It's good that you don't have trouble getting through life, but "just fine" is not a measurement. Lacking binocular convergence inarguably diminishes perception even if not 100% gone completely.
Measurements actually support that [0]. I am pretty sure you could devise some scenarios where individuals with strabismus do not perform as well, but for most irl scenarios there is no difference. Compensatory mechanisms do the job just fine, and even those with normal eyesight do not rely solely on binocular convergence either. Our brains don't usually rely on a single signal to make sense of the world, and predictive processing plays a huge role for constructing the image of the world around us, which is also why depth illusions work. Even for those with normal binocular convergence, its contribution for making sense of depth is prob smaller compared to other perceptual cues.
[0] Zlatkute et al 2020, Unimpaired perception of relative depth from perspective cues in strabismus. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7: 200955. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200955
That article does not seem to support your point. They're not measuring depth perception, they're measuring whether people with strabismus have managed to learn perspective cues in 2D images, and, in fact, the article explicitly states agreement with the point you're arguing against.
> Strabismus disrupts sensory fusion, the cortical process of combining the images from the two eyes into a single binocular image [3–6]. The main perceptual consequences of lack of fused binocular images is diplopia (double vision) and a lack of binocular depth perception.
Just because those with strabismus can use monocular cues to inform them of relative depth does not mean that they have the same level of depth perception as those with normal binocular convergence.
The best example of this is sports, but as another example I'm legally disallowed from driving an articulated vehicle -- for what I personally think is a pretty good reason. Anecdotally, compared to friends and family my depth perception is dogshit.
> Strabismus disrupts sensory fusion, the cortical process of combining the images from the two eyes into a single binocular image [3–6]. The main perceptual consequences of lack of fused binocular images is diplopia (double vision) and a lack of binocular depth perception.
I am speaking specifically about whether people with strabismus have issues with depth perception or not. Obviously "strabismus disrupts sensory fusion" as you do not combine the input of the 2 eyes, and obviously this is a problem outside of depth perception. Moreover, most people with strabismus have bad eyesight more generally, as a common path to develop strabismus is having one eye much worse than the other. I am not saying strabismus is not an issue, I am saying that people with strabismus can still develop normal levels of depth perception in most irl situations by compensating with perceptual cues.
The article specifically tests whether people with strabismus had problems developing depth perception. If binocular depth perception was necessary for developing depth perception, they would have found that people with strabismus have impaired depth perception with 2d images. They didn't.
Again as I wrote to the other commenter before, I do not know about your situation, but I am curious about how you compare depth perception specifically with your friends and family. Having problems wrt visual perception does not mean that "lack of depth perception" is the issue. Using only one eye at the time is a huge issue by itself that makes vision harder, and a huge confound to control for in such comparisons.
