Brock,
Your
post#83 contains the odd salient point, but by and large you are twisting things (either through misunderstanding or mischief) and ascribing things to me which I never said, which you seem to do with regular monotony.
I'm not going to go through the whole shebang line by line, because quite honestly, I, and most likely many others, are bored by the tediousness of this nonsense.
I'll play no reindeer games with you sonny-jim ..... but for the sake of everyone with an interest in the facts, I'll briefly re-state what has already been made abundantly clear.
Despite the fact that you trot out links to Holgers work as some sort irrefutable proof of your position, I wonder whether you actually read /understand /remember it at all? You have the k values all wrong. These are direct quotes from Holger's page you link:
"(Fig 2: Generalized transformation formula with distortion parameter 'k')", and
"(Fig 4: Visual transformation formula with distortion parameter 'l' ...... Here, the new parameter 'l' stands for the distortion generated by the human vision.)". Holger goes on to postulate that because the human vision introduces some barrel distortion, that roughly when k = l then a happy medium is struck for the individual (this is for physical and physiological factors).
Further reading of the links and material Holger provides, show that a whole host of multi-disciplinary scientific "factors" come into play - not just the ones you regularly spout. Thus the multiple "factor" theory is not mine - I just summarised it for the benefit of everyone here who seeks a greater understanding of the whole area (yourself included).
I quite clearly stated that the proportions vary for individuals, and that they are modulated (again with varying magnitude) by a whole host of other parameters.
The whole RB "phenomenon" consists of physical, physiological, neural, opto-neurological processing, behavioural, situational, and importantly psychological factors.
and that whole host of "factors" (from the multi-disciplinary science) change with regard to a whole host of other modifying parameters (such as tiredness, eye fatigue, optical formula consistency adaptation timeframes, emotional state, even curmudgeonliness! etc, etc, etc).
Furthermore those mixes /proportions of those factors will not remain fixed with regard to time due to various reasons (situation, optical formula consistency + adaptation if /as required, emotional state!, etc, etc, etc) ......
To my knowledge (and I've read just about all the stuff, from just about all of the people on BF on this and related topics) no-one is claiming that, this part of the equation, - or that, is solely responsible, or invalidates the phenomena. It is highly individualistic, and subjective /experiential. The penchant for that seems to be yours alone, most likely because it suits your purpose of having something to argue with. You yourself said:
Your all encompassing "pizza with everything to go" theory is so complex that there's no way to evaluate it. But the mind can be tricky and human behavior is complex, so perhaps expecting RB adaptation to be either only neural or only behavioral might be too simplistic.
Your RB = RB = RB is still invalid, since k1 ≠ k2 ≠ k3.
Your qualification that there is an RB 'threshold' value does have merit, and you even acknowledged that it is more correctly a 'threshold region' modified by those "factors", which are then affected /modulated by a whole host of "parameters" (eg. tiredness, as you rightly proffered).
For the minority of people have trouble with the effects of the RB phenomena:-
* We know that those with high levels of barrel distortion in their eyes must by and large choose binoculars with corresponding like levels of pincushion to compensate.
* We know they must by and large choose binoculars in their collection with similar optical formulas.
* We know they must by and large avoid swapping back and forth to some unsuited low distortion bins in order to maximise the adaptation process.
* We know they must by and large engage in behaviours (panning methods, energy /fatigue levels, even down perhaps to what they had for breakfast, etc) and situations (distances, aspects, focal /dof ranges, vegetation types, etc) which do not aggravate any tendency to move that threshold over the tipping point.
* We know they must by and large engage in psychological discipline that encompases such things as positively redefining preconceptions, beliefs, concentration, intent, and even fear, etc as a way of maximising their chances of minimal impacts to their viewing pleasure.
* We know all these things and more (such as perspective, other binocular pleasures /advantages /compromise satisfaction, investment and/or attachment, happiness, etc, etc), and yet someone, or something, somewhere, will inevitably crop up to be an example of a complete contradiction, for better or worse - even if only for one inexplicably, serendipitously, fleeting, moment .....
* We do not know in what proportions these "factors" and modulating (+ve, or -ve) "parameters" apply - for that is an individual thing.
We can but share our experiences and knowledge.
Some even know to forget all this stuff, and just go look at some birds.
From my perspective, I have seen numerous people come forward and offer you /us contextual examples of these anomalies, and yet instead of embracing the individual diversity and learning, you seem to pounce on it and contort it to fit the preconceived prison cells of your imagined persecution, and resultant retorting arguements.
You're punching at shadows, perilously close to walking along the street muttering to yourself. Surely there's a better use for your intellect, experience and story telling.
Chosun