+- Eyesight Improvement Forum (https://www.iblindness.org/forum)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.iblindness.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Bates Method (https://www.iblindness.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: pure Bates method (/showthread.php?tid=1667)
Re: pure Bates method - JMartinC4 - 11-27-2010
Nancy Wrote:Heroes don't accuse others and name-call when they encounter disagreement. Whether I agree with Oleg or not, he doesn't rant. eyeYou may sometimes have good content to offer, but your tone makes me not want to listen, to say nothing of painting yourself as the victim when others dare hold different opinions than you do ("Now I know how Dr. Bates felt" you said once!). Can't we all just get along??I agree. That's why I don't do that. Thank you for misreading and misjudging me. Nice set of paintbrushes you've got there. Apparently it is often difficult for people to recognize the truth or a hero until they've nailed it/him/her to a cross or something. Then something wonderful and good happens and they say Oh! Now I get it! S/He was helping all of us defeat world badness! Unless they're in league with the badness. Part of the League of Badness we've been fighting our entire lives.
(paraphrasing John Malkovich in Burn After Reading). How boring. We can see his aura!I have used the Bates Method to improve my eyesight.
By following the Bates method I have been led to this website.
From this website I have been led to the discovery of neonatal eye antibiotics.
From this site I developed a method of biofeedback 'sunning' and found that a light reflected across my eye can produce a flash of clear vision.
From this site I've discovered Yarbus' investigations into eye movement and pseudo foveas.
My eyesight continues to improve.
"If I have seen farther than other men it is only because I stood on the shoulders of geniuses" like Dr. Bates. But if, instead of standing on his shoulders, I had lifted him onto a pedestal, we would both have been stuck in a rut.
Re: pure Bates method - Alexndre - 11-28-2010
well I don't know what to think of this forum and persons on it...
Re: pure Bates method - clarknight - 11-28-2010
I recently had a eye exam. Had siuns infection, severe neck tension still from a chiropractor injuring my neck. Have had many different viusal problems for 12 months since injury. Eye doc said my vision fluctuates 20/40 to 20/60 and back to 20/20. Assistant and Medical doc said is pressure from sinus and neck injury. Doc tried to sell me glasses with different strength lenses in left and right eyes and astigmatism correction. I had these symptoms 5 years ago with bad sinus. Never went to eye doc and it cured itself when I moved to Boston MA by the ocean, clean air.
This time I am stuck in this city of Worcester with bad air and still healing neck.
Long story short: At this time I noticed David's new article. I used the relaxation, looking at small parts and letting my eyes, (central vision) move from detail to detail. He was right; the eyes did it 'on their own', jumping from point to point.
It was relaxing looking at one small part, knowing that my eyes stayed relaxed because they continued to move on that part, seeking details (points) within the blur. I practiced this on my Natural Vision Improvement Astigmaitsm wheel chart.
All lines on the chart cleared including the astigmatism angles! Both eyes astigmatism and blur cleared and remained clear as time went on and sinus better, neck healing with Osteopath. To me, David is just making it simple, easy to do shifting and central fixation. Many times I must type directions a few different ways in E-mails before a reader understands.
I find it very interesting how the eyes can remain on a small part and stay relaxed, vision becomes clearer because the eyes are still in movement. Saccades. When the eye wants to, it moves to another point, part, object.
Regaining my vision with David's easy way was a relief after a horrible experience with this eye doctor trying to sell glasses, bifiocal even though close vision exam was clear, tried sell laser cornea surgery, no answers to questions. Nurse assistant snuck me some asnwers... about sinus, neck affecting eyesight. JUst knowing the chiropractors injury did not cause a stroke, catartact, detached retina removed the fear, worry and this helped greatly, back to Bates Mehtod and clarity.
Will post drivers liscense without glasses on web when take next exam.
Clark
Re: pure Bates method - Deliverance - 11-28-2010
I agree 100% with Clark message.
It is just simple to understand, so many words for something pretty simple... I think David's article is not misleading any Bates' aspect, if someone want to go into more depth about Bates things, that person can look for it for free at Bates' original writings. that said. Stop criticize, I wll be giving my feedback about it soon.
lord.
Re: pure Bates method - Oleg K. - 11-28-2010
So called "looking for detail" is a synonym for "trying to see", whether David intended it or not, this is exactly how all folks with imperfect sight will read and practice it. The only way to see they know is to stare, and they will stare.
