The Humbling Of Endmyopia

05461028be77ead8456201b3688c63carstratsd

@Sean is right here. There are a lot of people who want to change the process, or think that they’ve found a new special way of doing things… but the herd of people actually improving their eyes is moving in one direction, and usually just backs up the currently existing material. Reducing too quickly has been EM’s way of humbling me, and made me take a step back to think about what I was doing.

Have you been humbled doing EM?

12 Likes

Yes, I reduced wayy too much at first and was not honest with myself about how well I could see. I had to learn to be objective about my needs and not be the classical blur adapted “oh I can see just fine”. I took a lot of freedom with the process, I still do and sometimes you have to (I started with -2 though, so the stakes weren’t as high as for some).
Basically as long as you do yourself no harm, and are ready to accept the consequences of not doing it “the right way”, I think one is free to explore that sweet spot between what is proven to work and what is possible/comfortable for them in that situation. I’m about doing the best you can at any given moment, so if they don’t make the right glasses for you where you live for example, well at least there are some imprecise tweaks you can do to protect your eyes.

The most important thing for me is to be honest with yourself. Whether you’re improving or not. Whether you’re seeing clearly or not. Whether you’re addicted to your phone or not. So long as you are not deceiving yourself, and know when you are straining and when you are getting good stimulus, then you’re free to tweak as you like. No guarantee you will improve optimally though.

5 Likes

:joy:

Let’s not forget also, it’s all where it is based on people trying things. And adding things. Different perspectives and approaches.

It’s NOT a finished product. Feel free to get out there and follow hunches and curiosities.

And share your experiences.

:heart:

As for humbling, my two cents (most recently, otherwise it’ll be a 17 page post) is the duochrome test. https://community.endmyopia.org/t/duochrome-test-green-and-red-light-have-a-different-wavelength/6294/4

How many years did I go on about measuring without being aware of this? :man_facepalming:

9 Likes

You might want to look carefully at the meaning of your thread title, although I do believe that Endmyopia could do with a bit of humbling from time to time :wink: - although I would rather call it updating. There is nothing humbling about experiments, errors and revisions based on those errors. It is all part of the learning process.

5 Likes

200% with you on this. :smile:

1 Like

Yeah, totally. I mean not just by EM. I mean you can be f*cking clever, but if someone has experience with the same thing, just having not just one case, but several hundreds (or more), then most likely they will be right, and not you.

On the other hand I had / have experience with thinking I’m ignoring Jake’s advice, then doing something which I think is Jake’s advice, then later realizing that what I was originally doing is Jake’s advice and the one I did after the change :smiley:

2 Likes

This one smacked me in the face when I almost got to 20/20 in my first normalized and the bright green lights were still a little out of focus. Even before EM I found that the blue and violet neon signs were beyond my focusing ability at distance.

I considered measuring focal distance for different colors early on using LEDs as near point sources. I decided it was all too academic for me.

5 Likes

As much as the posts asking, “What about?..” drive me crazy, it’s my own errors that drive me even more wild.

I’m finally at a point where the gains I’ve gotten from too much under-correction have met my strongest equalized normalized, and the difference in rate of improvement is amazing.

I’m double checking not only my perspective subjectively but measuring to ensure I can read the 20/20 line before my next reduction.

Needing to wait isn’t as bad when the improvements are coming as fast as they are.

But in the end, it’s back to knowing if I had reduced less to begin with, I’d probably be ahead of wherever I am. That’s classic Jake advice, and I heedlessly bounded off over the horizon.

2 Likes

shouldn’t you wait until you can read 20/20 before reducing again? And you don’t say in which light - outdoors daylight, indoor sunny daylight, indoors cloudy daylight, night-time artificial light?

Kind of depends on personal preference, that one. I usually recommend not reducing till you’re at the same level as your previous normalized. Some people prefer less than 20/20 to get their habitual active focus stimulus.

Also, don’t reduce if there’s any ghosting / double vision, till that’s gone (“transient astigmatism” type of symptom).

6 Likes

Well, he said 30/20, not 20/30, so that’s about 20/13 :smiley: But I’m pretty sure there is some type there :slight_smile:

You mean that I do a reduction, then I can see (for example) 20/40 with my new normalized (let’s call it N1). Then I start improving and then I should not reduce until I reach 20/40 with my next reduced normalized (let’s call it N2), right? So with my N1 I can see for example 20/30 or 20/25 at that point.

1 Like

Some people get to steady and reliable 20/20 vision (with flashes of 20/15) with their normalised before reducing again. So in a way they alternate blur challenge with enjoying almost no challenge for a while.
Other people go to the next normalised when they have a steady and reliable 20/25 or 20/30 most of the time (and only flashes of 20/20 or 20/20 in very good conditions only), so this way they will never stop the blur challenge keeping their eyes on their toes all the time :sweat_smile:

2 Likes

I have a strong visual imagination - ouch!

We usually perceive 20/20 and better as “no blur challenge”*, but practically it’s not true. Simply the edge of blur is moved farther. So if you look far away enough, even 20/10 can give you blur challenge. Of course the far away enough may be not possible in a given settings, but would be the default in others (for example in my usual daily walking route I practically always can look at things farther than 100 m).
Also I have a hunch that hyperopic defocus is practically impossible in a true distance environment (so looking at not closer than about 12-15 meter), without huge overcorrection (which should be uncomfortable anyway). But someone should prove or disprove that with math :slight_smile: If it’s true then the worst case is you don’t get stimulus.

* To avoid misunderstandings: I also have this problem, I always want to reduce because I fear that there won’t be (enough) stimulus, or worse. Objectively I understand it’s not the case, but subjectively it’s hard to fight… :slight_smile:

4 Likes

I agree with most of what you say. I’m not sure about 20/10 though. That’s likely closing in on a resolution limit I would think. At the very least it would be difficult to AF for me at 20/10!

I pick 20/20 because I think that’s near the knee of the curve. Progress should slow as you near maximum visual acuity for a certain diopter. I have the patience to wait for 20/20, but no way could I wait for 20/10.

No idea how to prove or disprove any of this with math. I’m comfortable not having proof.

1 Like

It only depends on what are your usual distances. If for any reason most of your distance vision is not farther than 6m, then even 20/20 may be too high. If it’s closer to 25m then most likely you will enjoy fast progress even with lower than 20/20.

There is no such a thing :slight_smile: Just an increasing edge of blur as you improve. Well, there is when you reach the resolution limit of the eye, but that’s lower than 20/20. 20/10 is the lowest measured for humans, but there is anecdotal evidence for 20/5.

1 Like

@halmadavid , both methods are equally OK. There is no wrong choice with it, just personal preference.
You have to see it for yourself which method gives you more joy and less worry during the EM journey.

Fixed. The hazards of tiny affordances on phone keyboards.

There is no guarantee of this, and you would have missed some valuable learning. Some things we consider mistakes are not in fact mistakes, as they could provide equally good, or even better outcomes, as in my case.

4 Likes

True that! I recently reduced all astigmatism for close up but realised it was too much for me. Lesson learned. Only reduced 0.5 now and all good. About 10 bucks and a week wasted but a good lesson learned( To make small reductions for eye to easily catchup).

1 Like