Oh sorry, I think I misread it. Thank you for clarifying, Mike!

Oh, now I understand lol!

"Kisame Hoshigaki" <absolutelyinvincible[at]hotmail.com> wrote

- quote -

The study says overcorrection doesn't matter significantly, either way.

-MT

"RT" <RTMD24[at]NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote

- quote -

The weird hypothesis could be a novel approach for the sake of pleasing the
editors. It's probably difficult to get _another_ paper published that
simply says overcorrection does no significant harm.

-MT

Dear pclar,

p.clar...[at]gmail.com wrote:
- quote -

I do not understand what you mean here. Are you saying that this study
supports the view that: overcorrected myope has a lower rate of
increase in myopia than a myope wearing conventional spectacle
correction or that: an overcorrected myopia has a *higher* rate rate
of increase of myopia than a myope wearing a conventional spectacle
correction. The studies appear to agree with the latter view.

-KH

Dear Ms. Brainy,

- quote -

A good point you have raised, no doubt, but I do not entirely agree
with it being an absolute definite idea. In our society, we have, most
unfortunately, come to believe that much effort and hard work is
needed for anything worthwhile to be accomplished. It is this concept
that I find, in essence, a rather strange hypothesis, and especially
when we make a number of simple observations in the world around us.

Allow us to take the example of a piano player (yes, I do know that
this is an overused analogy!). If you were to make a few small
experiments, I would have absolutely no reservation with the
conclusion you would find, which is as follows. The piano player, when
he is calm, relaxed, and simply 'going along with the flow', enjoying
himself, he is able to produce a masterpiece of work -- that is to say
-- his fingers will fly along the keys without effort, carrying out
the instructions given to them by the mind, undisturbed, shall we say,
by any 'noise' through the nerves along the way. The noise, in this
case, we can substitute with the concept of effort, hard work, pain,
etc.

Yet, when the very same person is under a strain, or effort -- or dare
I say pain -- he will find himself stuttering with the keys, hitting
incorrect notes, and making a general fool of himself. Is it not
therefore somewhat plausible that we have rather exaggerated our
strange fabrication, which has no real basis in foundation ? -

"No pain, no gain."

I think so! It is indeed true that from pain we are able to learn, to
proceed, and to progress, from our own pains -- but to say 'no pain,
no gain' is, to me, a rather silly statement, the more one considers
it!

For it is certain, that in my own case -- when it comes to doing
exercise, playing sports, and so on -- that I am able to excel by
simply disregarding any pain/effort. Now then, let me make my point of
view here a little more clear: pain is *not* required for progress,
procession, or experience. So what are your thoughts, Brainy? Agree?
Disagree?

-KH

In article <1183778848.526528.276280[at]k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> ,
p.clarkii[at]gmail.com wrote:

- quote -

This wording is kind of tricky isn't? This study was testing the
hypothesis that myopes can reduce their myopia by overcorrecting. I
haven't seen anyone argue that on this NG.

In fact the experimental group (the overcorrected group) GAINED slightly
more myopia (Otis's hypothesis)--the gain was statistically
insignificant, but it was a gain nonetheless.

(disclaimer--in support or against no one. just reacting to a post.)

--
~RT

Dear Mike,

- quote -

Thank you for your reply -- you make a very good point that I had not
considered.

I have come to believe that, despite all the annoyances it tends to
cause, pain is without doubt one of the human body's most intricate
'warning' systems,.and I admire the system for its ingenuity. I have
considered that there are many different types of pain - each with its
own form of consequences and similarities. In addition, each sector of
pain may be divided into its own classification of grouping. I take
your point, Mike -- however, it would be an injustice to claim that
because a certain pain shows no relative visible harm, that it may be
so easily disregarded, without first considering the so called
'invisible' effects or even its longterm effects.

The types of pain to which I was referring (this is simply a
fabrication of my entire concept) may include -

1. Internal pain
2. Mental pain
3. External pain
4. Memory of pain
5. Imaginary pain
6. The anticipation of pain

1, 2, 3, and 5 would obviously be in the present, whilst the concept
of numbers 4, and 6 would be either in the past or, in the future. I
mention this because, Mike, I remain unsure as to whether you should
be disregarding any one type of pain without allowing a further
consideration of another. In addition, each type of pain would lead to
its own branch of consequences (made up of either another pain in
itself, or a harm/damage) - though one may not conceive of the many,
and only the singular, clear, obvious damage.

For example, allow us to take a case of exaggerated (but plausible)
extremity - trauma. A man goes to war and sees his comrade fall at the
hands of his own stupidity -- his comrade has been shot down by the
enemy. The bullets, which have entered his body, are causing the
comrade a great deal of pain and discomfort. The man, on the other
hand, has no visible damage or pain (present) yet he does have an
anticipation that perhaps the enemy is still lurking around, and as
such he fears (the future), whilst the memory of his friend who is now
dead brings back much guilt (pain of the past). This is, as I have
stated, an extreme and typical case -- nonetheless, we should not
ignore the perception. (Isn't it, in scientific terms, called the
'ALARA' principle or something? As low as reasonably achievable. Or
perhaps it was the 'precautionary principle', I always forget) :-)

Therefore I do not agree with your implications, that simply because a
singular, external pain shows no clear damage, that you have
disregarded the many series of consequences that may be visible or
invisible to the current instruments used by the medical profession to
detect such signs of harm.

