Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Why do two people see differently with the same prescription?
Why do two people see differently with the same prescription?
Hello.
I read that two people with the same prescription might have different
standards of vision. I have -2 and -2.50 and feel I see badly without them.
My boyfriend is -2.50 and -2.50 and just wears them to drive. Why is that we
interpret the same prescription so differently?
--
Message posted via http :// www .medkb,com
Hello.
I read that two people with the same prescription might have different
standards of vision. I have -2 and -2.50 and feel I see badly without them.
My boyfriend is -2.50 and -2.50 and just wears them to drive. Why is that we
interpret the same prescription so differently?
--
Message posted via http :// www .medkb,com
Re: Why do two people see differently with the same prescription?
"Anna via MedKB,com " <u36039@uwe> wrote
> standards of vision. I have -2 and -2.50 and feel I see badly without
> them.
> My boyfriend is -2.50 and -2.50 and just wears them to drive. Why is that
> we
> interpret the same prescription so differently?
It would be useful for you to put a snellen chart across the room and
compare measured acuities - your left eye versus his left eye.
He probably sees a little better than you do, if you do the test carefully.
If so, he might have smaller pupils, or his glasses might need changing, or
yours.
If you both measure exactly the same VA, there's still a wide range of what
people interpret as "needing glasses."
First, the odds are small that all four prescription values are precisely
what you wrote.
Age, occupation and habitual working distance frequently determine your
preferences. If he's 42 and works at a desk and you deliver pizzas, he
really doesn't need them as much as you do.
Or, his glasses may be ugly or uncomfortable and he avoids them. It could
just be machismo, but maybe not. :)
It could easily be that his myopia has improved and his glasses are now too
strong.
-MT
"Anna via MedKB,com " <u36039@uwe> wrote
> standards of vision. I have -2 and -2.50 and feel I see badly without
> them.
> My boyfriend is -2.50 and -2.50 and just wears them to drive. Why is that
> we
> interpret the same prescription so differently?
It would be useful for you to put a snellen chart across the room and
compare measured acuities - your left eye versus his left eye.
He probably sees a little better than you do, if you do the test carefully.
If so, he might have smaller pupils, or his glasses might need changing, or
yours.
If you both measure exactly the same VA, there's still a wide range of what
people interpret as "needing glasses."
First, the odds are small that all four prescription values are precisely
what you wrote.
Age, occupation and habitual working distance frequently determine your
preferences. If he's 42 and works at a desk and you deliver pizzas, he
really doesn't need them as much as you do.
Or, his glasses may be ugly or uncomfortable and he avoids them. It could
just be machismo, but maybe not. :)
It could easily be that his myopia has improved and his glasses are now too
strong.
-MT
Re: Why do two people see differently with the same prescription?
An ophthalmologist of the past named Bates was interested in this
phenomenon;
In the November 1923 issue of Better Eyesight Magazine he writes:
[...A person who has been wearing glasses to improve the sight of
myopia and has worn these glasses for a number of years is quite
dependent upon them. When the glasses are removed, the vision is much
less than normal and it is a curious fact that the vision without
glasses does not depend directly upon the amount of myopia. A person
with two diopters of myopia may have just as poor vision without
glasses as one who has six or more. When a myopic patient lays aside
the glasses entirely for two weeks, when the vision is again tested it
is often much improved. The facts demonstrate that wearing glasses
always lowers the visual acuity much below what it is when the glasses
are not worn at all. It is a matter of common knowledge that when the
glasses are first worn that the patient does not always obtain a
maximum amount of relief. Some eye doctors when asked to explain
matters sometimes tell their patients that their eyes have to become
adjusted to the glasses. It is not always easy to explain things
satisfactorily, especially when some fault-finding patients complain
that what they wanted was glasses to help their eyes and that they
hardly expected to be called upon to adjust their eyes to fit the
glasses...]
