4 ms·

I refused to get reading glasses when I started having trouble reading small labels some years ago. I blamed the problem on computers and that might have someth

I refused to get reading glasses when I started having trouble reading small labels some years ago. I blamed the problem on computers and that might have something to do with it but probably mostly age. Instead I got this book: https://www.amazon.com/Better-Eyesight-People-Gillian-Snoxall/dp/1783240393 https://www.amazon.com/Better-Eyesight-People-Gillian-Snoxal... It's not even a book. More like a pamphlet and could fit the whole thing in a <li> almost. But it worked in my case at least. A few weeks of doing the exercises and I could read find print labels again!

layer8 5y ago
The Bates Method has been “debunked” and is even considered dangerous [0]. In your case I would suspect that it isn’t the eyes that have improved, but your brain got trained to apply better “error correction” when reading small print. At least that’s an effect that I observed on myself after my eyesight worsened: At some point my brain learned to compensate by improved pattern recognition, but sometimes it messes up, a bit like an ML model, and “sees” details that aren’t actually there. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method
- mythrwy 5y ago
  I don't know if this is the Bates method exactly but it worked very well in my case. It didn't take long either. Maybe 10-15 sessions and I was back reading small print on labels. And could clearly make out each character and thus do not believe it's some sort of mental compensation or pattern recognition. Certainly I do not believe rolling your eyes or blinking or the other exercises in the book could in any way be dangerous. Some are sort of weird and I don't know how effective "palming" is for example. But it makes sense to me you can exercise your eyes like other parts of the body (or brain for that matter). I don't see how it could be otherwise. "Dangerous" sounds like it might be Big Optical (is there such a thing?) disinformation. I kid. Maybe. It worked. Was not pattern recognition or anything like that, I could actually see clearer and with less effort. No idea who "debunks" this kind of stuff or if there have been trials or what those might be worth nor do I particularly care. Just relating my experience in hopes someone else gets the same benefit.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Not everything he said was dangerous, but Bates advocated sungazing which can cause serious damage the peoples eyes including cataracts, macular degeneration, pterygia, and sunburn of the cornea. Palming as described can be safe, but if you applying pressure to the eyes it increase the risk of glaucoma.
    - mythrwy 5y ago
      I don't know the history or theory behind this and so don't know if this book is the Bates method proper but Bates advocated looking at the sun with open eyes? If so ya, that could be dangerous.
      - Retric 5y ago
        Yes, he suggested looking directly at the sun.

layer8 5y ago

The Bates Method has been “debunked” and is even considered dangerous [0]. In your case I would suspect that it isn’t the eyes that have improved, but your brain got trained to apply better “error correction” when reading small print. At least that’s an effect that I observed on myself after my eyesight worsened: At some point my brain learned to compensate by improved pattern recognition, but sometimes it messes up, a bit like an ML model, and “sees” details that aren’t actually there. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method

mythrwy 5y ago
I don't know if this is the Bates method exactly but it worked very well in my case. It didn't take long either. Maybe 10-15 sessions and I was back reading small print on labels. And could clearly make out each character and thus do not believe it's some sort of mental compensation or pattern recognition. Certainly I do not believe rolling your eyes or blinking or the other exercises in the book could in any way be dangerous. Some are sort of weird and I don't know how effective "palming" is for example. But it makes sense to me you can exercise your eyes like other parts of the body (or brain for that matter). I don't see how it could be otherwise. "Dangerous" sounds like it might be Big Optical (is there such a thing?) disinformation. I kid. Maybe. It worked. Was not pattern recognition or anything like that, I could actually see clearer and with less effort. No idea who "debunks" this kind of stuff or if there have been trials or what those might be worth nor do I particularly care. Just relating my experience in hopes someone else gets the same benefit.
- Retric 5y ago
  Not everything he said was dangerous, but Bates advocated sungazing which can cause serious damage the peoples eyes including cataracts, macular degeneration, pterygia, and sunburn of the cornea. Palming as described can be safe, but if you applying pressure to the eyes it increase the risk of glaucoma.
  - mythrwy 5y ago
    I don't know the history or theory behind this and so don't know if this book is the Bates method proper but Bates advocated looking at the sun with open eyes? If so ya, that could be dangerous.
    - Retric 5y ago
      Yes, he suggested looking directly at the sun.