 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2007Retreat From Reason
Source: David Harrison, "New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'," The Sunday Telegraph, August 8, 2007 Prof Dawkins says that alternative remedies constitute little more than a "money-spinning, multi-million pound industry that impoverishes our culture and throws up new age gurus who exhort us to run away from reality". The 66-year-old scientist has investigated a range of gurus and therapists, including faith healers, psychic mediums, angel therapists, "aura photographers", astrologers, Tarot card readers and water diviners, and concluded that Britain is gripped by "an epidemic of superstitious thinking". Britons spend more than £1.6 billion a year on alternative remedies which Prof Dawkins describes as "therapeutic stabs in the dark". Health has become a battleground between reason and superstition, he says. "There are two ways of looking at the world - through faith and superstition, or through the rigours of logic, observation and evidence, through reason. Yet today reason has a battle on its hands. Reason and a respect for evidence are the source of our progress, our safeguard against fundamentalists and those who profit from obscuring the truth. We live in dangerous times when superstition is gaining ground and rational science is under attack." He laments the fact that half the population claims to believe in paranormal phenomena and more than eight million have consulted psychic mediums, while the number of students sitting physics A-level has fallen 50 per cent and chemistry by more than a third in the past 25 years. Hello, Is this Dawkins? Richard Dawkins? I think I've read a book by him. It was called 'The God Delusion' or something. Anyway that man is an idiot. Who cares what he thinks, he is a paranoid old fool. And he states obvious things and makes it look like he thought up something clever! >There are two ways of looking at the world - through faith and >superstition, or through the rigours of logic, observation and >evidence, through reason. Most of the time it is not either one of the 'two ways of looking', it is both. Believing in superstition does not mean you are not logical. It's like believing in the tooth fairy; doesn't make you into some crazy fanatical zealot! >eight million have consulted psychic mediums, while >the number of students sitting physics A-level has fallen 50 per >cent and chemistry by more than a third in the past 25 years. Just because people believe in psychic mediums, it doesn't mean they would stay away from one subject like physics or chemistry, just because it is 'science'. It's like having a religion, just because you are one religion doesn't mean you will refuse to study a science. I mean what a stupid thing to say. >The 66-year-old scientist has investigated a range of gurus and >therapists, including faith healers, psychic mediums, angel >therapists, "aura photographers", astrologers, Tarot card readers and >water diviners, and concluded that Britain is gripped by "an epidemic >of superstitious thinking". I don't see how these people are harming anyone at all. > Source: David Harrison, "New age therapies cause 'retreat from > reason'," The Sunday Telegraph, August 8, 2007 [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > has fallen 50 per cent and chemistry by more than a third in the past > 25 years. I think you are definitely on to something. > "There are two ways of looking at the world - through faith and > superstition, or through the rigours of logic, observation and > evidence, through reason. Yet today reason has a battle on its hands. Ms Brainy There *are* also two ways for a human mind to look at the world. One is by faith. Not requiring any reasons to believe and accept what is seen and the other is one that demands explanations and reasons for what is seen. One parent demands a child produce a reason they dont want to go to school on a particular day and the other parent just accepts the child has a good reason and produces an excuse for the child. And strangely enuf our brains have evolved to see the world in two different ways. One hemisphere of the brain sees the bigger picture, for example we desire a radio to be constucted that has good sound and appearance at a certain price. It does not care how it is constructed providing it fits the 3 criteria. The other hemisphere of the brain only sees details, laws and analysis. It can understand components but it cannot relate them to a bigger purpose. It cannot understand three dimensions. In the science or art of electronics a constructor has to understand the "art" of electronics *and* has to be good at the little details that follow the laws of electronics. To actually build the device the electronics expert has to *fudge* the details to produce the desired result. Overly focusing on the details and being overly rational does not create a good working device. Instead the details have to be altered to fit the purpose. And yet without the details there can be no radio. So excessively relying on reason and what is evidential in a tiny detailed manner can be detrimental to human progress. We need to balance our ways of looking at the world because there ***are*** two ways of looking at the world. > He laments the fact that half the population claims to believe in > paranormal phenomena and more than eight million have consulted > psychic mediums, while the number of students sitting physics A-level > has fallen 50 per cent and chemistry by more than a third in the past > 25 years. I dont think it is just a coincidence that my pyschic visiting mother had remarkably good eyesight until her death at age 74 whereas me who decided at a very early age that i did not believe in such things was myopic or that it it entirely irrelevant to my myopia that i have A levels in physics and chemistry whereas my younger brother who is prepared to believe anything is possible and does not limit himself in advance according to what can be described by reason and logic is normal sighted and has no science qualifications. >>"There are two ways of looking at the world - through faith and superstition, or through the rigours of logic, observation and evidence, through reason. Yet today reason has a battle on its hands. I think at least part of the problem is that powerful vested interests are behind much of the research that is being funded by universtities. Unless these vested interests can see an economic outcome for the research the research tends not to be funded. Case in point Dr Hammonds "Classical method" twin studies at London University. The classical method uses an assumption to ignore the effects of the environment that is highly controversial and yet Dr Hammonds studies are published in the British medical journal with no mention of any controversy about the assumptions involved. The twin group is sponsored by the Welcome institute which is funded by the drug company of similar name. One can reason that their main purpose is likely to be finding drug based solutions to genetic 'defects'. And one can reason they have little or no interest in finding none drug based solutions for these 'defects' Sometimes laughter can be the best medicine. And sometimes what might seem reasonable is highly unreasonable when looked at from the point of view of just plain old common sense. But how do you measure common sense? Is common sense unreasonable? Unscientific? Irrational? Sometimes laughter is the only solution to the more odd and strange of human behaviours. Andrew On Aug 28, 12:52 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > > "There are two ways of looking at the world - through faith and > > superstition, or through the rigours of logic, observation and [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > Andrew ...and the relevance of all of this to science, medicine, or vision is? But you are an "A" level writer. > ...and the relevance of all of this to science, medicine, or vision > is? Ok. I will have another go to explain what i am saying here. It is related to the dualistic nature of human beings. A human being has two ways of seeing and two ways of thinking. In one way of seeing a person constructs reality from details. It attempts to understand the parts and make a whole from them. However it is poorly suited to the different task of seeing what is whole. In the other way of seeing a person has a bigger picture view of reality. The details are not so important. It cannot accurately understand the details and yet even so it has an understanding of reality that is necessary to understand reality. For example the left brain is well suited to know that the details of a cube are: It has right angles It has 6 sides All sides and edges are the same Even so it cannot really understand the whole of the square so that it can draw it accurately. On the other hand the right brain can draw a cube in 3 dimensions and understands the concept of the cube shape. And yet it cannot describe the details that go to define a cube. It knows the cube but does not know its details. These are very different ways of seeing. To understand reality we need both ways of seeing or thinking. As i say our brains mirror this dual way of seeing. A person who therefore overly relies on what can be understood in a