An ophthalmologist of the past named Bates was interested in this
phenomenon;
In the November 1923 issue of Better Eyesight Magazine he writes:
[...A person who has been wearing glasses to improve the sight of
myopia and has worn these glasses for a number of years is quite
dependent upon them. When the glasses are removed, the vision is much
less than normal and it is a curious fact that the vision without
glasses does not depend directly upon the amount of myopia. A person
with two diopters of myopia may have just as poor vision without
glasses as one who has six or more. When a myopic patient lays aside
the glasses entirely for two weeks, when the vision is again tested it
is often much improved. The facts demonstrate that wearing glasses
always lowers the visual acuity much below what it is when the glasses
are not worn at all. It is a matter of common knowledge that when the
glasses are first worn that the patient does not always obtain a
maximum amount of relief. Some eye doctors when asked to explain
matters sometimes tell their patients that their eyes have to become
adjusted to the glasses. It is not always easy to explain things
satisfactorily, especially when some fault-finding patients complain
that what they wanted was glasses to help their eyes and that they
hardly expected to be called upon to adjust their eyes to fit the
glasses...]
Pool Turd Alert Re: Why do two people see differently with the same prescription?
Were you aware that you left another turd in the swimming pool?
Do you ever have an original thought?
Does Bates chew your food for you?
Does he regurgitate like a bird, or do you wait for it to pass all the way
through?
-MT
"Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:dbeafa77-e0b2-4255-8194-91b01a2f0cbd@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
> An ophthalmologist of the past named Bates was interested in this
> phenomenon;
>
> In the November 1923 issue of Better Eyesight Magazine he writes:
>
> [...A person who has been wearing glasses to improve the sight of
> myopia and has worn these glasses for a number of years is quite
> dependent upon them. When the glasses are removed, the vision is much
> less than normal and it is a curious fact that the vision without
> glasses does not depend directly upon the amount of myopia. A person
> with two diopters of myopia may have just as poor vision without
> glasses as one who has six or more. When a myopic patient lays aside
> the glasses entirely for two weeks, when the vision is again tested it
> is often much improved. The facts demonstrate that wearing glasses
> always lowers the visual acuity much below what it is when the glasses
> are not worn at all. It is a matter of common knowledge that when the
> glasses are first worn that the patient does not always obtain a
> maximum amount of relief. Some eye doctors when asked to explain
> matters sometimes tell their patients that their eyes have to become
> adjusted to the glasses. It is not always easy to explain things
> satisfactorily, especially when some fault-finding patients complain
> that what they wanted was glasses to help their eyes and that they
> hardly expected to be called upon to adjust their eyes to fit the
> glasses...]
>
>
Were you aware that you left another turd in the swimming pool?
Do you ever have an original thought?
Does Bates chew your food for you?
Does he regurgitate like a bird, or do you wait for it to pass all the way
through?
-MT
"Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:dbeafa77-e0b2-4255-8194-91b01a2f0cbd@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
> An ophthalmologist of the past named Bates was interested in this
> phenomenon;
>
> In the November 1923 issue of Better Eyesight Magazine he writes:
>
> [...A person who has been wearing glasses to improve the sight of
> myopia and has worn these glasses for a number of years is quite
> dependent upon them. When the glasses are removed, the vision is much
> less than normal and it is a curious fact that the vision without
> glasses does not depend directly upon the amount of myopia. A person
> with two diopters of myopia may have just as poor vision without
> glasses as one who has six or more. When a myopic patient lays aside
> the glasses entirely for two weeks, when the vision is again tested it
> is often much improved. The facts demonstrate that wearing glasses
> always lowers the visual acuity much below what it is when the glasses
> are not worn at all. It is a matter of common knowledge that when the
> glasses are first worn that the patient does not always obtain a
> maximum amount of relief. Some eye doctors when asked to explain
> matters sometimes tell their patients that their eyes have to become
> adjusted to the glasses. It is not always easy to explain things
> satisfactorily, especially when some fault-finding patients complain
> that what they wanted was glasses to help their eyes and that they
> hardly expected to be called upon to adjust their eyes to fit the
> glasses...]
>
>
Re: Pool Turd Alert Re: Why do two people see differently with the same prescription?
"Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring,com > wrote in message
news:MKqdnWDtrqnJNd_VnZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@giganews,com ...
> Were you aware that you left another turd in the swimming pool?
>
> Do you ever have an original thought?
>
> Does Bates chew your food for you?
>
> Does he regurgitate like a bird, or do you wait for it to pass all the way
> through?
>
> -MT
Some research from the Uni of Qld looked at this question of myopia and the
impact of glasses. They had some subjects with mild myopia go without their
glasses for a period of time because it is known the slight improvements in
vision can occur. What they found was that there was no change in
accommodation but rather the improvement appeared to arise from improved
V6(?) function - ie; neocortical adjustment. The improvement is minor and
not a cure.