P.S. Sorry for my long and boring post, but I just thought I should
try to explain why I do not agree with the current medical concept of
pain, expectation, and consequence.

-KH

Dear Mike,

- quote -

Thank you for your reply -- you make a very good point that I had not
considered.

I have come to believe that, despite all the annoyances it tends to
cause, pain is without one of the human body's most intricate
'warning' systems,.and I admire the system for its ingenuity. I have
considered that there are many different types of pain - each with its
own form of consequences and similarities. In addition, each sector of
pain may be divided into its own classification of grouping. I take
your point, Mike -- however, it would be an injustice to claim that
because a certain pain shows no relative visible harm, that it may be
so easily disregarded, without first considering the so called
'invisible' effects or even its longterm effects.

The types of pain to which I was referring (this is simply a
fabrication of my entire concept) may include -

1. Internal pain
2. Mental pain
3. External pain
4. Memory of pain
5. Imaginary pain
6. The anticipation of pain

1, 2, 3, and 5 would obviously be in the present, whilst the concept
of numbers 4, and 6 would be either in the past or, in the future. I
mention this because, Mike, I remain unsure as to whether you should
be disregarding any one type of pain without allowing a further
consideration of another. In addition, each type of pain would lead to
its own branch of consequences (made up of either another pain in
itself, or a harm/damage) - though one may not conceive of the many,
and only the singular, clear, obvious damage.

For example, allow us to take a case of exaggerated (but plausible)
extremity - trauma. A man goes to war and sees his comrade fall at the
hands of his own stupidity -- his comrade has been shot down by the
enemy. The bullets, which have entered his body, are causing the
comrade a great deal of pain and discomfort. The man, on the other
hand, has no visible damage or pain (present) yet he does have an
anticipation that perhaps the enemy is still lurking around, and as
such he fears (the future), whilst the memory of his friend who is now
dead brings back much guilt (pain of the past). This is, as I have
stated, an extreme and typical case -- nonetheless, we should not
ignore the perception. (Isn't it, in scientific terms, called the
'ALARA' principle or something? As low as reasonably achievable. Or
perhaps it was the 'precautionary principle', I always forget) :-)

Therefore I do not agree with your implications, that simply because a
singular, external pain shows no clear damage, that you have
disregarded the many series of consequences that may be visible or
invisible to the current instruments used by the medical profession to
detect such signs of harm.

P.S. Sorry for my long and boring post, but I just thought I should
try to explain why I do not agree with the current medical concept of
pain, expectation, and consequence.

-KH

Dear Mike,

- quote -

Thank you for your reply -- you make a very good point that I had not
considered.

I believe that pain is one of the human body's most intricate
systems,.and I admire the system for its ingenuity. I have considered
that there are many different types of pain - each with its own form
of consequences and similarities. In addition, each sector of pain may
be divided into its own classification of grouping. I take your point,
Mike -- however, it would be an injustice to claim that because a
certain pain shows no relative visible harm, that it may be so easily
disregarded, without first considering the so called 'invisible'
effects or even its longterm effects.

The types of pain to which I was referring (this is simply a
fabrication of my entire concept) may include -

1. Internal pain
2. Mental pain
3. External pain
4. Memory of pain
5. Imaginary pain
6. The anticipation of pain

1, 2, 3, and 5 would obviously be in the present, whilst the concept
of numbers 4, and 6 would be either in the past or, in the future. I
mention this because, Mike, I remain unsure as to whether you should
be disregarding any one type of pain without allowing a further
consideration of another. In addition, each type of pain would lead to
its own branch of consequences (made up of either another pain in
itself, or a harm/damage) - though one may not conceive of the many,
and only the singular, clear, obvious damage.

For example, allow us to take a case of exaggerated (but plausible)
extremity - trauma. A man goes to war and sees his comrade fall at the
hands of his own stupidity -- his comrade has been shot down by the
enemy. The bullets, which have entered his body, are causing the
comrade a great deal of pain and discomfort. The man, on the other
hand, has no visible damage or pain (present) yet he does have an
anticipation that perhaps the enemy is still lurking around, and as
such he fears (the future), whilst the memory of his friend who is now
dead brings back much guilt (pain of the past). This is, as I have
stated, an extreme and typical case -- nonetheless, we should not
ignore the perception. (Isn't it, in scientific terms, called the
'ALARA' principle or something? As low as reasonably achievable. Or
perhaps it was the 'precautionary principle', I always forget) :-)

Therefore I do not agree with your implications, that simply because a
singular, external pain shows no clear damage, that you have
disregarded the many series of consequences that may be visible or
invisible to the current instruments used by the medical profession to
detect such signs of harm.

P.S. Sorry for my long and boring post, but I just thought I should
try to explain why I do not agree with the current medical concept of
pain, expectation, and consequence.

-KH