detailed sense loses the bigger picture sense of what is important to understand the whole or the overarching purpose that is constructed from the details.. In my observations of myopic people they are overly analytical, judgmental, detail orientated. What can not be understood tends to be thought of as not existing. It is a left brained way of seeing. So myopes construct reality based *only* on the detail they see and understand but are not so competant at fitting the details accurately into the bigger picture sense of a human life lived between birth and death. In a human life there are certain facts of life that are part of the overall bigger picture that need to be appreciated if a person is to live happily on earth. A myope tends to believe they are intelligent. And it is true they might well understand some of the details ie that a cube has such details. They might laugth at a person who does not know what a cube is in such details because to them such a thing is "obvious". On the other hand an artist can paint a beautiful cube and have very little intelligence as is measured by IQ. In todays society artists and none left brained thinkers or visionaries are no longer valued economically like in times gone by. Humans appreciate beautiful things. How do you define what is beautiful? can you? But we all know what is to us beautiful. We now live in a warped age of reason. The importance of details is emphasised. For example it is "vital" we can spell and we can do maths. but the bigger picture sense of a life that has to be lived happily tends to be forgotten as we pursue details like money and education and possessions. We might get a few hours of art or craft in school. In schools kids dont learn how to become citizens. Instead in a henry ford fashion they are processed to pass exams and get jobs. Schooling was not always like this and some schools still are not like this. Some children are taught to be independant and be good citizens still. But for many the culture of the individual rules. I am arguing for a more balanced life style. I believe life style factors are behind the myopia explosion. We now live in what can seem like a very stressful world where a person might feel he or she is inadequate if they are a happy go lucky person who does not keep up with the relentless demands of advertisers and his fellow man. On the other hand some people are immune to what others think. They define themselves based on what they think and feel and not on what others have demanded from them. These people might not earn much money, they might not get such good grades in school, they might not do so well at IQ tests but the chances are they have common sense. Common sense is more of a right brained skill. Its not obvious why common sense is useful but if you have it then it is obvious why it is useful. It is more of a faith based way of seeing. That knows that something makes sense rather than a way that requires some rule as to why it makes sense. Myopes seem to lack common sense. As my mother said of me "Andrew you know the price of everything and the value of nothing" or "Andrew you cannot be told anything" Paradoxicly myopia is a kind of learning problem. Because the left brain bias means that if it cannot be understood by breaking it into details then it is hard or impossible to understand. Can a human know as a fact that the paranormal is an impossible thing? They cannot know. They can *think* they know. And they can believe the *detail* of their thought represents reality. But in the bigger picture sense their thought does not represent what is true. And yet the professor claims he is reasonable and intellligent to denounce half of britain for having beliefs he does not have. I think the professor is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Andrew On Aug 28, 10:35 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > > ...and the relevance of all of this to science, medicine, or vision > > is? [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > > Andrew Yes, all well and good, Andrew. These statements roll off your tongue (keyboard) rather glibly. Other readers can judge their veracity and germaness for themselves. For me, it's just so much unrelated gibberish. And you are correct. I do get turned off by it so quickly because I cannot take it seriously. It's something I might read in a magazine on an airplane if I didn't have anything else to read. On Aug 28, 12:52 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > > "There are two ways of looking at the world - through faith and > > superstition, or through the rigours of logic, observation and [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > Andrew Andrew, You evidently believe that you can reach your target audience through this usenet group. By the way, who is your target audience? Grant, You evidently believe that your hostile behavior towards Andrew is somehow making you the bigger or tougher man. Really, it doesn't. > Grant, > > You evidently believe that your hostile behavior towards Andrew is > somehow making you the bigger or tougher man. Really, it doesn't. I appreciate your comment, Zetsu. But, you see, I am not trying to show anything except that Andrew's ideas -- although they make grammatical sense -- have no place here. Otis is quite a handful by himself. Until now, I hadn't really thought about physical size or toughness in the context of this debate. I just wish there could be some substance to the debate. One either believes what Andrew says or one doesn't based on faith, because there is no scientific evidence. None. He says there is, but where is it? It's like Otis dragging out that same study by Young which he keeps misquoting anyway. It's absurd. But, I agree that it is probably better to say nothing at all unless it is nice. At least I've dropped the vulgarities. All the best, Grant >I appreciate your comment, Zetsu. But, you see, I am not trying to show anything except that Andrew's ideas -- although they make grammatical sense -- have no place here. Dr G. Your view that my ideas have no place on a vision group is your opinion. I believe my ideas are important if humans ever want to unravel the mystery of poor vision. We dont see with our sense of sight exactly but rather we see what our minds interpret or perceive after they receive the sensed data. If you divorce the reality of a human brain interpreting the sensed data at the retina and assume that divorced reality has no part to play in having good vision i think you are going to be doomed to forever fail to understand the nature of vision problems. When a person demonstrably alters the way they see things via their way of thinking i think it provides evidence of the way their body and mind by some unknown process has poor eyeball vision. Anxious myopic people seem to want to construct a different reality to what actually really exists. I know correlation and causation are not the same thing. But when you for example exclude what is i believe known as a beginning point to your seeing i think you are not likely to have yourself good vision. Good vision depends on accepting what is there and receiving that rather than projecting what you think is there outwards as what you imagine is there. These might seem like philosophical ideas but we are not dealing with technology here but rather human beings were a huge amount of what is seen is happening in a human mind rather than some piece of technology that is perfectly understood. Unless you believe that all that can be ever known about vision is already known I think you need to open your mind to the possibility you might be wrong about some of your very rigid ideas on what is important in a vision problem. Andrew On Aug 28, 11:02 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > >I appreciate your comment, Zetsu. But, you see, I am not trying to > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Andrew Yes. It is my opinion that this discussion isn't relevant to the aims of this group. However, you may attract others like you and change the character and mission of the group if that is YOUR mission. Frankly, I don't know why you want to come here and destroy this NG. My personal opinion is that you are trying to get even with the "establishment" for ignoring your ideas. Other than people defending your right to post here -- and it is your right, I don't see a groundswell of support for your theories. On Aug 28, 11:02 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > I believe my ideas are important if humans ever want to unravel the > mystery of poor vision. It's only a mystery to you. It's a mystery to you because you wrap _all_ vision problems in one blanket, expecting one cure to work for all problems. It's a mystery if you ignore the sense organs, ignore the physics and attribute the problem to psychology or mentation. > We dont see with our sense of sight exactly > but rather we see what our minds interpret or perceive after they > receive the sensed data. So myopia and astigmatism disappear when you sleep? When you're unconscious or comatose, suddenly the eye focuses properly on the retina without the interference of unbalanced "interpretations?" This is mush, Andrew. When your eyes don't focus up close any more, it isn't the result of rigid thinking. > If you divorce the reality