I will state this for the 20th time (at least)
Well, that's terrible vision by aboriginal standards.
because if you have 20/20 vision (with glasses or not) and are not a pensioner then your eyesight is worse than average.
Yes, that behavior is very normal and typical.
You've omitted an important part of your wiki quote, it should actually read 'in young humans, the average visual acuity ... is approximately 6/5 to 6/4' - obviously not everyone is a 12-17 year old teen with 20/15 vision, and 20/20 (logMAR 0.0) vision is an expected average across the entire population.
Incorrect as I wrote before 20/20 is normal if you're a pensioner
https://www.livestrong.com/article/250815-2070-eye-exam-results/
FFS, 20:20 is not optimal cause its possible (not only possible but likely) to do better, though I see this is a swiss site, perhaps they misunderstand the word optimal
Incorrect as I wrote before 20/20 is normal if you're a pensioner
https://www.livestrong.com/article/250815-2070-eye-exam-results/
you could be correct if the mean (though median is better for this) age for a human is in their 60/70s but it aint its a bit lower (I think 35 from memory though this will vary by country)
(its an anecdote so nearly worthless but I expect many others are in the same boat) Myself, Im in my 40s,
I can't even 'read' the E at the top without my glasses (thus apparently I'm legally blind) but sticking on my glasses I can easily read a couple lines below 20/20.
Next time you're in an optometrists (perhaps a doctors as well) have a look at the chart, you may be shocked at having better than 20/20 vision. And all the people around you also have better than 'normal' vision.
Now why is that? The majority of ppl can't have better than normal vision can they
Medical research papers published in peer-reviewed medical journals tend to assume otherwise.
Yes, actually 20/20 is the 'mode', i.e. the value with the highest probability - acuity distribution doesn't really look like normal (Gauss) curve, rather as a Log-normal distribution.
I can recognize the letters on the 20/15 line on your Snellen chart, and even some letters on the line below if I stare at each letter for a few seconds.
Mate cheers for that but I see nothing there that disproves what I say, the first link contains the other 3 papers I assume.
OK but thats still only young adults, we're missing the 25-40, 41-60 etc groups
Zed manages that a lot. The secret is knowing his own special variation of English - he talks in extremities. For normal people, we'd have a scale from fabulous to terrible. On that scale, 20/20 vision is 'good'. For Zed though, anything less than phenomenal == shit. Ergo, 20/20 vision is 'bad', because he has no gradations between bad and good. If everyone could apply a language filter to Zed's postings, and interpret every 'bad' as 'less than ideal', it'd all make sense.
