Talk:Natural vision correction

Better title?

"Eye correction woo"? "Natural sight"? Also, there's already an article about the Bates eye method and I need to stop procrastinating and write something about Mirzakarim Norbekov.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The present title doesn't seem to be anything that anyone would ever think to search for -- certainly Google doesn't seem to think it's a real thing. No doubt the article is on-point, but perhaps the title should be something germane to the one guy it seems to name-chck, or perhaps something about vision more generally. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

"Natural vision correction" seems to have a lot of Google-juice, so I'm going to move it there.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. You rock. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch has an Eye-Related Quackery article, so this could be a good alternative title. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I tend to think that articles should be titled in such a way as to minimize preaching to the choir and maximizes getting to people who need to read the debunking. Someone considering the treatment won't search for "quackery," but will search for someting like "natural vision correction." That's the first step in getting them to read the article they need to read. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I restored the redirect 'cos I've posted a pile of links to it - David Gerard (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Linkdump

From my currently opened tabs:

• wp:Pinhole glasses
• File:Rasterbrille.jpg
• http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-truth-about-pinhole-glasses-1253113.html
• http://www.casewatch.org/ftc/news/1993/natural-vision.shtml - I tried finding this on the FTC's website, but their archive goes back only to 1995 or so

--ZooGuard (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Natural eyesight correction

I've seen a case or two of people not needing their 1 diopter glasses anymore 15 years later, just by getting older. Not sure about the mechanics of that, a quick google turned up this: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1005111100088 Nullahnung (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The described effect is called wp:Presbyopia - see the "Interaction with myopia" section. I just read that while researching eye muscles and pinhole glasses.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Happens to most people in their forties. I had this for a few happy years and am now on the downward slope - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Change the described cause of myopia?

The article says that "Lots of close work in childhood can actually leave you nearsighted," but that idea has been largely overturned by the light-dopamine hypothesis. Lack of sunlight exposure causes nearsightedness, not close work – although the two are easily conflated, since they coincide so often. Researchers have failed to link close work to myopia, since time spent inside/outside is the real factor, and have found that putting goggles on baby chicks can make them nearsighted. The Atlantic article referenced actually mentions this, even though it claims that near work still has effects (by quoting authorities as their evidence). See "The myopia boom" in Nature for details on the experimental research: http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120

Changing the sentence to "Lots of time spent inside during childhood…" with a link to the Nature article instead of the Atlantic article would be more accurate, and no other change is needed. Can I go ahead and change that?

(Also, hi, I'm new and I don't know the social norms here at RW – I've been reading RW articles for a year or two but have not contributed yet) Technophile (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and change it. Anyone can make a change to pages without permission. Including a high-quality reference in the change, like the one that you provided, greatly increases the chances that the change will not be reverted. Bongolian (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I support this change being made, for the record. The light-dopamine hypothesis is easily citable. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of "near-work"

An instructive case of "correlation is not causation"; common sense long had it that children sitting too close too the TV would risk injury to their eyes, ultimately causing them to become near-sighted.

However, we now know that children who unconsciously spontaneously scooch up real close to the TV do so because they are developing near-sightedness — not the other way around. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It does make sense

To 'learn how the world looks' without your glasses (certain medical situations apart), in case you actually need to operate without them for a brief period of time (damage, excess of weather etc) and those distances for which your eyes can see properly. ('Stating the obvious so the woo can be more clearly defined.') 86.146.100.119 (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)