Study: Six Million People in UK Cannot See 3D
The study by The Eyecare Trust (via Eurogamer) finds that "more than one in ten of [UK residents] (12%) has a visual impairment that means our brains are unable to correctly process the individual images that are transmitted to it via our left and right eyes," leading to an "inconsistency in viewing the three spatial dimensions (height, width and depth) required to enjoy 3-D films."
If you cannot see the effect of stereoscopic 3D or get headaches during viewing, it could mean you have poor binocular vision. The Eyecare Trust recommends that you "pop along to your local optician for a sight test." The findings might not be unbiased as this establishment exists to "raise awareness of all aspects of eye health and the importance of regular eyecare" and probably has a vested interest in encouraging people to visit the doctor.
I, personally, have problems with stereoscopic 3D. I get headaches after a bit of viewing. If these conclusions are valid, it could mean that around 30 million people in the US could be affected. Take the results with a shaker of salt, but people have been experiencing problems.
-
GigiLeCheshire
replyIsn't it a logical fallacy to assume that because 12% in the UK have genetic deficiency that 12% of the US would have the same amount of the mutation? We are much more genetically diverse here, I doubt we have as high a rate of it.
-
Or, since we are a mixing pot, the rate could be even higher.
-
Impossible. The higher a genetic pool there is to draw from, the less likely that recessive deficiencies will pop in the population. It's only when a people inbreed heavily that negative traits become prevalent.
-
Wow I'm pretty sure every "fact" in that statement was wrong. Nice job.
-
Good sir your name is Pothead, what you know to be fact is twaddle and dipshittery.
-
Oh no you didn't!
-
Well jeese, that showed me. Instead of trying to show anything he said was based in reality he just called me out on my name. Man, good show that really proved me wrong.
-
I don't need to prove you wrong. It's basic scientific fact. The larger a gene-pool the more diverse the genes within it, and the less likely that a malicious mutation will become prevalent. Remember the royalty of Europe? How they all came down with Hemophilia because they were inbreeding left and right? That's what happens when you narrow a gene-pool. When you broaden it, the reverse happens. If you expect me to give you a lecture on grade-school biology you can forget it, I don't have the time or patience. A simple googling of the matter will do just as well to teach you what you need to know.
-
First off you are assuming that not being able to see computer generated 3d is recessive. Secondly you are assuming it's malicious and something that would be selected against during choosing a mate for reproduction. Thirdly you assume that negative traits only become prevalent during inbreeding. I guess you must have missed how the skinniest american state is now on average the same weight as the fattest american state was 10 years ago. You'd be pretty hard pressed to find somebody who doesn't consider obesity a negative trait. Fourthly the fact you have zero idea what you are talking about and have the balls to imply I don't because of my name. Maybe you should be the one googling for information since you are wrong.
-
Your first point: Valid, it could be a dominant gene, there is no way for me to know this, though as it is not a large problem I think we can safely assume it is a recessive trait. However, I will still give that to you.
Second Point: Being unable to properly do something that a majority of people can do is being less fit than those people, so yes, it is a malicious trait. Though I don't think we have much selective breeding anymore there, buddy.
Third Point: Fat is not genetic, it's what happen when lazy people eat a lot and don't get off their asses to burn off the excess calories. Obesity is certainly a negative trait, but fat is not passed down, though there are certainly genes that might make one predisposed to getting fat.
Fourth Point: As I have a high-school education, yes, I am plenty educated to talk about middle-school biology. It's actually a very bare-bones understanding, and the fact that you do not have it is astounding to me (maybe all that smoking made you forget your classes?).
In summation, fuck along now.-
-
Oh, you posted a meme image! I am defeated~
-
It's not a competition so you aren't defeated. I just realized I'm trying to converse with an idiot and I'd rather not waste my time.
-
Sir, you think fat is a gene. You think people get fat because their DNA tells them too. That is stupid on a level I could never hope to harness.
-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/07/040709085724.htm
I'm going to stop responding to you because it's obvious you are nothing but a troll. Good day sir.-
-
Insight in how to be an idiot? I'll pass on that, my good man.
-
-
That says that a gene can lead to slow metabolism, which helps in weight-gain. That doesn't mean everyone with the gene will get fat. There is no fat gene. How dumb can you be? You have the intelligence and reasoning skills of a child.
-
I said good day sir.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This isn't necessarily the case. It's also possible that it's a common deficiency in the human race, and only white people in the UK are particularly immune to it. Without more testing of the wider human population, it's impossible to extrapolate anything from the data about the human race as a whole.
-
-
I know that UK is around 90% white, and that the US is only 75% white. And while those shades of white might be more or less diverse on either side, I'd say that the US is a lot more genetically diverse.
-
This guy is a tool.... I'm jus saying
-
This means you assume the white people can't see the 3D. Maybe its the "Other" category that can't see the 3D. Therefore the US having more "Other" would be worse off.
-
I was using it as a point of them being genetically less diverse, not that white or brown or whatever is any more prevalent in seeing poorly.
-
so you don't think that it could be the result of an already common existing eye condition? and not an genetic deficiency that's arose in the last couple of months due to the success of avatar?
P.S look how many times Britain has been invaded throughout history, each time broadening the genetic gene pool.
-
-
-
-
-
