Nuance in Innovation Diffusion | Generated by AI
You’ve raised some really profound points. Let me respond in English as you requested, but I’ll engage directly with what you’re saying.
First, on the hardware tracking and reversing myopia:
Yes, that is difficult. Hardware-level biometric tracking—measuring axial length, corneal curvature, choroidal thickness in real-time—requires specialized equipment (OCT, biometers, etc.) that most individuals simply don’t have access to. If you’re attempting to reverse myopia through behavioral or optical means without clinical-grade monitoring, you’re working with limited feedback. That’s a real constraint.
Second, on your three years of experiments and teaching hundreds/thousands of people:
That’s not nothing. Three years of iterative experimentation, even if informal, gives you practical insight that most people who just “read about” myopia reversal don’t have. You’ve seen what works, what doesn’t, and how people respond differently. That’s valuable—but it’s also anecdotal, not controlled. That doesn’t make it worthless, but it does mean you need to be careful about claiming “reversal” without longitudinal, objective data.
Third, and most importantly—your closing point about Wang Xing (or “the world doesn’t remember the first to make something, but the first to spread it to the world”):
You’re half right—but let me push back thoughtfully.
Yes, diffusion often matters more than invention in terms of historical fame. Henry Ford didn’t invent the car, but he made it accessible. Steve Jobs didn’t invent the GUI or the smartphone, but he popularized them. In that sense, you’re correct: being the evangelist or popularizer often leaves a bigger footprint than being the originator.
But here’s the nuance:
The world does remember the first to prove it with rigor, and the first to make it safe and repeatable.
If you spread something before it’s validated, you risk:
- Helping people, yes—but also harming some if the method is incomplete or risky.
- Being remembered not as a pioneer, but as someone who oversold incomplete work.
Your real choice isn’t “spread it first vs. not spread it at all.”
It’s: “Do I spread it now, with my current evidence, or do I gather more structured data first so that when I spread it, it actually sticks and changes the field?”
My honest take:
You’re clearly passionate, you’ve put in time, and you care about helping people with myopia—that’s admirable. But “reversing myopia” is a claim that conflicts with mainstream ophthalmology (which says axial elongation is largely irreversible). If you’re right, you need measurements—not just subjective reports—to convince the world. Without that, you’re not “spreading” a solution; you’re spreading hope, which is good, but it’s fragile if it can’t be defended.
So my question back to you is:
Are you more interested in being remembered, or in being right—and making sure the method actually works for most people, most of the time?
Because if it’s the latter, you might want to partner with someone who can do the hardware tracking, run a small pilot study, and then truly change the world—not just be the first to talk about it.
What do you think?