of a human brain interpreting the sensed > data at the retina and assume that divorced reality has no part to > play in having good vision i think you are going to be doomed to > forever fail to understand the nature of vision problems. If you ignore the optical reasons for poor focus and blame it on the mind, who is "divorced from reality"? > When a person demonstrably alters the way they see things via their > way of thinking i think it provides evidence of the way their body and > mind by some unknown process has poor eyeball vision. This is your "cure" for astigmatism, presbyopia, amblyopia, optic neuritis? > Anxious myopic people seem to want to construct a different reality to > what actually really exists. So that's what makes them myopic? That's a little mushy but what's REALLY mushy is preaching that you can cure myopia by relieving anxiety or constructing a better reality. The eyeballs are still too long nothing you've shown us SEEMS like it would shorten them.and you've done nothing > But when you for example exclude what is i believe known as a > beginning point to your seeing i think you are not likely to have > yourself good vision. Who could argue with that? Who could make sense of it? > Good vision depends on accepting what is there and receiving that > rather than projecting what you think is there outwards as what you > imagine is there. Cosmic, dude. > These might seem like philosophical ideas but we are not dealing with > technology here but rather human beings were a huge amount of what is > seen is happening in a human mind rather than some piece of technology > that is perfectly understood. No physics, just philosophy. > Unless you believe that all that can be ever known about vision is > already known I think you need to open your mind to the possibility > you might be wrong about some of your very rigid ideas on what is > important in a vision problem. I think you need to open your mind and learn some physics. -MT > I think you need to open your mind and learn some physics. > > -MT Mike Do you *really* think the human body and its eye can be understood as if it were an autorefractor?? Please tell me you dont really believe that! I know you know that the human eye is connected to a complex organism and not a machine, but for some reason you seem unable to see that the system is more than just an optical system that can be understood in such simple terms as you are insisting it has to be for the requirements of this list. This is a vision science list and not just an optometry list. A. On Aug 28, 1:52 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > > I think you need to open your mind and learn some physics. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > A. This entire discussion belongs in another news group, Andrew. Something along the lines of pop psychology or personal improvement. > This entire discussion belongs in another news group, Andrew. > Something along the lines of pop psychology or personal improvement.- Hide quoted text - Dr G I appreciate that you believe that good vision has nothing to do with a specific form of good mental health. But we just disagree on that. Like Mike I believe you have this misguided idea that the eyes, which are outgrowths of the brain, in some manner can function in isolation to the wider mental health of the brain. Like Mike you probably dont have much faith in common sense but i just think you lack common sense on this subject. We disagree. Either leave it at that or provide some evidence to support your case that the human "mind" plays no part in good vision. Andrew On Aug 28, 2:47 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > I appreciate that you believe that good vision has nothing to do with > a specific form of good mental health. When my patients have a vision problem, they do not seek a mental health professional, although that is what you wish. > Like Mike I believe you have this misguided idea that the eyes, which > are outgrowths of the brain, in some manner can function in isolation > to the wider mental health of the brain. But, I never said that. Not ever. Never. > We disagree. Either leave it at that or provide some evidence to > support your case that the human "mind" plays no part in good vision. Quit changing the subject, Otis. Your mushy ideas are what are on trial here. Certainly not ours. You are seemingly retreating from your own fantasies. >>Your mushy ideas are what are on trial here. Certainly not ours. I see. So there is a trial here? Am i allowed to be innocent or have i already been found guilty? I suspect we are in the new dark ages. ""In order to justify their behavior, they turn their theories into dogmas, their bylaws into First Principles, their political bosses into Gods and all those who disagree with them into incarnate devils. This idolatrous transformation of the relative into the Absolute and the all too human into the Divine, makes it possible for them to indulge their ugliest passions with a clear conscience and in the certainty that they are working for the Highest Good. And when the current beliefs come, in their turn, to look silly, a new set will be invented, so that the immemorial madness may continue to wear its customary mask of legality, idealism, and true religion." (Aldous Huxley, The Devils of Loudun, 1952, Harper and Brothers, NY, NY.) DrL talking to Anderw: DrL> Quit changing the subject, Otis. Your mushy ideas are what are on trial here. Certainly not ours. You are seemingly retreating from your own fantasies. Dear L, Subject: Anderw's concept of phsychology "state" affecting the natural eye's refractive STATE are not MY CONCEPT. Please try to get this issue straight. You were talking to Andrew. The scientific concept that I support is that a the natural eye is a dynamic system, in terms of BOTH accommodation and refractive STATE (objectively measured with cyclogel). Otis > On Aug 28, 2:47 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > trial here. Certainly not ours. You are seemingly retreating from > your own fantasies. andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com wrote in news:1188330472.944119.228820 @d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > I appreciate that you believe that good vision has nothing to do with > a specific form of good mental health. > > But we just disagree on that. So now that we know where we all stand, can we limit discussion to about every other month?  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply On Aug 28, 2:47 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > Like Mike I believe you have this misguided idea that the eyes, which > are outgrowths of the brain, in some manner can function in isolation > to the wider mental health of the brain. No. We just don't believe the brain can make a blurry image clear. YES you can extract information from a blurry image. NO you can't improve refractive error by mentating properly. That's voodoo. > We disagree. Either leave it at that or provide some evidence to > support your case that the human "mind" plays no part in good vision. We'll wait for you to prove you can extract 20/20 vision from a 4- diopter astigmat, by resolving his conflicts. -MT On Aug 28, 1:52 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > Do you *really* think the human body and its eye can be understood as > if it were an autorefractor?? No. Do you *really* think you can skip over the physics and cure refractive problems by treating the mind? > I know you know that the human eye is connected to a complex organism > and not a machine, but for some reason you seem unable to see that the > system is more than just an optical system that can be understood in > such simple terms as you are insisting it has to be for the > requirements of this list. You're talking about processing that occurs in the retina and the cortex. I know a little about that. I also know that it begins with a clear image delivered to the retina. You seem to think that isn't necessary. YES the brain can gain information from blur but GOOD vision starts with a clear retinal image. > This is a vision science list and not just an optometry list. Now it's sci.med.voodoo. -MT > You're talking about processing that occurs in the retina and the > cortex. I know a little about that. I also know that it begins with a > clear image delivered to the retina. You seem to think that isn't > necessary. - Mike I think you are getting a bit confused here. Human retinal vision is not of very high quality for many commonly seen images from the point of view of the coloured image that appears on the retina. Additionally the retina has the ability to detect edges from blurred edges to create more clearness. So as a general first principal the retinal image arriving on the retina via the human optical system is not a very good image - particularly for colour vision. >> YES the brain can gain information from blur but GOOD > vision starts with a clear retinal image. Well does it? Really it is more accurate to say that good vision begins with the ability to realise what distance an object is from us so that we can accurately point our eyes at the object so that the fovea of *each* eye is now so positioned that the optical image of what we are looking is precisely "illuminating" the fovea and *then* a more