My Scientific Thesis – New Hypothesis

Imagine a world where everything is two dimensional. More precisely, imagine a world where everything you see is limited by an inability or limited ability to judge depth in the ‘normal’ way through the use of both eyes to produce a 3D image. In such a world you would make up your own ways of establishing distance and depth. For example, how far a car is away and a safe distance from it to cross the road would be done on the basis of the size of the car compared to how you remember the size of car close up. All very confusing and disturbing as a child. Then there are people assuming you are like them and can judge things visually in the normal way. They wonder at your behavoiural adaptations made to try to compensate. I say, ‘try’ to compensate because there is always the residual knowledge that your are somehow making changes that others don’t need to make and you have nothing to measure them against. There is no textbook, no adviser or counselor to go to. No one to judge it all but yourself.

Anyway, you do all of this naturally as it were. Then someone comes along and tells you you’ve got a squint (just like 5% of the population). they say it needs treatment. this person is an optician and what they are actually doing is making a cosmetic adjustment using eye patches, muscle training etc. Although you may end up with some depth perception, the underlying physical ‘defect’ remains. Yet they tell you, you have made improvements. You are better.

Confused? I would think the child would be utterly confused. As if this was not enough, more is to follow, that just adds to the confusion and alienation by the outside world. This is one of the last unrecognised, undocumented and untreated diabilities. Help to make this change.

Finally, later in life a person may rely more heavily on specifically produced 2D images as they stand out from the rest of the 2D universe some people must live in. So, if the world is two dimensional visually things like posters and digital TV images will stand out as specially entertaining and significant. The person will learn to read manufactured 2d images specially well and may even rely on them. They may consider themselves special because of this and moderate their behaviour to balance it with 2D messages.

My tentative conclusion is that the type of behaviour displayed may be consistent with and may even lead to a diagnosis of schizophrenia and all that entails for the patient. This occur even if the patient is NOT schizophrenic. It follows that such a person will even be regarded as an incurable schizophrenic as the source of their trouble is a physical eyesight speciality and not mental illness….If this is true then WOW … what a cruel world we live in. Let me know what you think.

I note that George Galloway, on the Frank Skinner show here in the UK mentioned he has strabismus or a lazy eye, same as 5% of the population. According to my ‘discovery’ he should fit to my 2D theory (see ‘My ‘Scientific’ Discovery’;.

I say, has strabismus because he revealed implicitly on the show that he is one of many who assume that the condition is merely cosmetic and that after a few eye patch applications, one is ‘cured’. In fact, this is the view one is led into by professionals in this area and by society so it is not surprising that George appears to make this decision. If my theory is correct, and please feel free to read it under my ‘Scientific’ ‘Discovery’, then George should be at risk of a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Incurable schizophrenia in fact. By sheer neglect and ignorance of the psychiatric profession. I am not qualified to assess this risk and I also have no personal knowledge of George Galloway. I can only question however why his response to his surroundings as a youth was to put his fists up and say ‘come ahead’. I could speculate further but it would be of little use. He mentioned he was from a long line of boxers but as far as I know boxing as a way of life does not pass from mother to son so there is some initial support for my conclusions. I’ll leave the rest up to you. Perhaps he discredits what I am postulating, perhaps not.

If you want to check out the clip see:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s