tyzmusic Wrote:What can be done to inform others of this brilliant method, and why is the bates method so unheard of
In a nutshell, it's unheard of because glasses and even refractive surgery are easier. I once tried to explain the Bates method to someone, and he said "Most people would rather have the surgery". I'm sure he was right. Moreover, many people need clear vision, and can't just go without glasses for however long it takes to get the desired improvement. And if your vision is too bad, the method is hard to apply even in the unlikely event that you can discard glasses completely.
I agree with everything Daniel said. It's a quick fix culture. Something else -- a friend I worked with early in my practice who is only mildly near-sighted reacted to the suggestion that she go without her glasses sometimes with "I like the crisp clarity". When people are not willing to see the soft blurry scene at first, and want stark sharp detail right away, they'll reach for glasses every time, rather than look easily and gently and give the view a little time to clear up. It's worth the wait, but you can't convince them if they're not open to it. And it just keeps getting better and better!
Nancy Wrote:Something else -- a friend I worked with early in my practice who is only mildly near-sighted reacted to the suggestion that she go without her glasses sometimes with "I like the crisp clarity".
Yes, most people would like the idea of improving eyesight naturally, but following the actual process is a different matter entirely.
Nancy Wrote:When people are not willing to see the soft blurry scene at first, and want stark sharp detail right away, they'll reach for glasses every time, rather than look easily and gently and give the view a little time to clear up. It's worth the wait, but you can't convince them if they're not open to it
Right, many myopes don't need to see w/ perfect pseudo-clarity. They just don't want to do it.
Many people are pretty capable as far as fixing problems, coming up with solutions to accomplish things and even fully carrying them out, but when it comes to their habits needing to change in order to solve a health problem, they won't do it. 15 mins a day, some people will manage that, but it's a rare person that wants to incorporate changes into their life and change their habits.
Site Administrator
"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
It isn't proven to get you to 20/20 vision. Intelligent people need evidence. Solid evidence. If the bates method works it should be fairly easy to get evidence.
(12-26-2013, 12:39 AM)jamest Wrote: It isn't proven to get you to 20/20 vision. Intelligent people need evidence. Solid evidence. If the bates method works it should be fairly easy to get evidence.
Evidence is everywhere but you discount it. Meir Schneider, Peter Grunwald, even Dr. Bates curing his own presbyopia, and all his many
patients. Me who used to wear -10 hard contacts and now functions without any correction, and am still improving. If you don't want to believe something, you won't, no matter what the evidence. Try it for yourself before you give up on it!
(12-26-2013, 12:39 AM)jamest Wrote: It isn't proven to get you to 20/20 vision. Intelligent people need evidence. Solid evidence. If the bates method works it should be fairly easy to get evidence.
Evidence is everywhere but you discount it. Meir Schneider, Peter Grunwald, even Dr. Bates curing his own presbyopia, and all his many
patients. Me who used to wear -10 hard contacts and now functions without any correction, and am still improving. If you don't want to believe something, you won't, no matter what the evidence. Try it for yourself before you give up on it!
That's part of the problem too, so called 'intelligence' often blocks our natural abilities. MILLIONS of very intelligent people believe in the afterlife, or this God or that God, yet they have not one iota of evidence. So it isn't that they so much NEED evidence, they just choose what they want evidence for and what they don't.
Everyday I look at the eyechart, I have the ability to see better than 20/20, I can frequently read the 20/20 line from 25 feet, sometimes more. Before learning Bates, I could barely make out the 20/175 line. I would not have believed it possible a number of years ago, either. My intelliect was playing the fool.
12-30-2013, 02:11 AM (This post was last modified: 12-30-2013, 02:53 AM by Daniel.)
(12-27-2013, 04:57 AM)arocarty Wrote: MILLIONS of very intelligent people believe in the afterlife, or this God or that God, yet they have not one iota of evidence.
There actually is evidence for the afterlife: near-death experiences. Thousands which have been reported on, and probably many more which haven't. People who have had them say that it felt very real, not at all like a dream.
One counterpoint skeptics raise is that many people who come near death apparently experience nothing otherworldly. Sound familiar? Some people try the Bates method and don't get improvement. In both cases I find that counter-argument wholly unconvincing, because any number of factors could have come into play.
(12-27-2013, 04:57 AM)arocarty Wrote: MILLIONS of very intelligent people believe in the afterlife, or this God or that God, yet they have not one iota of evidence.
There actually is evidence for the afterlife: near-death experiences. Thousands which have been reported on, and probably many more which haven't. People who have had them say that it felt very real, not at all like a dream.
One counterpoint skeptics raise is that many people who come near death apparently experience nothing otherworldly. Sound familiar? Some people try the Bates method and don't get improvement. In both cases I find that counter-argument wholly unconvincing, because any number of factors could have come into play.
Vision improvement can be measured simply with an snellen, and others people can, and have objectively witnessed it. Afterlife can be measured or confirmed with, what? Intelligent people choose what they want evidence for.
(12-29-2013, 01:10 PM)jamest Wrote: I have tried it myself. I dropped out of school to pursue the bates method when I was 17.
It ruined my life. I am 29 now and have nothing and am suicidal.
When I eventually went to the opticians to test whether not wearing glasses for ten years had improved my vision,I found out it had got worse.
Ouch. I don't find such a failure to be good evidence against the Bates method, because again, any number of things could have stopped your vision from improving. For example, being desperate to make it happen could have worked against you.
01-12-2014, 02:06 AM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2014, 02:35 AM by Daniel.)
(12-30-2013, 03:24 AM)arocarty Wrote:
(12-30-2013, 02:11 AM)Daniel Wrote:
(12-27-2013, 04:57 AM)arocarty Wrote: MILLIONS of very intelligent people believe in the afterlife, or this God or that God, yet they have not one iota of evidence.
There actually is evidence for the afterlife: near-death experiences. Thousands which have been reported on, and probably many more which haven't. People who have had them say that it felt very real, not at all like a dream.
One counterpoint skeptics raise is that many people who come near death apparently experience nothing otherworldly. Sound familiar? Some people try the Bates method and don't get improvement. In both cases I find that counter-argument wholly unconvincing, because any number of factors could have come into play.
Vision improvement can be measured simply with an snellen, and others people can, and have objectively witnessed it. Afterlife can be measured or confirmed with, what? Intelligent people choose what they want evidence for.
Actually an eye chart is not entirely objective. One could learn to recognize blurred letters, squint, etc. I do believe in an afterlife as well as vision improvement, but there is not yet iron-clad proof of either, so I can't blame anyone for disbelieving.
How to make Bates Method more mainstream