precise and final focusing becomes possible so that the image is seen as best as it can be seen. *Then* by processes that are not obvious to me the unclear image is processed so that even though it is very unfocused chromaticly we have the feeling that we have clear vision on the retina. > > This is a vision science list and not just an optometry list. > > Now it's sci.med.voodoo. Well it will be voodoo, if you claim human eyes are like Zeiss cameras in their abilities to correctly focus light of all colours and produce fantasticly well focused optical images. Human eyes are approximations. The human brain is the marvelous part of the "unit". So when you said in the previous message: >>No. We just don't believe the brain can make a blurry image clear. YES you can extract information from a blurry image. I think you are being a bit unfair. The retina is effectively part of the brain or is at least an outgrowth of the brain. The retina has "technology" to clean up images. Constrast enhancement, edge enhancement at least. Even so a coloured image shining upon the retina is very out of focus. Obviously for a single cone it is more or less in focus. Presumably the brain knows that and can produce clarity from one cone and use the others to add back in the illusion of what is seen? I dont know. I can only speculate. Maybe the answers to this are already known? It is not my area of interest precisely. I am only arguing here that disturbances in the brain could easily lead to all manner of visual problems by processes that can only be speculated upon because so little is really known about how human vision actually does work. Saying this is impossible seems to be to be unscientific. The evidence is that myopia is related to *surpressed* anxiety. Thats a pretty powerful brain inhibition of what the vision system can see that requires conscious effort during seeing. It deserves more investigation. Your answers suggest to me that you dont really understand the wider implications of how the various vision components must be intimately coordinated to get good vision. Each eye has to exactly precisely be directed at an object in the minutest manner via a coordinated musclular activity to produce good binocular high acuity vision, and since it is our attention or our consciousness that is driving this process it is self evident that a certain kind of mental control is required to do that as nature intends it to be done. I dont believe the very common presence of phorias in myopia is just a coincidence. I believe It is all part of a process that involves a poorly coordinated vision system due to disturbances happening in the mind of the observer. Until such time as you can produce studies that show there is no correlation between mental processes and vision then i think you are out on a limb here. The fact is there are many studies showing correlations with disturbances of mental functioning with poor vision to the point that it is possible to separate out the different common vision problems via a questionairre as Francis young did for myopia with 75% accuracy. With what we know now this could be done with greater accuracy. I dont know what kind of model you have but it just seems at least slighty wrong to me so far. Andrew On Aug 28, 11:01 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > > You're talking about processing that occurs in the retina and the > > cortex. I know a little about that. I also know that it begins with a [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > > Andrew You are correct in saying that the retinal image is imperfect. However, even taking that into account, one can still classify eyes as nearsighted, farsighted, and astigmatic by virtue of their optical behavior and only their optical behavior. The mechanism by which the brain can change the physical characteristics of the eye (aside from accommodation) have not yet been discovered or even suggested. > You are correct in saying that the retinal image is imperfect. > However, even taking that into account, one can still classify eyes as > nearsighted, farsighted, and astigmatic by virtue of their optical > behavior and only their optical behavior. I am certainly not disputing that. >The mechanism by which the > brain can change the physical characteristics of the eye (aside from > accommodation) have not yet been discovered or even suggested. Your meaning of "not suggested" is a bit unclear to me.. Firstly it is clear there are all manner of studies in progress to discover how myopic eyes elongate. It could well be that once the eye has elongated to a certain point it is irreversibly damaged so that no amount of reversal of the elongation process could produce good vision. But we dont know that. But to use that argument of irreversible damage to refuse to look for underlying causes makes no sense. Linked to those studies, Dark focus of accommodation is in some manner related to what happens in the brain Dark focus of accommodation has been extensively examined as being a possible connecting factor to what creates myopia. Not so? I am *not* suggesting some act of will directly creates elongated eye balls. What i am suggesting is that some process that interferes with the normal use of the eye that arises in the mind is the factor altering the normal growth process of the eye. I am suspecting that the inwardly directed anxious mental focus of a myope does in some manner interfere with the way the optical image is presented to the eye that in turn triggers some compensating growth factors. Astigmatism though is more complex. It could be that because the human mind is warping what it sees as it is ***perceived*** in the mind that some process then alters the eye so that eye "correctly" produces a none warped image in the mind. But in reality it is the minds eye image that was warped and it was only by warping the eye that it became ***perceived*** as being none warped. So little is known about the complex way a human body grows that if a person has a **beginning** point of regarding such speculation as vodoo I dont think they will be able to find via a scientific method what is actually happening. What is clear to me is that via a **beginning** point many people who work in the eye care field make assumptions about what is known in science which they believe truelly reflect what is known. And for some reason they cannot understand that their opinions do not fit the available data. As an example i just found the following URL http://www.nb.net/~sparrow/stressandeye.html "Genetic predisposition is a factor, no doubt, but its role is far from exclusive. Rosner pointed out that there was enough discrepancy in uniovular twin studies on ametropia to dampen any enthusiastic researcher's position that genetics was the sole explanation for the errors.18 Other authors have noted a low predictive value of genetics. 19,20" 18. Rosner, J.; Pediatric Optometry, Butterworths, Boston, 1982. 19. Mutti, D.; Zadnik, K; The Utility of Three Predictors of Childhood Myopia: a Bayesian Analysis, Vision Res. 35(9):1345-1352, 1995. 20. Angi, M.; Clementi, M.; Sarki, C; Piattelli, E.; Bisantis, C.; Heretibility of Refractive Errors in Identical and Fraternal Twins, Arch. Clin. Exper. Ophth., 231(580-585), 1993. As i say, when a person has a beginning point that myopia is mostly genetics and turns a blind eye to the studies saying otherwise then it becomes very difficult to discuss what **other** factors might be involved. I think you yourself do think it is mainly genetic and therefore you see studies that dont fit this opinion and decide irrationally they are "trash". Maybe if you were to actually look at these studies you could then more intelligently use your intelligence to discuss this with me? As I keep saying, reason will prevail in the end. But only i you want that to happen. Andrew On Aug 29, 12:02 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > Firstly it is clear there are all manner of studies in progress to > discover how myopic eyes elongate. It could well be that once the > eye has elongated to a certain point it is irreversibly damaged So 10-diopter myopes never get 20/20 vision? > that no amount of reversal of the elongation process could produce > good vision. First we'd have to find one that reverses. >But we dont know that. But to use that argument of > irreversible damage to refuse to look for underlying causes makes no > sense. It would, if you could demonstrate retinal damage in 4-diopter myopes. With correction, they easily attain "normal" vision. > Linked to those studies, Dark focus of accommodation is in some > manner related to what happens in the brain Brain *stem*. > What i am suggesting is that some process that interferes with the > normal use of the eye that arises in the mind is the factor altering > the normal growth process of the eye. You can suggest that pigs fly. Doesn't make it so. > I am suspecting that the inwardly directed anxious mental focus of a > myope does in some manner interfere with the way the optical image is > presented to the eye that in turn triggers some compensating growth > factors. Interesting suspicion. Let us know if you get anywhere with that. > Astigmatism though is more complex. It could be that because the > human mind is warping what it sees as it is ***perceived*** in the > mind