EskiMonk.txt

From: BD

Hey, Otis. Finish your initial post by demonstrating how studies
performed on MONKEYS can be considered relevant to HUMANS. Factoring
in, of course, how behavioral differences between monkeys and humans
is
to be discarded as a variable. Monkeys do not likely stare at a TV
screen or computer screen for hours on end, do they? They vary their
accommodation more regularly than humans, don't they? That might
well
make a difference in all this, might it not? If not, TELL US WHY.
And
do NOT, as you did before, simply tell me to do the research myself.
Explain it thoroughly.

Without such explanation, it's just a study on monkeys. Big frickin'
deal.

BD

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

Dear BD,

Subject: The primate rhesus (dynamic) eye responds the same way as
the primate homo-sapien (dynamic) eye does.

When you respect the "responsiveness" of the eye to a
negative change in its AVERAGE visual environment, then
you recognize that both species behave the same way.

Here is the analysis of the primate-human eye.

At age 9 average, the refractive state of Eskimos is:

Mean = +1.3 Diopters, Standard Deviation = 1.7 Diopters

At age 17 (after 8 years in school)

Mean = -0.93 Diopters, S.D. (Sigma) = 1.97 diopters.

Z = (Xc - Xt) / Sqrt [Sigma(c) ^2 / N(c) + Sigma(t) ^2 / N(t)]

Z = [ 1.3 - (-0.93)] / Sqrt[ 1.7 ^2 / 218 + 1.97 ^2 / 194 ]

Z = 12.2

The value of "Z" determines the significant of the
result for the dynamic behavior of the fundamental
primate-human eye.

1.64 is significant

2.33 is highly significant

3.9 is virtually certain

The "Z" value is 12.2

The natural primate-Rhesus and primate-human behave in the
same way.

Why would you believe that they would not?

Best,

Otis