A couple of people I know who follow the field say the Bates method was much more successful in the 1920s. This is impossible to prove but let's assume it may be true. What could be the reasons? I'd like to hear your but here are mine.
1) Charisma. It sure helps to have a proponent completely confident of what he teaches, and with an M.D. degree to boot. Bates was so confident of his work that he often broke the glasses of people who came to him for treatment. It also helped that he had a remarkable magazine publisher and health advocate, Bernar McFadden, in his corner cheering him on.
2) Discipline. I think people in Bates' time expected to work for what they got. They had a lot of those old Puritan and Calvinist virtues. We live in the I-want-it-now, convenience, "get rich quick no sweat" age.
3) Imagination. I think people were more skilled in it long ago. I bet the people who came to Bates have read many more books than the people who try the Bates method today. You read a novel you use your imagination. You watch TV or a movie, you don't. They were used to entertain themselves. Today, we plop into a soft chair and say "entertain me."
4) Nutrition. I claim food was more nutritious in the 1920s. We live in the fast food, TV dinner, chemically enhanced foods. Agribusiness is not much interested in nutrition. It grows food to look great, not spoil, and make the biggest profit. How many people today know what a real tomato tastes like? Oops. It looks like I've reached my word limit. What do you think?
01-03-2014, 10:46 AM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2014, 10:58 AM by satori.)
I think these are fair points.
I would also add:
6) Staring at screens: In the 1920s it was probably a more active lifestyle for the eyes. Eyes were naturally not being used to stare unless they were scared stiff or gazing at a load of books indoors. Now people are encouraged to stare at devices very close to their faces for the majority of the day, replacing more active entertainment at one with nature which is more relaxing for the body.
7) Mental health: Disorders of the brain were not accepted by the mainstream, and many other problems were not considered as a direct cause of genetics in the 1920s. Certainly the idea that anything was incurable or a result of something beyond one's control, was less common. In short, people had more faith in themselves, and less need to trust in modern western deterministic science as the be all and end all. They were less inclined to take a scientist as the "why", more inclined to realise it as just another possible "how".
8) Word of mouth: In the 1920s, people would be far more inclined to spread Bate's method, alongside more mainstream news, via word of mouth to each-other. Therefore it had more of a level playing field in terms of advertising. People are more inclined to fear word of mouth now in case of immediate rejection. People's point of attention is less focussed on and open minded to the voice of their fellow common human. i.e. people are less inclined to respect others' personal experience as a version of a reality.
01-03-2014, 12:36 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2014, 01:07 PM by David.)
All great points in this thread.
People have also apparently gotten stupider over the last century, which is profound considering in the US we used to just be mostly uneducated farmers. Now most of us go to standardized schools and live in cities. We lost IQ points: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2013/05/2...t=hs&or=hn
Humans, at least in Western countries, have degenerated over the decades, even though we live longer. Our society is getting decadent, helpless, lazy... All the extra factors mentioned in this thread are a big factor in that. We get so much stimulation with technology, and eating foods that basically drug us and lower our energy, that we're losing our ability to concentrate and focus our intention on tasks. I always admire people who spend hours every day perfecting their craft to the point where it's a marvel to watch, whether it's an athlete or artist or whatever else.
If it's harder to improve your vision than people of the past, consider that we have a general problem of a higher and higher incidence of vision problems. I don't know the stats (but you could probably find some interesting stats online), but I assume that means the average degree of myopia has also gone up, or the complexity of additional visual disorders has increased, so naturally it gets harder to reverse.
boho, is there really a word limit on posts? I will have to look into that if so.
Site Administrator
"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
In Bates time all ophthalmologists,and optometrists,used the Retina scope as their primary examination tool,and subjective testing was done with a trial frame,and lenses.
Both of these exam. methods were very inaccurate no matter who used them.
They have been now replaced by the autorefractor,as the primary tool,and the phoropter for subjective testing. Today's glasses prescriptions are very accurate ,where as in Bates era,most people were quite under corrected.
If you look on ebay under antique eyeglasses,you will see hundreds of old eyeglasses,and almost all are less than three diopters. Many are in like new condition,indicating that they were not worn much.
So,I believe that many of Bates patients really never needed much correction in the first place.
As others have stated,that in our world of extensive near point tasks,myopia is rampant.
And now a days when one gets new glasses they are accurate as far as power required,where as in Bates time they were usually weaker than required.
I believe that if anyone today wants to be free of glasses,they need to spend as little time as possible using computer,smart phones,etc.Even up into the 1970's it was rare to see glasses much stronger than three diopters.