that some process then alters the eye so that eye "correctly" > produces a none warped image in the mind. But in reality it is the > minds eye image that was warped and it was only by warping the eye > that it became ***perceived*** as being none warped. If you have a big enough cart, it can push the horse. > So little is known about the complex way a human body grows that if a > person has a **beginning** point of regarding such speculation as > vodoo I dont think they will be able to find via a scientific method > what is actually happening. Speculation is just speculation. Don't expect us to treat it as gospel. > What is clear to me is that via a **beginning** point many people who > work in the eye care field make assumptions about what is known in > science which they believe truelly reflect what is known. Choosing between my textbooks and your speculation... easy decision. -MT >>> Linked to those studies, Dark focus of accommodation is in some > manner related to what happens in the brain >>Brain *stem*. And anxiety has been shown to alter dark focus. Who cares if its the brain stem, the reptialian brain on the pre frontal lobotomy? picky picky picky. A. On Aug 29, 12:02 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > Your meaning of "not suggested" is a bit unclear to me.. I mean that it has not been suggested by any serious researcher. > Firstly it is clear there are all manner of studies in progress to > discover how myopic eyes elongate. It could well be that once the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > irreversible damage to refuse to look for underlying causes makes no > sense. Regardless of damage, what mechanism can you propose to account for collagen subtraction as opposed to synthesis? > Linked to those studies, Dark focus of accommodation is in some > manner related to what happens in the brain Dark focus of > accommodation has been extensively examined as being a possible > connecting factor to what creates myopia. Not so? Please elaborate. Other than suggesting another mechanism causing retinal defocus, I don't know what you are talking about. > I am *not* suggesting some act of will directly creates elongated eye > balls. Bates supporters suggest it all the time. > What i am suggesting is that some process that interferes with the > normal use of the eye that arises in the mind is the factor altering > the normal growth process of the eye. Nobody is pursuing that line of inquiry....except you. > I am suspecting that the inwardly directed anxious mental focus of a > myope does in some manner interfere with the way the optical image is > presented to the eye that in turn triggers some compensating growth > factors. The simplest theory that fits most of the observable facts wins. > Astigmatism though is more complex. It could be that because the > human mind is warping what it sees as it is ***perceived*** in the > mind that some process then alters the eye so that eye "correctly" > produces a none warped image in the mind. But in reality it is the > minds eye image that was warped and it was only by warping the eye > that it became ***perceived*** as being none warped. You can go from making perfectly good sense to utter nonsense with warp speed. > So little is known about the complex way a human body grows that if a > person has a **beginning** point of regarding such speculation as > vodoo I dont think they will be able to find via a scientific method > what is actually happening. I think if they subscribe to your notions, they will be lost in the wilderness of speculation forever... > What is clear to me is that via a **beginning** point many people who > work in the eye care field make assumptions about what is known in > science which they believe truelly reflect what is known. Somewhere along the line you miss the fact that they are subject to experimentation and verification. > And for some reason they cannot understand that their opinions do not > fit the available data. Oh no? I think you posted a link to one just the other day. > As an example i just found the following URL > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > errors.18 Other authors have noted a low predictive value of genetics. > 19,20" Nobody adheres to a purely genetic theory because it doesn't fit all the facts. Besides, you keep digging in the shoebox of old studies. If you need to go back 2 or 3 decades for your support, then your ideas are already out of date. > 18. Rosner, J.; Pediatric Optometry, Butterworths, Boston, 1982. > > As i say, when a person has a beginning point that myopia is mostly > genetics and turns a blind eye to the studies saying otherwise then it > becomes very difficult to discuss what **other** factors might be > involved. Like Otis, you are creating strawman arguments. > I think you yourself do think it is mainly genetic and therefore you > see studies that dont fit this opinion and decide irrationally they > are "trash". Maybe if you were to actually look at these studies you > could then more intelligently use your intelligence to discuss this > with me? I have looked at enough studies to have formed my opinion. I accept what most researchers accept, which is a combination of genetic and environmental influences. I haven't seen anybody in this NG say anything different except you and Otis, who consider it all environmental. > As I keep saying, reason will prevail in the end. But only i you > want that to happen. The scientific method will prevail. So, when are you going to publish something scientific? I cannot make other people be reasonable, and I certainly cannot reason with you, so why do you think it is all up to me? > > "Genetic predisposition is a factor, no doubt, but its role is far > > from exclusive. Rosner pointed out that there was enough discrepancy > > in uniovular twin studies on ametropia to dampen any enthusiastic > > researcher's position that genetics was the sole explanation for the > > errors.18 Other authors have noted a low predictive value of genetics. > > 19,20" > you keep digging in the shoebox of old studies. > If you need to go back 2 or 3 decades for your support, then your > ideas are already out of date. > > > 18. Rosner, J.; Pediatric Optometry, Butterworths, Boston, 1982. Dr G One way to get me to give up here is if you consistantly just want to distort what is true to suit your argument and you never learn that if you do that i am going to point out to you that you are doing that. If you want to end up like Otis then just carry on. Why do you keep overlooking the more up to date studies i provide??? Do you actually have a reasonable answer for that? In the previous studies i quoted you kept insisting they were all decades old. Even after i pointed out to you that some of them were not you kept insisting they were "several decades" old. 1997 is *not* several decades old. And in this case above you have included the reference numbers but cut off the studies to suit your errroneous and rather silly argument that my studies are .....what was it this time?? >>you keep digging in the shoebox of old studies. > If you need to go back 2 or 3 decades for your support, then your > ideas are already out of date. What aspect of last decade and comparately recent times do you not understand by 1993 and 1995?? "Other authors have noted a low predictive value of genetics. 19,20" 19. Mutti, D.; Zadnik, K; The Utility of Three Predictors of Childhood Myopia: a Bayesian Analysis, Vision Res. 35(9):1345-1352, 1995. 20. Angi, M.; Clementi, M.; Sarki, C; Piattelli, E.; Bisantis, C.; Heretibility of Refractive Errors in Identical and Fraternal Twins, Arch. Clin. Exper. Ophth., 231(580-585), 1993." If you have a case to argue then please argue it honestly and decently. I dont think that is so much to ask of you. Andrew On Aug 29, 8:26 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > If you have a case to argue then please argue it honestly and > decently. Once and for all, Andrew, I have no case to argue. I am not arguing a case. I am attempting to refute yours, and you are not doing a very credible job of defending it. You are the one proposing a hypothesis, not me. SHEEEEEEEESH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>Regardless of damage, what mechanism can you propose to account for collagen subtraction as opposed to synthesis? Dr G. Thats not the way i approach the data available. My myopia improved. The myopia of my friends improved. Now you can argue (without knowing the facts) that this was just something to do with tonic accomodation. I think i can be certain that many people in the context of a large number on the planet find their eyes do get better and find they no longer need glasses for myopia. Now, since i am a curious chap, I would have thought that world wide all opticians would be asked to forward **all** cases of recovery of myopia to some central World health organisation for review. Or that individually they would gather this evidence by consulting with their colleagues. But they just dont do that it seems. Or do they? Maybe in fact the ones open to realising that myopia can improve just have a different mind set to those who distort the evidence to fit their opinions as you seem fond of doing whenever it suits you to reinforce your biased view of the data. Andrew On Aug 29, 10:50 