>
> "Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> news:dbeafa77-e0b2-4255-8194-91b01a2f0cbd@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
>> An ophthalmologist of the past named Bates was interested in this
>> phenomenon;
>>
>> In the November 1923 issue of Better Eyesight Magazine he writes:
>>
>> [...A person who has been wearing glasses to improve the sight of
>> myopia and has worn these glasses for a number of years is quite
>> dependent upon them. When the glasses are removed, the vision is much
>> less than normal and it is a curious fact that the vision without
>> glasses does not depend directly upon the amount of myopia. A person
>> with two diopters of myopia may have just as poor vision without
>> glasses as one who has six or more. When a myopic patient lays aside
>> the glasses entirely for two weeks, when the vision is again tested it
>> is often much improved. The facts demonstrate that wearing glasses
>> always lowers the visual acuity much below what it is when the glasses
>> are not worn at all. It is a matter of common knowledge that when the
>> glasses are first worn that the patient does not always obtain a
>> maximum amount of relief. Some eye doctors when asked to explain
>> matters sometimes tell their patients that their eyes have to become
>> adjusted to the glasses. It is not always easy to explain things
>> satisfactorily, especially when some fault-finding patients complain
>> that what they wanted was glasses to help their eyes and that they
>> hardly expected to be called upon to adjust their eyes to fit the
>> glasses...]
>>
>>
>
>
"Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring,com > wrote in message
news:MKqdnWDtrqnJNd_VnZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@giganews,com ...
> Were you aware that you left another turd in the swimming pool?
>
> Do you ever have an original thought?
>
> Does Bates chew your food for you?
>
> Does he regurgitate like a bird, or do you wait for it to pass all the way
> through?
>
> -MT
Some research from the Uni of Qld looked at this question of myopia and the
impact of glasses. They had some subjects with mild myopia go without their
glasses for a period of time because it is known the slight improvements in
vision can occur. What they found was that there was no change in
accommodation but rather the improvement appeared to arise from improved
V6(?) function - ie; neocortical adjustment. The improvement is minor and
not a cure.
>
> "Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> news:dbeafa77-e0b2-4255-8194-91b01a2f0cbd@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
>> An ophthalmologist of the past named Bates was interested in this
>> phenomenon;
>>
>> In the November 1923 issue of Better Eyesight Magazine he writes:
>>
>> [...A person who has been wearing glasses to improve the sight of
>> myopia and has worn these glasses for a number of years is quite
>> dependent upon them. When the glasses are removed, the vision is much
>> less than normal and it is a curious fact that the vision without
>> glasses does not depend directly upon the amount of myopia. A person
>> with two diopters of myopia may have just as poor vision without
>> glasses as one who has six or more. When a myopic patient lays aside
>> the glasses entirely for two weeks, when the vision is again tested it
>> is often much improved. The facts demonstrate that wearing glasses
>> always lowers the visual acuity much below what it is when the glasses
>> are not worn at all. It is a matter of common knowledge that when the
>> glasses are first worn that the patient does not always obtain a
>> maximum amount of relief. Some eye doctors when asked to explain
>> matters sometimes tell their patients that their eyes have to become
>> adjusted to the glasses. It is not always easy to explain things
>> satisfactorily, especially when some fault-finding patients complain
>> that what they wanted was glasses to help their eyes and that they
>> hardly expected to be called upon to adjust their eyes to fit the
>> glasses...]
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Why do two people see differently with the same prescription?
"John Hasenkam" <johnh@goawayplease,com > wrote in message
> Some research from the Uni of Qld looked at this question of myopia and
> the impact of glasses. They had some subjects with mild myopia go without
> their glasses for a period of time because it is known the slight
> improvements in vision can occur. What they found was that there was no
> change in accommodation but rather the improvement appeared to arise from
> improved V6(?) function - ie; neocortical adjustment. The improvement is
> minor and not a cure.
More startling neurological adaptations occur, but there are limits.
Can't help it, sorry. Bates and Zetus both push my buttons.
-MT
"John Hasenkam" <johnh@goawayplease,com > wrote in message
> Some research from the Uni of Qld looked at this question of myopia and
> the impact of glasses. They had some subjects with mild myopia go without
> their glasses for a period of time because it is known the slight
> improvements in vision can occur. What they found was that there was no
> change in accommodation but rather the improvement appeared to arise from
> improved V6(?) function - ie; neocortical adjustment. The improvement is
> minor and not a cure.
