Blake asked a couple of years ago about the level of acuity at which one reduces to the next normalized. I want to ask the question more specifically, and with some reasoning that I’d like to try out on the assembled wisdom.
It’s an abstract question. It’s emphatically not a specific-diopters question, though I’ll have to use some theoretical numbers to make my question coherent. (And, in case it’s a silly or disruptive question, I’m asking it in this forum rather than in the hurly-burly of Facebook. I know that you folks can take it.)
We all want to return to 20/20, and thus I take it that generally we wait till our most recent normalized can do 20/20 on the Snellen chart before we reduce again. But what if something a little less than 20/20 (again theoretically) gives us all the acuity we need in the real world and would suffice for us if we could see that well without glasses?
Bear with me: if a person is wearing, say, -1.50 diopters and sees as well as he or she can imagine seeing—automotive license plates, all traffic and commercial signs are clear as can be, but 20/20 Snellen is sometimes there and sometimes not, or even mostly not. Then if that person decides to go down to -1.25 and then achieves the same level of acuity, and so on to -1.00 and then, by the same standard, eventually to -.75. The person could get to a point where glasses were not needed for most ordinary daily life, but he or she nevertheless zealously continues to pursue Active Focus, either with the latest normalized or, if there is minimal blur without glasses, without any lenses, with a view to continuing to 20/20. While 20/20 is his or her ultimate goal, is not the first and most important goal for many of us to get rid of glasses as soon as possible without, however, compromising progress to the 20/20 Nirvana? I know that my own first priority would be to have just a little blur without glasses, from which I’d still strive to visual perfection, so why not pursue that same standard at every level? Is there not a chance of delaying progress to the most desired goal by letting the best be the enemy of the good?
I ask in order to be enlightened.