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > But they just dont do that it seems. Or do they? Maybe in fact the > ones open to realising that myopia can improve just have a different > mind set to those who distort the evidence to fit their opinions as > you seem fond of doing whenever it suits you to reinforce your biased > view of the data. My myopia has improve, too. I used to be -4.50. Now I am -3.25. In my case, no special therapy was required. I also know a number of patients like me. It is a well-known phenomenon that has often been discussed here. > My myopia has improve, too. I used to be -4.50. Now I am -3.25. In > my case, no special therapy was required. I also know a number of > patients like me. It is a well-known phenomenon that has often been > discussed here. Well congrats to you. Thats a pretty good improvement. I would say you must be doing something right. Myopia is related to feeling insecure and then using the ego to get a feeling of being ok and in control. But it tends to back fire because in relationships you dont really get what you want because you get stuck in a pleasing others versus wanting to be in control struggle. Are you also astigmatic? A. On Aug 29, 10:50 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > Now you can argue (without knowing the facts) that this was just > something to do with tonic accomodation. Works for you to argue without any facts. > I think i can be certain that many people in the context of a large > number on the planet find their eyes do get better and find they no > longer need glasses for myopia. Thanks for telling me. Ahem. > Now, since i am a curious chap, I would have thought that world wide > all opticians would be asked to forward **all** cases of recovery of > myopia to some central World health organisation for review. Or > that individually they would gather this evidence by consulting with > their colleagues. I don't think you are as curious as you think. Perhaps slightly delusional. > But they just dont do that it seems. Or do they? Maybe in fact the > ones open to realising that myopia can improve just have a different > mind set to those who distort the evidence to fit their opinions as > you seem fond of doing whenever it suits you to reinforce your biased > view of the data. Since my myopia has improved, the foregoing statement must be inoperative. >>I don't think you are as curious as you think. Perhaps slightly delusional. At some point in the future you might have the good fortune to realise it is not me who is delusional. You are resisting reality. > >>I don't think you are as curious as you think. Perhaps slightly > delusional. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You are resisting reality. Reminds me of a story I heard from an intern minister at my church. As part of her education, she spent some time as a chaplain at a mental hospital. One of the patients was upset. He looked at his chart, and he was diagnosed as having delusions of grandeur. For one thing, how could Jesus Christ be delusional? For another thing, he fully realized that he lived in a mental hospital, slept in a small bed in a dorm, ate cafeteria food and was locked down. The doctor who diagnosed him had his own office with fancy pieces of paper on the wall, his own car, his own house, home cooked food and could leave whenever he wanted. Grandeur? > >>Regardless of damage, what mechanism can you propose to account for > collagen subtraction as opposed to synthesis? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > My myopia improved. The myopia of my friends improved. So did mine. Thank you for curing me, Andrew. Thank you to my doctors also, for inserting IOLs. > I think i can be certain that many people in the context of a large > number on the planet find their eyes do get better and find they no > longer need glasses for myopia. As I got older, my myopia improved. My OD told me that many myopes have lessened myopia as they age. I still needed serious glasses, though. Then came cataract, and they got worse again. Must have been my bad attitude. On Aug 29, 10:50 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > I think i can be certain that many people in the context of a large > number on the planet find their eyes do get better and find they no > longer need glasses for myopia. You'd be right that many myopes experience "improvement." Half or more of them eventually "improve." Problem is we see hyperopes get MORE hyperopic at the same age. Sometimes it's dramatic, particularly after coma or major surgery. But MOST people gradually creep hyperopic after 30. Is that because everybody gets more rigid and less introverted? Or is it only the ones who get counseling? Now, if we see hyperopes sometimes jump +2.00 in a single year, what's surprising about a -2.00 myope who suddenly "gets better?" And how do you classify a diabetic whose refraction swings two diopters when his sugar goes up? > Now, since i am a curious chap, I would have thought that world wide > all opticians would be asked to forward **all** cases of recovery of > myopia to some central World health organisation for review. That's because you haven't watched myopes, hyperopes and emmetropes experience the same shift. The myopes call it "improvement" and the hyperopes call it "sumbitch glasses." You're gonna quantify it as "a more outward view". > But they just dont do that it seems. Or do they? Maybe in fact the > ones open to realising that myopia can improve just have a different > mind set to those who distort the evidence to fit their opinions as > you seem fond of doing whenever it suits you to reinforce your biased > view of the data. Bias - does that mean "seeing half the picture"? -MT > Problem is we see hyperopes get MORE hyperopic at the same age. > Sometimes it's dramatic, particularly after coma or major surgery. But > MOST people gradually creep hyperopic after 30. Is that because > everybody gets more rigid and less introverted? Or is it only the ones > who get counseling? Mike I want to say i am appreciating the time you are spending talking to me and helping me see this whole thing more clearly. Sure we have our fights but on balance i think something good is coming out of this for me anyway. I am finding what you are saying here very interesting. 1. Do you have some references for more plus in hyperopes after major surgery? Definately interesting to me never heard this before. 2. Is it known what the structural route is to more plus after surgery or in aging? For myopes and hyperopes? Do you have any studies on that? Thanks Andrew On Aug 31, 2:40 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > 1. Do you have some references for more plus in hyperopes after major > surgery? Definately interesting to me never heard this before. No, I've never seen it in print. I've only observed it several times. > 2. Is it known what the structural route is to more plus after surgery > or in aging? For myopes and hyperopes? Do you have any studies on > that? Since I've never seen it published, I've never seen any speculation about why. I've read that the general trend toward hyperopia (confirmed by a documented shift in population averages) is due to gradual flattening of the surfaces of the lens. Why it would accelerate during major illness, I have no idea. -MT > On Aug 31, 2:40 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > 1. Do you have some references for more plus in hyperopes after major > > surgery? Definately interesting to me never heard this before. > > No, I've never seen it in print. I've only observed it several times. By your definition what you have described is Mush. How does that feel? > > 2. Is it known what the structural route is to more plus after surgery > > or in aging? For myopes and hyperopes? Do you have any studies on > > that? > > Since I've never seen it published, I've never seen any speculation > about why. Mighty mush then presumably by your own definitions. *but* I am prepared to accept and file away in my mind what you have said and see how it can fit into my model of vision problems. It certainly has its place there. > I've read that the general trend toward hyperopia (confirmed by a > documented shift in population averages) is due to gradual flattening > of the surfaces of the lens. Why it would accelerate during major > illness, I have no idea. Seems strange there are not more studies on this effect. I think there is more information available on the puzzle of myopia than seems currently available which could easily be found with a few well designed studies. Is it **only** lens thinning? I wonder if that is an assumption that fits an already decided belief about myopia? Corneal curvatures also vary do they not? Is it really true that no person ever records reducing axial length ever? What is the highest ever recorded case of reduced axial length? Is it really Zero?? Is that absolutely proven? Really?? Or is it the case really that there is no data? Really?? Andrew > Mighty mush then presumably by your own definitions. Yes, I guess it never happened. I just imagined it. > Is it **only** lens thinning? I wonder if that is an assumption that > fits an already decided belief about myopia? I didn't say "thinning." I said "flattening." That's what I read. > Is it really true that no person ever records reducing axial length > ever? What is the highest ever recorded case of reduced axial > length? Is it really Zero?? I've never heard of it. > Or is it the case really that there is no data? Really?? Go find some. -MT > Is it really true that no person ever records reducing axial length > ever? What is the highest ever recorded case of reduced axial > length? Is it really Zero?? Haven't tried reduced. Have tried increased. There's a measurement using soundwaves that documented it. Don't know how much. Not my job. It was caused by a buckle. andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com wrote in news:1188363772.220274.185730 @r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: > As i say, when a person has a beginning point that myopia is mostly > genetics and turns a blind eye to the studies saying otherwise then it > becomes very difficult to discuss what **other** factors might be > involved. Nobody is turning a blind eye to studies suggesting otherwise. Most here are saying that studies showing what you are suggesting don't exist. