Does the natural eye respond to a "near" environment?

EskiMonk.txt

From: BD


Hey, Otis. Finish your initial post by demonstrating how studies
performed on MONKEYS can be considered relevant to HUMANS. Factoring
in, of course, how behavioral differences between monkeys and humans
is
to be discarded as a variable. Monkeys do not likely stare at a TV
screen or computer screen for hours on end, do they? They vary their
accommodation more regularly than humans, don't they? That might
well
make a difference in all this, might it not? If not, TELL US WHY.
And
do NOT, as you did before, simply tell me to do the research myself.
Explain it thoroughly.

Without such explanation, it's just a study on monkeys. Big frickin'
deal.

BD

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Dear BD,

Subject: The primate rhesus (dynamic) eye responds the same way as
the primate homo-sapien (dynamic) eye does.

When you respect the "responsiveness" of the eye to a
negative change in its AVERAGE visual environment, then
you recognize that both species behave the same way.

Here is the analysis of the primate-human eye.

At age 9 average, the refractive state of Eskimos is:

Mean = +1.3 Diopters, Standard Deviation = 1.7 Diopters

At age 17 (after 8 years in school)

Mean = -0.93 Diopters, S.D. (Sigma) = 1.97 diopters.


Z = (Xc - Xt) / Sqrt [Sigma(c) ^2 / N(c) + Sigma(t) ^2 / N(t)]

Z = [ 1.3 - (-0.93)] / Sqrt[ 1.7 ^2 / 218 + 1.97 ^2 / 194 ]

Z = 12.2

The value of "Z" determines the significant of the
result for the dynamic behavior of the fundamental
primate-human eye.

1.64 is significant

2.33 is highly significant

3.9 is virtually certain

The "Z" value is 12.2

The natural primate-Rhesus and primate-human behave in the
same way.

Why would you believe that they would not?

Best,

Otis

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Dear BD,
>
> Subject: The primate rhesus (dynamic) eye responds the same way as
> the primate homo-sapien (dynamic) eye does.

says who. are you offering this posting as proof? OK, show us.

>
> When you respect the "responsiveness" of the eye to a
> negative change in its AVERAGE visual environment, then
> you recognize that both species behave the same way.

what?? leeping a little aren't you? do you believe what you are
writing below proves that humans and moneys respond the same? OK, show
us.

>
> Here is the analysis of the primate-human eye.
>
> At age 9 average, the refractive state of Eskimos is:
>
> Mean = +1.3 Diopters, Standard Deviation = 1.7 Diopters
>
> At age 17 (after 8 years in school)
>
> Mean = -0.93 Diopters, S.D. (Sigma) = 1.97 diopters.
>
>
> Z = (Xc - Xt) / Sqrt [Sigma(c) ^2 / N(c) + Sigma(t) ^2 / N(t)]
>
> Z = [ 1.3 - (-0.93)] / Sqrt[ 1.7 ^2 / 218 + 1.97 ^2 / 194 ]
>
> Z = 12.2
>
> The value of "Z" determines the significant of the
> result for the dynamic behavior of the fundamental
> primate-human eye.
>
> 1.64 is significant
>
> 2.33 is highly significant
>
> 3.9 is virtually certain
>
> The "Z" value is 12.2
>
> The natural primate-Rhesus and primate-human behave in the
> same way.

err-- what?? so because you cite a study that shows Eskimos get myopic
was they get older you believe that that proves that the way monkey
eyes and human eyes is the same?

are all humans the same as Eskimos? are Asians who become quite myopic
the same as Europeans? what about American Indians where some tribes
have high astigmatism? So all primates are the same?

Well at least you've proved that YOUR brain is the same as a rhesus
brain. but that doesn't mean that all the rest of ours are.

best

retinula

Leptokurtic. Get it, Otis? Leptokurtic.
Now stop trying to blind me with your science.

DrG


(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> EskiMonk.txt
>
> From: BD
>
>
> Hey, Otis. Finish your initial post by demonstrating how studies
> performed on MONKEYS can be considered relevant to HUMANS. Factoring
> in, of course, how behavioral differences between monkeys and humans
> is
> to be discarded as a variable. Monkeys do not likely stare at a TV
> screen or computer screen for hours on end, do they? They vary their
> accommodation more regularly than humans, don't they? That might
> well
> make a difference in all this, might it not? If not, TELL US WHY.
> And
> do NOT, as you did before, simply tell me to do the research myself.
> Explain it thoroughly.
>
> Without such explanation, it's just a study on monkeys. Big frickin'
> deal.
>
> BD
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> Dear BD,
>
> Subject: The primate rhesus (dynamic) eye responds the same way as
> the primate homo-sapien (dynamic) eye does.
>
> When you respect the "responsiveness" of the eye to a
> negative change in its AVERAGE visual environment, then
> you recognize that both species behave the same way.
>
> Here is the analysis of the primate-human eye.
>
> At age 9 average, the refractive state of Eskimos is:
>
> Mean = +1.3 Diopters, Standard Deviation = 1.7 Diopters
>
> At age 17 (after 8 years in school)
>
> Mean = -0.93 Diopters, S.D. (Sigma) = 1.97 diopters.
>
>
> Z = (Xc - Xt) / Sqrt [Sigma(c) ^2 / N(c) + Sigma(t) ^2 / N(t)]
>
> Z = [ 1.3 - (-0.93)] / Sqrt[ 1.7 ^2 / 218 + 1.97 ^2 / 194 ]
>
> Z = 12.2
>
> The value of "Z" determines the significant of the
> result for the dynamic behavior of the fundamental
> primate-human eye.
>
> 1.64 is significant
>
> 2.33 is highly significant
>
> 3.9 is virtually certain
>
> The "Z" value is 12.2
>
> The natural primate-Rhesus and primate-human behave in the
> same way.
>
> Why would you believe that they would not?
>
> Best,
>
> Otis