What Dr. Bates recommends is a straight contrary: never look at a letter directly, but keep shifting around the white margin of the test card, imagining or remembering a letter, then dart a short glance at the letter and back, trying to keep the memory of the letter and ignoring what you see. Also, it is good to look into openings in letters and imagine them whiter than the rest of white space.
The very moment you look at a blurred letter, your mind begins to strain and the longer you look at it trying to see "detail", the worse it will become. You may completely lose the letter, and feel tension and pain and watering in the eyes. It will happen because you will be staring, you just can't avoid it. You may think you're not like others and it's possible for you to "look for detail" without staring, but actually you can't. One has to go a long way to learn how to dodge the mind and avoid staring, until the habit of staring ceases. These practices are all described by Dr. Bates' book and also the BEMs. Ask yourself if you have read them and if not why don't you do it, instead of following a probably incompetent advice of a stranger on a forum?
It is true that when your sight is perfect, you only see best a tiny part of a letter where you are looking, and the rest of the letter worse. However, this state of the mind is never obtained through intensively looking at some tiny point "for detail". In reverse, it is obtained in result of noticing that the parts you are NOT looking at are seen WORSE. First notice that at a big distance from the center of view, then by shifting, this distance can be decreased to the other side of the same letter.
My favorite exercise with the test card is to do long swings standing in front of the table, noticing how the letters swing easily from side to side, without actually looking at them. At some moment while swinging, your mind lets go of staring, the letters begin to swing all by themselves, even after you stop moving your head, and the vision improves instantly. All details come out by themselves, no need to look for them. Then the habit of staring takes over and the blur returns.
Re: pure Bates method - Nancy - 11-28-2010
Clark, I'm glad you didn't take any of that eye doctor's advice -- whatever happened to "Do no harm"? I've been looking at smaller areas of letters and also seeing increased clarity, my eyes naturally shifting over the point, the soothing universal swing starting. This doesn't feel like staring to me, which I think is just aiming my eyes at something but not really looking at it, my brain not engaged. I still think attention is the key factor in whether I see something clearly or not.
Today I noticed separation between the tiny hen-scratch letters near the bottom of the chart, different points of (blurry) clarity instead of a uniform line of gray blur. Cool!
Re: pure Bates method - Ares - 11-28-2010
I read David's article and i practiced what he described.
Most of the time, i strained to see. That's normal. I have imperfect sight and i remember only that it takes an effort to see. My Mind has learned to work in this unnatural way. Truth is, anything can strain me if something is wrong, even relaxing can be strain-full.
Since i did that for first time, i had spent time before telling my self that i am going to be relaxed while doing it. I was not, and i kept saying that i have to be relaxed and i am doing it wrong. After many minutes of making my sight worse, i noticed bright white squares and circles around the letters. It was very good for my Mind, because it realized that these shapes are only imagined. Then i started looking at the Z, and i tried to join all the details. My vision started to rapidly change from blurry to better and vice-versa. That was happening for some minutes. At the end, my vision was indeed better, but not as when after palming.
I didn't practiced the same thing again, but i am planning to do it.
For now, the conclusion is that if i do David's "Exercise", and i keep convincing my self that it has to be relaxed and let it come naturally, then it helps. Also is a good exercise to avoid strain all the day. Until sleep-time, my eyes where much more relaxed. It helps eliminate the strain as strange as it sounds. But if this this exercise is misused, the it can make your vision worse.
But we have crappy eyesight anyway. Making it worse and better again and again is good for us to understand that we can actually see perfect and what keeping us back, is only ourself.
Re: pure Bates method - clarknight - 11-28-2010
When I look at the blur, I shift point to point on it, looking for details in the blur and it turns the blurry letter into darker, darker, clear flashes, can then can see the letter dark black clear and the white page pure clear white, no blurry grey on the white or black. Eyes dont have to stay on one part, letter, but the eyes can do it if you want, with relaxation.
The eye normally moves away from a point, part then returns to it if the person wants to continue seeing it. Blink, drift into relaxation with no effort to see.
Re: pure Bates method - Pikachu - 11-28-2010
All I can say is this: There's nothing wrong with criticizing David's ideas, but please keep it constructive. We're all here for the same goal of improving our eyesights. One thing we cannot question here is David's sincerity and good intentions.
