Well, I don't know how you did it, but my contact-lens practitioner at the teaching optometry center I go to suggested "mono-vision," for which I wear a lens in my left eye that favors crystal-clear 20/10 distance vision but won't let me focus on things up close, and a lens in my right that allows me to read fine print but things in the distance are blurry.
This works for me because I don't have binocular vision and can't merge images (never could.) I can't even wear lenses all the time, and often wear my glasses from 20 years ago in a pinch. It also works because I don't drive! Actually, it's a very good solution, once you get used to it.
So long as it doesn't confuse your brain, I guess? I think I have escaped thus far via genetics; my old father is myopic and can still see up close, which I don't quite understand. My sister already has a bit of the short-arms disease, but she was never myopic. Luck of the draw.
Sans specs I can read the safety printing on U.S. money. Maybe in the evolutionary past there was some selective pressure for people who couldn't see too far? I can't imagine what that might be.
I was driven nuts a few times by the sound of my gropeworthy former office mate's breathing while she ate a peach. I think men are supposed to still be ok at sounds, though.
Not that I've ever been able to tell whether I was in tune and which way to adjust when I played trumpet in high school.
I think that was part of the letdown - the expensive frames made me feel like a drone, and I don't think they were all that smashing on me. Rectangular just doesn't make me feel pretty. They did last, however, I give them that.
Bifocals Shmyfocalsjeeny_weenyNovember 7 2007, 01:18:02 UTC
you know bifocals cause a lot more headaches than not bifocals... wouldn't they strain your eyes more? isnt that worse than not wearing bifocals if they say you need them? ok, im answering questions with more questions. sorry i tend to do that.
Re: Bifocals Shmyfocalsbec_87rbNovember 7 2007, 15:12:56 UTC
Eh, I think the usual bifocals situation is that nearsighted people eventually also need some magnification for farsightedness, as well, as the natural lenses lose elasticity, but there is also the situation where a person needs so much correction for distance, that they can't read without taking off their glasses. I fall into that last category?
So I could get bifocals, the inner lens with a less powerful correction for nearsightedness, but it's easier to just look over the glasses. I find that the weirdness that glasses do to my field of vision is really hard for me to edit out, and the idea of learning to work with a spot in the lower center field with a completely different prescription sounds awful. And since I am not farsighted yet, I am gonna skip it. :)
Comments 9
This works for me because I don't have binocular vision and can't merge images (never could.) I can't even wear lenses all the time, and often wear my glasses from 20 years ago in a pinch. It also works because I don't drive! Actually, it's a very good solution, once you get used to it.
Reply
Sans specs I can read the safety printing on U.S. money. Maybe in the evolutionary past there was some selective pressure for people who couldn't see too far? I can't imagine what that might be.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Not that I've ever been able to tell whether I was in tune and which way to adjust when I played trumpet in high school.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I can never tell how they look on me from a distance until I have bought them.
Reply
sorry
i tend to do that.
Reply
So I could get bifocals, the inner lens with a less powerful correction for nearsightedness, but it's easier to just look over the glasses. I find that the weirdness that glasses do to my field of vision is really hard for me to edit out, and the idea of learning to work with a spot in the lower center field with a completely different prescription sounds awful. And since I am not farsighted yet, I am gonna skip it. :)
Reply
Leave a comment