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply >Most here are saying that studies showing what you are suggesting don't exist. Scott Actually of the few people who have commented One person thought they were trash One said he did not believe them One (You) said "where are these studies?" I just assumed if you were interested you could have a look at the thread and find them for yourself. But now is as good a time as any to bring them out once more. Myopia Palmer (1966,1970) "Myopes present an outward appearance of calmness" "but tend to be suppressors of potential anxiety" "Myope does not respond impulsively, but is instead, quite cautious" Schapero and Hirsch,(1952) myopes are "emotionally unresponsive, unexcitable, highly controlled" Van Alphen et al (1952) myopes "have deep rooted anxiety Rosanes (1966) "they have a low tolerance for anxiety and want to stop any situation they find threatening or stressful" Young (1966) "defending their ideas when attacked" Hyperopia Schapero and Hirsch (1952) "carefree lively and impulsive" "socially passive" Young (1966) "having a high need for exhibition and change" Differentiating normal sighted people from those with vision problems Francis Young attempted this in the 1970's with some success for adults. He claimed over 70% success. Young F. A., Singer, R.M., and Foster, D. The psychological differentiation of male myopes and non-myopes. American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics, 1975, 52, 679-686 And this one seems interesting too: Baldwin W R. A review of statistical studies of relations between myopia and ethnic behavioural and psychological characteristics . Am J optom. physiol. opt 58(7):516-27, 1981 Doctoral Dissertations There may be many more studies of this kind available but the following were found from various sources and by searching online through the archives of Proquest Information and Learning where most reputable American PhD's are deposited Kelley, Charles R. "Psychological Factors in Myopia." Ph.D. dissertation. New School for Social Research, New York: 1958. Fox, Jack. "Functional Factors in Myopia." Ph.D. dissertation. UCLA: 1958. A PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF MYOPIA.. ZEIGER, CAROLYN ALLEN, PHD. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER, 1976. 262 pp. PSYCHOLOGICAL CORRELATES TO MYOPIA COMPARED TO HYPEROPIA AND EMMETROPIA. ROSANES, MARILYN BLITZER, PHD. YESHIVA UNIVERSITY, 1966. 172 pp. THE VISUAL ANOMALIES OF MYOPIA AND HYPEROPIA RELATED TO PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS.. BRANDT, ROBERT, PHD. CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY - BERKELEY/ALAMEDA, 1977. 158 pp. Gottlieb, Ray. "The Psychophysiology of Nearsightedness." Ph.D. dissertation. Berkeley: 1978. McClay, William H. "Systematic Relaxation: A Treatment for Visual Problems." Ph.D. dissertation. United States International University, San Diego: 1978. FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF MYOPIA.. GRIGSBY, EUGENE HOWARD, PHD. WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, 1979. 90 pp. PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BOYS WITH MYOPIA. SEITLER, BURTON NORMAN, PHD. FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, 1981. 242 pp. MYOPIA AND PERSONALITY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MYOPIC SUBGROUPS. CARLIN, ENID SUSAN, PHD. UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, 1981. 77 pp. A STUDY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS IN MYOPIA. WAY, JAMES L., PHD. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1955. Kellum, R.B. Capitalism and the Eye. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Dissertation Information Service, 1997. Now some of these PhD's may well be micky mouse ones. But not all are. Kelly died recently and he got into some really flaky personal research on 'energy weather prediction' which makes the work he did earlier seem like the work of a lunatic. However his fundamental findings of former times seem to have a great deal of merit in my view. He was one of the first to associate myopia with anxiety, anger with hypermetropia. Ie different refractive errors have different personality/mental causes. I have spoken to Dr Burton Seitler who is now a practicing psychoanalyst who remains interested in the topic (the only normal sighted child of a myopic family) and he seemed a normal kind of guy and not your average nutty or eccentric shrink. I also emailed quite a bit with Dr Carolyn Zieger (a myope) who is now working as a practicing psychotherapist who now feels diet is more likely to be a factor. However i spoke to her Supervising professor , Lew Harvey Jnr (myope) who is a respected and well known professor of visual perception who felt the work had merit and should be followed up but he was no longer interested personally. Then there is the modern and ongoing work of Roberto Kaplan a former prof of optometry who is the most outstanding present figure in this field of relationships between prescription and behaviour. He has published 3 books which provide more references. I have met him and he is undoubtedly authoritative and very convincing even for those who have no awareness of this subject. He visits london once a year or so. andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com wrote in news:1188395538.364951.11670@ 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com: > But now is as good a time as any to bring them out once more. Can you provide them in a form where I can actually find them? Name, Journal, date, at least, and title would help. Quote snippets don't help, as they provide very little insight into the conclusions. Doctoral Dissertations don't count, as they don't necessarily meet a rigorous standard of peer review. In fact, I doubt that you could actually prove that many of those dissertations exist. Just out of curiosity, which ones of these citations have you actually read in their entirety? SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > Can you provide them in a form where I can actually find them? Name, > Journal, date, at least, and title would help. Quote snippets don't help, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Just out of curiosity, which ones of these citations have you actually read > in their entirety? Scott Good points and bad points you are making i think. I have the same difficulty as you in finding studies and reading them. I dont have access to a search library and effectively i have to get access to optical journals and i have no method of doing that. The public cannot go read them as far as I have been able to work out. I have obtained 2 of the Phd's for around $60 each. Generally the standard for PhD's is judged by the university in which they are moderated/refereed by. I have only actually read as far as i recall one of the full citations. But what is your point exactly? These studies are still coming up from time to time in the modern literature but i have no way of finding them unless some other study quotes them or they happen to be available via medline for example. Either way i have found i can reproduce these studies conclusions so it does not really concern me anymore to get yet more studies. What i would like is to be able to do what i am currently doing with people which is working with the issues of anxiety and so forth, changing their perceptions **and*** also be able to do this within some recognised study group so that when i publish the results the study is published under a recognised authority. I realise my own authority regardless of success counts for nothing in this world of Authorities and opinions. Andrew andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com wrote in news:1188397904.004627.120720 @r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: > Good points and bad points you are making i think. