Найди ошибку e fp toz lped pecfd edfcdp

Plopple deep, mor twamps. Plopple deep. Urn carn de heyspoons, shree dooble lar ree-farnoobs. Drimp!

jibberish, jiberush, gibrish, gibberish, nonsense, monty python

Members

Online

There’s an interesting article in the New York Times claiming that Wikipedia is de-valuing the Rorschach test by including the 10 ink blot images and their most common associated terms as part of its article.

The controversy started on June 29th when Dr. James Heilman decided to include all the images and research about common terms in the wikipedia page. The images still remain, but the terms were taken down later amid protest from those in the scientific community. Of course, due to how Wikipedia works, those terms are still available in the history page.

Just in case that somehow gets removed, here’s a screen shot:

click for larger image

Personally, I understand where the scientific community is coming from, but their anger is many years too late. My college psych class included most of this information in the textbook – and that was printed sometime in the 80s. Anybody could have walked into the store and purchased the book and gotten way more “potential bias” information from there than they could find on Wikipedia. Why wasn’t there outrage over textbooks?

My personal view as a computer scientist who only took the required 3 psychology classes in college is that the Rorschach test is pretty useless. It’s a good measure of how well somebody conforms to the status quo, but that’s about it.

One standard test that never changes questions is generally a bad idea in a lot of fields. Eye charts are one that comes to mind – with no doubt thousands of people having memorized “E FP TOZ LPED PECFD…” (That’s all I remember off the top of my head.) How many of you have cheated at the eye dr when they ask you to read the same line with your left eye that you just read with your right eye? It’s not a very valid test.

Rorschach is one of those tests. Anybody seriously trying to cheat the test is going to be able to do so whether or not the images and terms appear on Wikipedia. Once the data is out there anywhere (even textbooks!) it’s out there and will be found out by those wanting to abuse it.

On a side note though, if (and I doubt it) the publication of this data will really have an impact on the test, that means we can make it have the opposite impact too. It might be fun to alter the “normal terms” and see how many people confidently walk into their psychologist’s office and proudly proclaim that the butterfly image is really “a man hang gliding over the city with an ak47 raining a deadly hail of bullets onto those below him.”

Long ago, I started reflecting on the fact that glasses are associated with nerds (like me), and started asking around.  Literally, every person I’ve ever asked who has severe myopia says he read heavily as a child.  Every person I’ve asked who, while intelligent, does not have glasses, said he did not start reading heavily until later in life (say, college), or not at all.  Hey — our bodies are made for working the ground, or shooting arrows, or cooking … all arm’s length or greater.  We’re not made for books & computer screens. 

Naturally, since virtually everyone believes nearsightedness is inherited, I was stricken at the thought of our children being as nearsighteded as I am (dh is fairly myopic, too).  So I asked our eye doctor — does reading cause myopia?  He said no.  I asked him about the Inuit study.  He backtracked.  He stammered.  … He admitted that yes, near work seems to be associated with an increased rate of myopia, but essentially, what are you gonna do?  Tell kids not to read?  I agreed, but said, what about encouraging good reading practices — lots of light, holding book as far away as you can, eye breaks, good posture, setting a limit on daily reading (kids like me could read literally 8hrs a day)…  He said sure. 

A few months later, when I took my daughter in, his substitute pulled the same thing — she claimed that «of course» my daughter had myopia, given my severe prescription.  I asked if she knew of any exercises to decrease myopia, or recommendations of doctors who did, and she wondered why, since it’s genetic.  I asked her about the Inuits.  She backpedaled.  She finally admitted that it was probably 50/50 reading & genes, but what are you gonna do?  Tell kids not to read?

Fascinating.

So I searched for info and found the Myopia Manual.  It gives the results of nearly every study ever done on myopia & its causes.  The author clearly delineates the facts from his conclusions.  The final analysis is that myopia is a result of near work, while diet (namely, processed foods & sugar (e.g., Vanuatuans attend school 8hrs a day, but eat a traditional, unprocessed diet, & have 2% myopia)), insufficient sunlight, & heredity determine who of those doing heavy near work will become myopic. 

Just before Christmas, a study was released that found that sunlight may save kids’ sight.  Young Singaporeans are nearly

90%

nearsighted!  (30% just 40 years ago)  While it was at first supposed that they were extremely genetically predisposed to the effects of near work, it turns out that other ethnicities living in Singapore were experiencing the same epidemic of nearsightedness.  However, when children of identical ethnicities living in Singapore & Australia were compared, the ones in Australia (who did twice the reading, but spent four times as much time outside) had one tenth the myopia rate of the ones in Singapore.

Wow.

I came to the conclusion a while back (probably when my ob/gyn told me that lights while sleeping, even backlit clocks, contribute to cycle irregularities) that we probably should spend more time in the sun during the day & w/ far less light in the dark hours.  (What about skin cancer?  Someday I’ll get to the link between sun exposure, skin cancer, vitamin D, and overall health…)  This is absolutely convincing evidence — our eyes were made for the bright sunshine, not the warm incandescent glow, or worse, the flickering fluorescent whiteness. 