Personally, I think that Bates method exercises vary in usefulness from person to person, whether it's something like "looking for details" or "remembering black". Unless I'm much mistaken, this comes from Bates' idea that mind and vision are connected. The conclusion that logically follows then, is that different things will help different people, because we're all so different mentally.
And I agree with Ares in his last comment. If this indeed causes more strain for some, it cannot be regarded as ALL bad. I believe that Bates himself wrote in his book that demonstrating poor vision habits can be helpful.
For the record, I don't see anything wrong with Oleg K.'s posts. Obviously, they're fairly direct, but even if you believe in David's exercise, you can't just shut your ears and refuse to listen to what he has to say. If it does indeed practice good vision habits, then it should be able to hold up to the scrutiny. I think it's healthy to question authority in order to gain a better understanding of the issues at hand.
Re: pure Bates method - noneother - 11-28-2010
Having tried David's exercise I at first believed this was the way to see but over sometime I noticed it is just replacing my existing strain with a new one.
I do believe David has misinterpreted the seeing details part written by Bates. The little men in the caves which Bate's imagined was using the imagination to see better. The "looking for details" is only useful if you're imagining without strain that you are seeing more detail.
As an example, if I look into a dark corner and imagine there's a little stick figure (very black) walking his dog in this darkness then my vision improves.
Re: pure Bates method - Ares - 11-29-2010
No! Making the details form a clearer or clear letter is imagination!
It takes relaxation and imagination for the eye to be more focused at the distance, or completely focused. So you have to make your mental work, otherwise you cause strain.
Personally, i have express my beliefs. There is no equality between Multicellular Organisms in nature, only individuality. Specially in humans. Something might work form a person somewhere on the world, and it may takes years to find another person that will find the same thing useful. And what works for millions at the same time, might not work for only a single person in the world.
I believe Bates had similar views about individuality. He wrote like a Psychologist, not a Sociologist. What he said, i can't see how someone can adjust it to his needs. And don;t forget but we belong at the same species, but we have many cultural differences even between peoples from two villages.
I love Bates Method, because someone can learn it, and then go anywhere on the world and use it to cure people by adjusting the method. Missionaries did the same thing. Well at least the clever ones...
There's nothing bad with David or anyone like David i believe.
In Bates' magazine, articles from others where presented as well, and other continue his work.
Some times is just like a coin. A coin might have two completely different sides, but they are sides of the same coin.
Strainophobia is bad. Strain can be caused even by doing nothing to someone with imperfect sight. If we fear it, we have already lost.
Re: pure Bates method - Pikachu - 11-29-2010
Well, of course strain can be caused by inaction. That's why my myopia is so severe today. For years, I was told that glasses would "fix" the problem, but it just got worse and worse and worse...
Re: pure Bates method - Andrea Major - 11-30-2010
OK, then what do you exactly believe in?
So the argument is that some people have an issue with what Bates has said or how he said it. Is this correct? We really cannot argue with that unless people here become a bit more specific. So far, Dave on his welcome page says that his book "falls short". Then I heard that he was wrong about the accommodation theory and that people cannot remove their glasses. I would love to be on the same page with at least the majority of the people here but we need to establish the basics. How can we represent the same thing and move forward otherwise? I am willing to compromise, because I need a website to refer my 1000 friends for information on the Bates Method, but I really don't want to be inconsistent, because then it is easy for a newcomer to say that "see, they don't even believe in this stuff themselves so why should I bother?? I am fine with my glasses/contacts... or I am going to book my LASIK now!!" >
Re: pure Bates method - Pikachu - 11-30-2010
A valid point. I guess the main problem with the Bates method is that it means different things to different people. After reading Bates' book, two people might have completely differing viewpoints on what is most important or what he meant. Is there an easy way to resolve this?
To answer the Andrea Major's question, I believe that Bates got all the important things right. If I don't believe that, I wouldn't bother trying the Bates method. So that means the important things are relaxation, central fixation, and movement.