More startling neurological adaptations occur, but there are limits.
Can't help it, sorry. Bates and Zetus both push my buttons.
-MT
Re: Why do two people see differently with the same prescription?
"Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring,com > wrote in message
news:C5WdnQTwxsFZSd_VnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@giganews,com ...
>
> "John Hasenkam" <johnh@goawayplease,com > wrote in message
>
>> Some research from the Uni of Qld looked at this question of myopia and
>> the impact of glasses. They had some subjects with mild myopia go without
>> their glasses for a period of time because it is known the slight
>> improvements in vision can occur. What they found was that there was no
>> change in accommodation but rather the improvement appeared to arise from
>> improved V6(?) function - ie; neocortical adjustment. The improvement is
>> minor and not a cure.
>
> More startling neurological adaptations occur, but there are limits.
>
> Can't help it, sorry. Bates and Zetus both push my buttons.
>
> -MT
This is one of the few forums left on the net where good professionals give
good advice to the general public. So keep attacking them Mike because
people like them destroy the credibility and usefulness of forums. For
example, I was very perplexed as to why the sleep mask helped solved a
chronic and disabiling vision issue for me, never sure if it was just
co-incidence but confident it was corneal related. Your reply to my post on
that matter gave me comfort. Indeed you were the first professional (I've
seen 3 or 4 since the problem started) that could proffer a plausible
explanation for this effect.
In Internet World there is a cure for everything, a solution to every
problem, and conspiracies abound. Some of my favourite forums have been
destroyed by nutters.
"Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring,com > wrote in message
news:C5WdnQTwxsFZSd_VnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@giganews,com ...
>
> "John Hasenkam" <johnh@goawayplease,com > wrote in message
>
>> Some research from the Uni of Qld looked at this question of myopia and
>> the impact of glasses. They had some subjects with mild myopia go without
>> their glasses for a period of time because it is known the slight
>> improvements in vision can occur. What they found was that there was no
>> change in accommodation but rather the improvement appeared to arise from
>> improved V6(?) function - ie; neocortical adjustment. The improvement is
>> minor and not a cure.
>
> More startling neurological adaptations occur, but there are limits.
>
> Can't help it, sorry. Bates and Zetus both push my buttons.
>
> -MT
This is one of the few forums left on the net where good professionals give
good advice to the general public. So keep attacking them Mike because
people like them destroy the credibility and usefulness of forums. For
example, I was very perplexed as to why the sleep mask helped solved a
chronic and disabiling vision issue for me, never sure if it was just
co-incidence but confident it was corneal related. Your reply to my post on
that matter gave me comfort. Indeed you were the first professional (I've
seen 3 or 4 since the problem started) that could proffer a plausible
explanation for this effect.
In Internet World there is a cure for everything, a solution to every
problem, and conspiracies abound. Some of my favourite forums have been
destroyed by nutters.
Re: Why do two people see differently with the same prescription?
On Jun 1, 6:50 pm, "John Hasenkam" <jo...@goawayplease,com > wrote:
> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote in message
>
> news:C5WdnQTwxsFZSd VnZ2dnUVZ vKdnZ2d@giganews,com ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John Hasenkam" <jo...@goawayplease,com > wrote in message
>
> >> Some research from the Uni of Qld looked at this question of myopia and
> >> the impact of glasses. They had some subjects with mild myopia go without
> >> their glasses for a period of time because it is known the slight
> >> improvements in vision can occur. What they found was that there was no
> >> change in accommodation but rather the improvement appeared to arise from
> >> improved V6(?) function - ie; neocortical adjustment. The improvement is
> >> minor and not a cure.
>
> > More startling neurological adaptations occur, but there are limits.
>
> > Can't help it, sorry. Bates and Zetus both push my buttons.
>
> > -MT
>
> This is one of the few forums left on the net where good professionals give
> good advice to the general public. So keep attacking them Mike because
> people like them destroy the credibility and usefulness of forums. For
> example, I was very perplexed as to why the sleep mask helped solved a
> chronic and disabiling vision issue for me, never sure if it was just
> co-incidence but confident it was corneal related. Your reply to my post on
> that matter gave me comfort. Indeed you were the first professional (I've
> seen 3 or 4 since the problem started) that could proffer a plausible
> explanation for this effect.
>
> In Internet World there is a cure for everything, a solution to every
> problem, and conspiracies abound. Some of my favourite forums have been
> destroyed by nutters.
