h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm very familiar with the eye & it's function, it's my profession. The case in question is a fascinating one, of two totally different perceptions & processing. I agree, in this case, it doesn't really matter that both eyes can 'see' the object.

It's very interesting how some people with a field defect are very aware that there are areas missing, others have no awareness - depends a lot on the cause of the defect.

The difficulty generally in such tests is to stop the eyes tracking or scanning. What I was getting at is how to you could present an image to one eye or to part of the field of view.

Just to clarify: Are you saying you don't like Elizabeth Warren personally, or are you saying the American public at large won't vote for her?

She seems fine to me. But I'm not living there at the moment, so it's difficult for me to gauge how everyone else feels about the candidates.

I regularly get vision field testing. I hate it.

So, you put your face up to the machine, positioning one eye at a time. They give you a little clicker button. You're looking into a large white sphere. You are tasked with pressing the button every time a tiny green spot is shined anywhere on the sphere while keeping your eye pointed at a central target.

I don't think this is just me, but any time I stare at one fixed point for any extended period of time, everything tends to "smooth out".
...checks online...

Nope, it's not just me. http://www.illusionsindex.org/i/troxler-effect.


So, as this "Troxler effect" starts to become noticeable, you still have to try to see these dim green lights. And they have a bit of a rhythm with some random beats dropped.

click... click... click... click... no spot... click... no spot... no spot... click... click...

It's easy to click the button to the beat anticipating another spot whether you see it or not.

By the end of the test, I KNOW I clicked some blank spots and missed some others.

What I hate about it is...
TEST ANXIETY!





As to Elizabeth Warren, I'm supporting her. I personally think she would do the best against Trump. She would own him in debates. I think Biden would hem and haw while Trump makes his typical immature personal attacks. Warren would confidently demonstrate what a mess we have and she has well thought out policy plans where as Trump has obvious lies, fear-mongering, and playground nick names. But whether she can get the attention of the media, which focuses on the shiniest, most sensational object or conflict, is a big hurdle for her.

I honestly don't know how Sanders would do in the general election. He's polarizing. He has a strong following, but the label "socialist" will be a hindrance as it has so effectively been demonized here. Very few Americans actually know how socialism, democratic socialism, and communism differ, but they're being constantly conditioned by the conservative media and politicians to equate all three with some amorphous evil. Propaganda fueled by hatred and fear are very effective political tools.

Oh, and Bloomberg is just trying to buy the election so he can keep his billions and billions. It's sad how effective he and Steyer have been at buying votes with constant advertising. Steyer dropped out a couple of days ago, but his ads are still running.

Yeah, it's really hard.

Beating Trump is one thing. Going on to be an effective leader is another. If Warren were on the ballot in November, I would be crazy not to vote for her. Maybe she would be a good president. We won't know until she gets the job, and has been in it for a while.