In reference to the issue about glasses, I must say that I am very confused by Bates. In his book, there is a place where it says that glasses "must" be removed and two other places where it says that they should be removed if it doesn't cause too much discomfort to do so and that vision improvement is delayed when glasses are still worn. Personally, I don't wear glasses unless it would be an inconvenience to do so. I don't wear them when I'm outside; I try not to wear them when I'm reading (although I have to bend my head to within four inches of the book to do this and I often have no choice but to put them on when my neck starts to hurt); I wear light glasses (corrects to roughly 20/140 or so) when I use the computer (like I am now) and heavier glasses (corrects to roughly 20/70 or so) when I watch TV. I do agree that the fastest route to vision improvement involves never wearing glasses, but for some of us, that is not a feasible possibility. It's a matter of sacrifice: how much are we willing to sacrifice for the speed at which we improve our eyesight?
I'm all for compromise too, but realistically, it may be difficult to get everyone to agree on several of these issues. Still, I like to see where everyone stands on this kind of stuff. Let me know if I was unclear about what I said. Keep in mind that I have not achieved any significant improvement to my vision yet and am basing all of my assertions/beliefs/comments on what I have read and my own interpretation of these texts.
EDIT: After a bit of thought, I think that it would be VERY helpful if all of the members here who have had some success with the Bates method made some sort of post about what they felt was the most important to them in improving their vision, whether it be an exercise or a useful piece of advice or information.
Re: pure Bates method - johnwayne - 12-01-2010
Quote:OK, then what do you exactly believe in?
So the argument is that some people have an issue with what Bates has said or how he said it. Is this correct? We really cannot argue with that unless people here become a bit more specific. So far, Dave on his welcome page says that his book "falls short". Then I heard that he was wrong about the accommodation theory and that people cannot remove their glasses. I would love to be on the same page with at least the majority of the people here but we need to establish the basics. How can we represent the same thing and move forward otherwise? I am willing to compromise, because I need a website to refer my 1000 friends for information on the Bates Method, but I really don't want to be inconsistent, because then it is easy for a newcomer to say that "see, they don't even believe in this stuff themselves so why should I bother?? I am fine with my glasses/contacts... or I am going to book my LASIK now!!" >
When I first read the original book, I believed like most people who read it that I had to discard my glasses. I think that's a big mistake unless those glasses are full prescriptions - I agree no one should ever wear full prescription glasses. Weaker glasses, ie. ones that give 20/40 vision are fine for most circumstances (except possibly using a computer, in which case they should be much weaker) when required. It's possible to learn not to strain through glasses, and learning to stay relaxed and not to stare through them is important.
Why do I think it's a big mistake? People who are myopic will strain more when looking into the distance without glasses. It's this strain I believe that prevents people from improving. Of course, one could not wear glasses and learn to mainly look closer up, where the eyes are more relaxed, and then look into the distance briefly so that the muscles in the eyes don't lock up; that would achieve the same thing and better. However, that's hard to achieve in the real world and it's really easy to decieve yourself you're not straining when you actually are. I've played that trick on myself many times.
People come here like Sunlight who have this idea that glasses are ruining their vision and they're feeling pretty desperate. They get that idea, sadly, partly from Bates as well as other websites around that preach about the evils of the minus lense and the optical industry. It's an oversimplication and it leads to a kind of hysteria and unfortunately I bought into it for a while. But you achieve nothing by being desparate. Only by learning to relax can vision improve. Trying to get through life without any kind of correction at all can be incredibly stressful and may even contribute to the very problem that's trying to be addressed.
While Bates was probably wrong about his theory of how the external muscles change the shape of the eyeball, this fact is irrelevant anyway. I mentioned it only because it's a huge red herring that will confuse a lot of people in the beginning, myself included. For one thing, reading about his experiments and how he apparently 'proved Helmholtz wrong' is a waste of time for anyone wanting to improve their vision. Second, they will become disconcerted later when they read things like the WebMD article quoted by the Wikipedia article on the Bates method which says that the method is 'based' on a 'anatomical fallacy', so therefore must be incorrect. So what they will do is become discouraged, possibly stop practising even, and waste even more time.
Andrea, Why don't you consider referring newcomers to Seeing Beauty, <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://sorrisi.wordpress.com">http://sorrisi.wordpress.com</a><!-- m -->, and get them to click on the 'Better Eyesight' link? Have a look yourself and see what you think if you haven't seen it yet. I couldn't think of a better introduction to the Bates method. I'd be interested in your opinion. The approach she takes is; read the original book, do the exercises, and if you have any questions, check the blog/articles for clarification on the various exercises/ideas etc. I don't think it's got a forum though.
Cheers, JW