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that. The public cannot go read them as far as I have been able to > work out. Actually, I don't have any problems finding and reading the articles, so long as they are accurately cited and they really exist. In fact, it's easily possible to find every paper that ever cited those papers, assuming they were published in catalogued journals. These days, those tools are as available to you as they are to me. In fact, google scholar is better than any library-provided tool I have access to. > I have obtained 2 of the Phd's for around $60 each. Can you even prove that the others exist?? > Generally the standard for PhD's is judged by the university in which > they are moderated/refereed by. I don't need you to tell me the standards by which Ph.D. Dissertations are moderated. I moderate them regularly. I also know that if they were any good, they'd be published in a refereed format. > I have only actually read as far as i recall one of the full > citations. > > But what is your point exactly? My point is that you're the one claiming to want scientific discussion, and I'm trying to lay the groundwork for a scientific discussion. > These studies are still coming up from time to time in the modern > literature but i have no way of finding them unless some other study > quotes them or they happen to be available via medline for example. Not at all. Google scholar is as available to you as it is to me. > Either way i have found i can reproduce these studies conclusions so > it does not really concern me anymore to get yet more studies. Again-- without reading the studies, you don't even know what the conclusions were. In any case, I very much doubt that you've got a valid framework in place for testing the conclusions of these studies. If you do, post your methods and findings, and we'll see. > What i would like is to be able to do what i am currently doing with > people which is working with the issues of anxiety and so forth, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Andrew Good luck with that. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Hak mir nisht ken tshaynik > google scholar > is better than any library-provided tool I have access to. OK i did not realise that. Are you saying that all of these studies can be found there? Sounds good. > Can you even prove that the others exist?? As I mention in my list of PhD's all of those titles are available from pro quest learning search engine. I tried to find their free search window yesterday and could not now find anything searchable for free however. What proof of existance do you require? > I don't need you to tell me the standards by which Ph.D. Dissertations > are moderated. I moderate them regularly. I also know that if they were > any good, they'd be published in a refereed format. I presume by that you mean they have a referee? or are you saying some thing more by "refereed format"? >> I very much doubt that you've got a valid > framework in place for testing the conclusions of these studies. If you > do, post your methods and findings, and we'll see. My methods are pretty simple. For example as detailed here already, I asked my local optician what was happening in her life around the time she first began to need glasses and she began uncontrollably crying. That was an exstreme case maybe. I have then followed that up with here and we have identified a few things she could see differently in the hope that it changes her perceptions of the difficult events that happened at the time she got glasses. This kind of thing is hard to document. Vidoes would of course be more effective. > Reverse name to reply > Hak mir nisht ken tshaynik If i have difficulty getting google scholar to work may i contact you privately? Thanks Andrew On Aug 29, 10:17 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > If i have difficulty getting google scholar to work may i contact you > privately? Careful, Scott. You might wind up in his bibliography. :D > Careful, Scott. You might wind up in his bibliography. :D DR G I did find the twin study via google scholar that you decided was "in the shoe box of decades old" research Dated october 1993 http://www.springerlink.com/content/pl233212m603w836/ "The discordant axial length observed in monozygote twins is nongenetic. In agreement with previous findings reported in the literature" Irrelevant? Decades old? Doh! Andrew andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com wrote in news:1188403042.397470.216630@ 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com: > http://www.springerlink.com/content/pl233212m603w836/ Refractive Errors in Twin Studies - all 3 versions » M Dirani, M Chamberlain, P Garoufalis, C Chen, RH … - Twin Research and Human Genetics, 2006 - Aus Acad Press Summary Irrespective of the different methods of twin recruitment and twin analysis, most twin studies examining refractive error over the last century have reached the same consensus in that genetics plays a major role. However, a small sample size (Chen et al., 1985a, 1985b; Hu, 1981; Lin & Chen, 1987; Sorsby et al., 1962; Waardenburg, 1930), gender and/or age preference (******Angi et al., 1993******; Hammond et al., 2001; Teikari et al., 1991; Valluri et al., 1999), noncycloplegic refraction (Hammond et al., 2001; Teikari et al., 1989; Valluri et al., 1999) and the use of postal surveys (Teikari et al., 1989; Teikari et al., 1991) may have over or under estimated the heritability estimate in a number of these studies. Furthermore, future twin studies can benefit from previous twin studies in developing better and more powerful twin methodologies (see below) to better estimate the correlations for continuous traits in MZ and DZ twin pairs using multivariate twin modeling. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Hak mir nisht ken tshaynik most twin studies examining > refractive error over the last century have reached the > same consensus in that genetics plays a major role. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > continuous traits in MZ and DZ twin pairs using multivariate > twin modeling. Scott These studies use the classical twin study methodology i believe. Certainly Hammonds studies (above) do. I emailed quite extensively with Dr Hammond an ophthalmologist after the studies were published. He seemed unaware as to why the study design was flawed since it used a very controversial assumption that totally eliminates environmental effects when comparing MZ to DZ twins. I discussed with him the idea that he had not considered of using he discordant twins to better understand environmental effects. So if you want to use these studies as evidence of genetic effects as being important i think you need to show that the assumption in in the "classical twin study" methodology is a valid one. I wrote to the first person to isolate a human chromosome about these studies since he had published articles saying they were very highly controversial. I got his permission to take his writing and make this web page. http://www.geocities.com/andrewedwardjudd/EEA.HTM "One of the major problems with this assumption is that the physically identical nature of monozygotic twins could contribute to making their environments much more similar than that of dizygotic twins (Billings et al., 1992). This consequence of genetic identity could result from the ways in which both family and the larger society treat or deal with individuals who are know n to be identical and physically present as identical. In addition, the known closer bonds between monozygotic twins as compared to dizygotic twins can contribute to greater behavioral similarity. Studies designed to respond to these criticisms have yielded conflicting results" So yes. We can easily do a search. But what does the data actually mean when we go thru it more carefully? In this case the studies are fatally flawed i believe because they use a dubious assumption to ignore the effect of the environment. People tend to prove what they want to prove. Andrew > Careful, Scott. You might wind up in his bibliography. :D http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/160/5/1011 keratoconus, an eye disease associated with abnormal personality characteristics Mannis MJ, Morrison TL, Zadnik K, Holland EJ, Krachmer JH: Personality trends in keratoconus. Arch Ophthalmol 1987; 105:798-800[Abstract] Swartz NG, Cohen EJ, Scott DG, Genvert GI, Arentsen JJ, Laibson PR: Personality and keratoconus. CLAO J 1990; 16:62-64[Medline] Gorskova EN, Sevost"ianov EN, Baturin NA: [Results of psychological testing of patients with keratoconus.] Vestn Oftalmol 1998; 114:44-45 (Russian) On Aug 29, 11:32 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Careful, Scott. You might wind up in his bibliography. :D > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > testing of patients with keratoconus.] Vestn Oftalmol 1998; 114:44-45 > (Russian) http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/105/6/798?ijkey=5ffe51e0e8e1c1 0e490d54b3e0700af096991632&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha The researchers concluded that keratoconus has no greater association with abnormal personality than other eye diseases. Furthermore, the researchers were not inferring that the disease was caused by the personality, but rather that the disease contributed to the personality characteristics. Many chronic diseases have personality and emotional correlates, especially depression. Andrew, you don't know when to quit. > Andrew, you don't know when to quit> Come along Dr G! Your study is precisely two decades old. My study was from 2003 and from no less than |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message