get it. But don't feel bad, most people misunderstand the method, unfortunately. It is so different from what we believe in, that it is almost impossible at the first read to really pay attention to what he is saying. If your only purpose of reading his work is to try to prove a preconceived notion, you will fail at understanding what it is all about. All that crap about the relaxation, memory and imagination is what it is all about - the part most people like to just skip over at first... (I was also guilty of it for a long time until I decided to dedicate at least 6 months of my life to try to understand and learn with an open mind, every single day. I still cannot say I fully understand, but I can say I am now beginning to and that I will really need to put in more time and patience, not because it is necessary for my cure, but because it is one of the most interesting thing I have come across in my life... Also, I was once a victim of some stupid book that totally misrepresented Bates's work... )
Anyhow, I really should not care about what you think. I just wish that you don't go around town, telling people that you understand the Bates Method and that they should stop reading books to preserve their vision, because:
#1 You are misrepresenting the Bates Method
#2 young people are especially very vulnerable and their career choices/successes could be influenced by such statements

It is OK for you to admit that the method is working but you have no clue why. Most people don't understand it and can still succeed with it. In fact, you can believe in some very crazy things and still improve your eyesight at the same time, because it is all about visual confidence...

If you have any questions, that you are sincerely searching answers to, I would be happy to try to answer them...

armagdn03 Wrote:... Both of these quotes paint pictures vastly different from anything I have ever posted. I never touted the evils of reading, nor encouraged a single soul to stop reading. I stated, bad vision habits could be seen in bad reading habits. This was a premeditated choice of topics because many people spend a large portion of their day in front of reading material, and it allows them an opportunity to practice correct vision and central fixation while "doing what they do". I have also never said to ... To my last point. If you believe someone is incorrect, Encourage their growth. Help them see their error, and offer a more sound view. It is a ridiculous idea to simply state that they are wrong, offer no relevant competing view, place words into their mouths, and then finish up with a saintly offer to help them if they come to you. Please take your leave unless you wish to discuss in a proper manor.