Perhaps most interesting in the ABC article is what is their starting assumption, stated as fact: «the long-held view that education and close work are the key drivers of myopia.»  Long-held?  Why did the doctors never tell us this?  Why do they just prescribe glasses and send us home, rather than helping us understand the factors so that we can make educated choices about our habits?  I can’t tell you how many people I know *swear* that myopia is *purely* hereditary.

So is it near work?  Or is the processed diet & lack of sunshine that come along with increasing urbanization & time spent indoors in school instead of outside working?  Probably all, to what extent each, I don’t know, but I’m not too worried about precisely which one — because good reading habits (light, distance, moderation), time outside, & eating real food benefit everyone.  I’ll go with that.  (It *is* interesting that the Inuit women spent considerable time in dark igloos sewing, with no resulting myopia, before schooling was introduced.  (But did this start at age 5 or 6, as school does?)  Is it the change in diet that accompanied it?  The white flour & rice & bread?)

(Further evidence for the whole theory: optometry students were observed to have an increase in myopia during school sessions (which means less time outside, more time studying, and probably low-quality food grabbed between classes), while the increase stopped during each school break.)   Turns out, my instinct that God didn’t make us myopic as a people was right.  In traditional societies, where modern schooling, diet, & indoor life are unheard of, the myopia rate is less than 2%.  Interestingly, the growing consensus among scientists is that there is very little genetic component at all.

Now stop reading this and take your kids outside! 

FIVE YEARS LATER, a fascinating update:
My son, who did not read at all until he was ten, began developing myopia at 7, just like his heavy-reading sister & mother had.  I was totally perplexed.  

When he was 9, we went on the GAPS diet — a gut-healing regimen that excludes all grains, potatoes, dairy, & legumes, focusing on high quality meat, vegetables, fruit, eggs, seafood, fermented foods, & bone broths.  That year, there was NO PROGRESSION of myopia for him or his sister, who was now 12 and at the time when myopia usually progresses the most.  Their 7 year old brother had no myopia beginning. That was two years ago.

One year ago, we went back to eating some (but rare) wheat & other grains. Her myopia did not progress; his did only slightly.  Their 8 year old brother was still myopia-free.  Not only that, but MY prescription improved for the first time in my life.  Just a little bit, but it was the only time that had ever happened since my myopia began at age 7.

Since then, we have returned to no wheat at all, with occasional other grains.  They do eat potatoes & high quality dairy.  I will be fascinated to see what this year’s eye exam brings.

1. 08-22-2008, 05:03 PM

   
   

   #31

   

   Originally Posted by Roto13
   

   Originally Posted by bipper
   

   I am (legally) blind in my right eye. No way to correct that. So correction is needed, but nothing that can do now. Unless, I get one of those cool star trek visors.

   Get an eye patch! GET AN EYE PATCH!

   Originally Posted by Flying Mullet
   

   Patchy!
   

   Oh… Hell Yes!

   NOTE: I Still can read font-size:OMG; and get some peripheral vision out of that eye, however, the badass factor of being able to wear an eye patch for a real reason is beyond amazing.

   

   ---

2. 08-22-2008, 05:27 PM

   
   

   #32

   

   ---

3. 08-22-2008, 05:44 PM

   
   

   #33

   

   Originally Posted by Old Manus
   

   Originally Posted by Yaridovich
   

   This is, of course, contradictory to my entire family, who need correction in some way.

   Originally Posted by Hambone
   

   Everybody in my family but me uses glasses for something.

   I’m afraid you were both adopted.

   Oh, Thank GOD!!!

   ---

4. 08-22-2008, 07:03 PM

   
   

   #34

   

   I wear glasses for driving, or if I’m gaming.

   ---

5. 08-22-2008, 07:27 PM

   
   

   #35

   

   I need glasses to see things that are far away from me D:

   ♪ wheee!
   
   :hello: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE HELLO KITTY SMILEY :hello:

   ---

6. 08-22-2008, 08:11 PM

   
   

   #36

   

   Not I. 20/20 vision ftw.

   My friends always have to rely on me to be our eyes because they all have horrible vision and have to be within a couple feet to see things.

   ---

7. 08-23-2008, 01:50 AM

   
   

   #37

   

   
   VICIOUS GEEK SOOT~ヽ(`Д�)ﾉ
   

   

   

   ---

   

   Part-time glasses. I would totally use a monocle if it was at all acceptable.

   ---

8. 08-23-2008, 02:01 AM

   
   

   #38

   ---

9. 08-23-2008, 04:41 AM

   
   

   #39

   

   I have prescription glasses for reading, but I wear them all the time because they are comfortable and keep me from getting headaches every day. I was prescribed them even though I passed the vision test that was given to me.

   When I was going through Boot Camp, I passed the mandatory vision test and was told that my eyes were fine and I would not need glasses. Then I took another vision test shortly after getting to my first tour station and the lady said «Whoever said you didn’t need glasses is an idiot.»

   ---

10. 08-23-2008, 05:26 AM

    
    

    #40

    

    Originally Posted by Old Manus
    

    Originally Posted by Yaridovich
    

    This is, of course, contradictory to my entire family, who need correction in some way.

    Originally Posted by Hambone
    

    Everybody in my family but me uses glasses for something.

    I’m afraid you were both adopted.

    Please God. Say I’m not related to them.

    ---