"The Case: Three male offspring, aged 9–14 years, of one of the authors (M.B.) were observed to experience visual problems profound enough to imply functional blindness. The visual deficit was evident on almost every occasion when any one of the children of this physician went to the refrigerator and opened the door. The acute visual problem encountered was noted to be part of a consistent behaviour pattern, wherein a few seconds after the fridge door was opened a cry would be heard from the affected child of “Mum, where's the milk [or any other item being sought]?” This vocalization was made without regard to the physician's distance from the fridge or engagement in any other activity. Shouted directions as to the location of the object only occasionally led to it becoming visible. Even with calm and constructive maternal encouragement and direction the desired object typically would remain unseen until the mother-physician attended the fridge-side and physically identified the precise location of the item."
Hilarious!
But, has it been peer reviewed? Reproduced with a larger cohort?
Something I can accomplish with my hobby sometimes but not always is to add images to an environment that either make something else in the environment more prominent or otherwise turn people's attention away from it. For me the "highest purpose" of an image to have an outsize effect either by changing the perception of something else in the environment or (discovered accidentally) modulating other people's behavior to cause changes in the environment.
> Similarly, the male:female predominance would result from EMI readily compromising the simplistic, task-oriented thought processes of the male, but exerting little or no effect on the sophisticated and emotionally savvy workings of the female mind. Females who do show symptoms may be those exposed to higher levels of testosterone in utero; certainly, this group has a greater tendency to behave more like males during some thought sequencing (e.g., when thinking about how to direct someone from point A to point B5).
Hilarious!
But, has it been peer reviewed? Reproduced with a larger cohort?