Comment by stevebmark
4 years ago
That's only correlation, light brightness has nothing to do with myopia. It's more likely from looking at things farther away from the face outside so that there is less light focused on the fovea.
4 years ago
That's only correlation, light brightness has nothing to do with myopia. It's more likely from looking at things farther away from the face outside so that there is less light focused on the fovea.
"light brightness has nothing to do with myopia" - that's a big claim and will need some evidence to back it up, especially given the many studies that suggest otherwise.
This is still a topic with many unknowns, but we have to follow the evidence as much as we can. Evidence should always beat data-free guesses.
See my other replies. I also feel worried reading this, because it doesn't look like you've researched the subject, and I always worry about lack of understanding of myopia progression with people just talking about a subject they aren't familiar with.
kind of, kind of not. To the extent that brightness contracts your pupil, and the depth of field available to your eye increases with smaller pupil size[1]. People with focus issues find they can always focus when the light is bright enough (assuming normally functioning pupils).
So there are optical properties that are affected by bright light, and your eyes respond to that. What the mechanism is for affecting overall focus range of your eye? I would agree that is unstated/unknown.
[1] Which, as a science project, is fun to demonstrate that a pin hole camera doesn't need a lens for this reason.
Please do research on myopia progression. It's not unknown. This entire thread is full of people guessing at things they don't have any experience in.
A brief look at citations on Wikipedia seems to contradict everything you've said. Maybe you'd like to link some research?
4 replies →
Correlation does not imply causation but it does imply having something to do with the other. Your first sentence contradicts itself.
> Correlation does not imply causation but it does imply having something to do with the other
Correlation does not imply having something to do with another.
For example, in the first decade of the 21st century, spending on space exploration had a 99.8% correlation with a specific subset of suicides (hanging?).
"Correlation does not imply having something to do with another."
By its very definition, "correlation" means exactly "a mutual relation": https://www.dictionary.com/browse/correlation The example you're giving is called coincidence not correlation. There are times where words' etymologies loose their connection with their current meaning, but that is not the case here, where we have "con" meaning "together" + "relation", which is a logical construction agreeing with word's meaning.
1 reply →
It depends on what you mean by "having something to do with the other" but I see what you mean. I should've assumed the more favorable interpretation of the comment I was replying to. Reminds me of the pirates and global warming correlation.
You can only see that far away if the light energy is that abundant.
That's a pretty low amount of light, though. The sun doesn't even have to be above the horizon - Twilight, in different darknesses, exists. And you'll still be looking at things a bit further and the light isn't as concentrated.
The amount of detail sometimes varies, but then again, fog will do that especially when it is bright.