I was born in 1940 and when about 14 yrs old realized that one eye was clearly a little near-sighted, and the other equally a little far sighted. Subsequent visits to eye doctors have confirmed this. My mother had exactly the same situation, and one of my grown daughters does also. I've felt blessed that I have not ever needed to wear glasses - I can still read well, including small print, and I drive without problems. However, recently when trying to read more about this condition, antimetropia I guess, I have gotten the impression that it is supposed to be corrected. My mother lived to be 90 and never needed glasses. Do any in the medical community agree with me that I have an advantageous situation? (I do admit that I have trouble using binoculars.)

You have an eye for near vision and another for distant vision. I'd say that would be good enough for me. Why attempt to change?

Maybe a stylish eyepatch would be in order?

Using eyeglasses never solved anything. They just make vision worse. You've adapted to what you have for decades. So there should be no reason to change something good.

As for binoculars, just use a monocular telescope. :wink:

Gerry

Hey, seems to me that each eye-piece in a pair of binauculars is
adjustable. 'Seems to me that the eye condition talked about here
is, in reality, an advantage. Your arms wont get too short as you
age, so you will never need glasses (well, that is a bit much). Your
brain is pretty good at using the eye that works best for any situatuion.

__________________
Imagined knowledge kills learning . . .
The cure for boredom is curiosity...there is no cure for curiosity..

After my husband's bilateral cataract surgery, he was left with one eye focussing at distance, the other for closer work. He is delighted with the arangement and has better vision that ever before.
I can't see that any correction is called for, unless you are aware of a problem.