Mike is one of the good ones, and ... you are SO right about the rest
of your post :-(
On Jun 1, 6:50 pm, "John Hasenkam" <jo...@goawayplease,com > wrote:
> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote in message
>
> news:C5WdnQTwxsFZSd VnZ2dnUVZ vKdnZ2d@giganews,com ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John Hasenkam" <jo...@goawayplease,com > wrote in message
>
> >> Some research from the Uni of Qld looked at this question of myopia and
> >> the impact of glasses. They had some subjects with mild myopia go without
> >> their glasses for a period of time because it is known the slight
> >> improvements in vision can occur. What they found was that there was no
> >> change in accommodation but rather the improvement appeared to arise from
> >> improved V6(?) function - ie; neocortical adjustment. The improvement is
> >> minor and not a cure.
>
> > More startling neurological adaptations occur, but there are limits.
>
> > Can't help it, sorry. Bates and Zetus both push my buttons.
>
> > -MT
>
> This is one of the few forums left on the net where good professionals give
> good advice to the general public. So keep attacking them Mike because
> people like them destroy the credibility and usefulness of forums. For
> example, I was very perplexed as to why the sleep mask helped solved a
> chronic and disabiling vision issue for me, never sure if it was just
> co-incidence but confident it was corneal related. Your reply to my post on
> that matter gave me comfort. Indeed you were the first professional (I've
> seen 3 or 4 since the problem started) that could proffer a plausible
> explanation for this effect.
>
> In Internet World there is a cure for everything, a solution to every
> problem, and conspiracies abound. Some of my favourite forums have been
> destroyed by nutters.
Mike is one of the good ones, and ... you are SO right about the rest
of your post :-(
Re: Why do two people see differently with the same prescription?
On 2 Jun, 02:50, "John Hasenkam" <jo...@goawayplease,com > wrote:
> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote in message
>
> news:C5WdnQTwxsFZSd VnZ2dnUVZ vKdnZ2d@giganews,com ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John Hasenkam" <jo...@goawayplease,com > wrote in message
>
> >> Some research from the Uni of Qld looked at this question of myopia and
> >> the impact of glasses. They had some subjects with mild myopia go without
> >> their glasses for a period of time because it is known the slight
> >> improvements in vision can occur. What they found was that there was no
> >> change in accommodation but rather the improvement appeared to arise from
> >> improved V6(?) function - ie; neocortical adjustment. The improvement is
> >> minor and not a cure.
>
> > More startling neurological adaptations occur, but there are limits.
>
> > Can't help it, sorry. Bates and Zetus both push my buttons.
>
> > -MT
>
> This is one of the few forums left on the net where good professionals give
> good advice to the general public. So keep attacking them Mike because
> people like them destroy the credibility and usefulness of forums. For
> example, I was very perplexed as to why the sleep mask helped solved a
> chronic and disabiling vision issue for me, never sure if it was just
> co-incidence but confident it was corneal related. Your reply to my post on
> that matter gave me comfort. Indeed you were the first professional (I've
> seen 3 or 4 since the problem started) that could proffer a plausible
> explanation for this effect.
>
> In Internet World there is a cure for everything, a solution to every
> problem, and conspiracies abound. Some of my favourite forums have been
> destroyed by nutters.
You can't "destroy" a forum. You can only destroy yourself.
On 2 Jun, 02:50, "John Hasenkam" <jo...@goawayplease,com > wrote:
> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote in message
>
> news:C5WdnQTwxsFZSd VnZ2dnUVZ vKdnZ2d@giganews,com ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John Hasenkam" <jo...@goawayplease,com > wrote in message
>
> >> Some research from the Uni of Qld looked at this question of myopia and
> >> the impact of glasses. They had some subjects with mild myopia go without
> >> their glasses for a period of time because it is known the slight
> >> improvements in vision can occur. What they found was that there was no
> >> change in accommodation but rather the improvement appeared to arise from
> >> improved V6(?) function - ie; neocortical adjustment. The improvement is
> >> minor and not a cure.
>
> > More startling neurological adaptations occur, but there are limits.
>
> > Can't help it, sorry. Bates and Zetus both push my buttons.
>
> > -MT
>
> This is one of the few forums left on the net where good professionals give
> good advice to the general public. So keep attacking them Mike because
> people like them destroy the credibility and usefulness of forums. For
> example, I was very perplexed as to why the sleep mask helped solved a
> chronic and disabiling vision issue for me, never sure if it was just
> co-incidence but confident it was corneal related. Your reply to my post on
> that matter gave me comfort. Indeed you were the first professional (I've
> seen 3 or 4 since the problem started) that could proffer a plausible
> explanation for this effect.
>
> In Internet World there is a cure for everything, a solution to every
> problem, and conspiracies abound. Some of my favourite forums have been
> destroyed by nutters.
You can't "destroy" a forum. You can only destroy yourself.
Re: Why do two people see differently with the same prescription?
"Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote
> You can't "destroy" a forum. You can only destroy yourself.
Well, leaving turds in a public swimming pool doesn't actually "destroy"
anything, does it.
-MT
"Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote
> You can't "destroy" a forum. You can only destroy yourself.
Well, leaving turds in a public swimming pool doesn't actually "destroy"
anything, does it.
-MT
Re: Why do two people see differently with the same prescription?
On Jun 3, 9:39 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> What are turds ?
You really are retarded, aren't you?
On Jun 3, 9:39 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> What are turds ?
You really are retarded, aren't you?
Re: Why do two people see differently with the same prescription?
On May 31, 4:13 pm, "Anna via MedKB,com " <u36039@uwe> wrote:
> Hello.
> I read that two people with the same prescription might have different
> standards of vision. I have -2 and -2.50 and feel I see badly without them.
> My boyfriend is -2.50 and -2.50 and just wears them to drive. Why is that we
> interpret the same prescription so differently?
Why do two people with the same shoes run differently? Why do two
baseball players with the same bat hit differently? Why do two people
with the same education, same pens and same paper write such different
quality of prose? Why of two people with the same stereo system, one
loves to listen to hip hop and hates opera and the other hates hip hop
and loves opera.
We are all individuals with our own tastes, tolerances, skills and
preferences.
Dr Judy
On May 31, 4:13 pm, "Anna via MedKB,com " <u36039@uwe> wrote:
> Hello.
> I read that two people with the same prescription might have different
> standards of vision. I have -2 and -2.50 and feel I see badly without them.
> My boyfriend is -2.50 and -2.50 and just wears them to drive. Why is that we
> interpret the same prescription so differently?
Why do two people with the same shoes run differently? Why do two
baseball players with the same bat hit differently? Why do two people
with the same education, same pens and same paper write such different
quality of prose? Why of two people with the same stereo system, one
loves to listen to hip hop and hates opera and the other hates hip hop
and loves opera.
We are all individuals with our own tastes, tolerances, skills and
preferences.
Dr Judy
Re: Why do two people see differently with the same prescription?
We tried an unsophisticated test of sorts and he could definately see better
than me without glasses.
I still can't reckon that someone with a prescription that's actually more
than mine has better vision. Neither can he. Is there somewhere we can look
(ie on the internet) to understand why?
Thanks
--
Message posted via MedKB,com
http :// www .medkb,com /Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200806/1
We tried an unsophisticated test of sorts and he could definately see better
than me without glasses.
I still can't reckon that someone with a prescription that's actually more
than mine has better vision. Neither can he. Is there somewhere we can look
(ie on the internet) to understand why?
Thanks
--
Message posted via MedKB,com
http :// www .medkb,com /Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200806/1
Re: Why do two people see differently with the same prescription?
On 8 Jun, 17:49, "Anna via MedKB,com " <u36039@uwe> wrote:
> We tried an unsophisticated test of sorts and he could definately see better
> than me without glasses.
> I still can't reckon that someone with a prescription that's actually more
> than mine has better vision. Neither can he. Is there somewhere we can look
> (ie on the internet) to understand why?
> Thanks
>
> --
> Message posted via MedKB,com http :// www .medkb,com /Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200806/1
Look up "Bates"
On 8 Jun, 17:49, "Anna via MedKB,com " <u36039@uwe> wrote:
> We tried an unsophisticated test of sorts and he could definately see better
> than me without glasses.
> I still can't reckon that someone with a prescription that's actually more
> than mine has better vision. Neither can he. Is there somewhere we can look
> (ie on the internet) to understand why?
> Thanks
>
> --
> Message posted via MedKB,com http :// www .medkb,com /Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200806/1
Look up "Bates"
Next: Question about buying contacts online
Previous: RGP fitting method for post-LASIK and irregular corneas
