moatmote

But your comment (and my response) wasn't about this argument. It was about communication failures.

I mean, I'm not. What the hell do you think I'm "puffing up [my] vocabulary" with? "Cognitive biases"? "Logically inconsistent"? Those are probably the most "technical" terms I used and those are hardly any kind of sophisticated. Oops sorry. Was that another big word that you're going to accuse me of "puffing up [my] vocabulary" with? Or have you considered that I pick the words I pick because they have the meaning I want? But sure. Make your assumptions. Interesting that you didn't actually address the point that I contested from your previous comment and instead resorted to an ad hominem though. I would've expected better from a "long term educator".

Or that the topic in question requires a certain level of nuance to distinguish between multiple unavoidably similar yet importantly distinct statements, which was one of my points to begin with. As a long term educator, you should recognize the difference between a speaker using ambiguous language which can be rationally interpreted multiple ways and should have been more clear; and a speaker saying precisely what they mean to say being illogically interpreted poorly due to cognitive biases, a lack of nuance and/or critical thinking, or a combination of the above. At least I know how to recognize that difference, and I even admitted to one count of the former when my words were actually unclear in a previous comment. The comments above have repeatedly made claims that I said statements that cannot rationally be derived from a sound interpretation of the words I used. Would you, in your position as an educator, blame a source for lack of clarity if a student cited it in an paper in such a way that is logically inconsistent with the words the source actually published? That's like blaming the scientific journals for not being clear when the morning news runs off with a paper and starts making outlandish claims that the paper never made. And using (redundant) repetition (more than I already did anyway) to make myself more clear is just a double-edged sword. The internet loves their "ur just saying the same thing over and over again" comments.

It's amazing how many people here decide what my thread is about for themselves by reading what they want to read instead of understanding what I actually said.

Which is why I linked studies directly and also limited any "news" type articles to scientific/medical sources. Was the term "blue light" ever once used in this video? Legitimately not certain but I'm inclined to say no based on memory. It seemed pretty clear to me that their focus was on digital eye strain, not the effects of blue light.

Ah yes. "Some studies in the past have been flawed/misguided/faked, therefore all studies should be dismissed and never be considered as evidence."

I have just as much of a right to respond to criticisms (and blatant misportrayals of my statements) on my own thread as you have to make them.

How the hell is this an ambiguity fallacy? I'm not drawing a conclusion from an interpretation of ambiguous wording. What exactly do you think my argument is here? And speaking of fallacies, here's an actual appeal to authority. Just going to ignore the multiple articles and studies I linked, huh?

That would depend on the method of blindness, of course. Someone who had their eyeballs removed by the mob is statistically unlikely to develop the physiological characteristics exhibited by myopia.

Yes, and I'm not the only one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6678505/ https://www.optometrists.org/general-practice-optometry/guide-to-myopia-management/myopia-management/myopia-management-is-daylight-the-answer/ https://www.aao.org/education/editors-choice/sunlight-exposure-reduces-myopia-in-children https://www.aao.org/eyenet/article/facing-the-myopia-epidemic From that last one: Almost every study on myopia that focuses on technology use fails to distinguish "screen time" from just not being outdoors. They all say "well we found that people who used screens more showed more signs of myopia" without ever acknowledging that people who used screens more also stayed indoors more, or testing specifically for screen use outdoors, non-screen use indoors, etc. However, studies that don't focus on technology, but rather focus on near work activities in general all pretty much agree that any kind of near work could potentially be a risk factor, not screens in particular. This study even admits that with the current research that's been done, there's not enough data to establish a statistical link between screens specifically and myopia, and also points out that:

There are multiple studies that have shown that the effects of strain from "digital eye strain" are temporary and do not cause any meaningful permanent damage. Even for myopia, recent studies have shifted focus to lack of regular exposure to sunlight (or any sufficiently bright light source) as the leading cause, something (not coincidentally) very common for those who stare at monitors or phones for extended periods to experience.

This. The intro of the video sets up the premise that a comparison is going to be made ("Is E Ink a safer alternative to traditional displays, assuming traditional displays can cause permanent damage in the first place?"). They then never actually answer that (nor do they ever point out that that assumption isn't supported by facts), but in the absence of a direct answer to that, they debunk a bunch of claims that are being made specifically about E Ink displays (such as that they also cause strain), which—in the context of the video's intro—can seem to the casual viewer that the answer to the intro's question is "no", and that E Ink also can permanently damage your eyes. It's not a logically sound conclusion strictly based on what was said in the video, but by asking one question and answering another in its place, the video baits viewers to that conclusion, and that is the only problem I have with it. I've never once claimed LMG had some nefarious motive; nor did I ever once claim they said something that they didn't, or didn't say something that they did. I simply said the video is structured poorly and in a way that could mislead viewers to a bad conclusion.

What? I never once asked for any deep dives or 45-minute-long videos. What's with all the people who supposedly read what I wrote and walked away thinking I said a bunch of things I specifically avoided saying?

That has literally nothing to do with what's being said here.

All I can say to this really is that I find it wild how often people attach negative connotations to being thorough and comprehensive. Like sorry for doing my due diligence to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding or misrepresenting the source material; claiming they did or said something when they didn't, or claiming they didn't do or say something when they did? Sorry for making sure I was building my argument for how this video could be potentially misleading only from the facts that exist and what was or wasn't in the video? How else do you expect someone to approach this. It's clear that a good number of people here are going to read what they want to read instead of what was written, and jump on the "ltt did nothing wrong" bandwagon regardless of how any criticism against LTT is structured. Besides that, I agree with everything else you've said. Though I do want to clarify that my issue wasn't with them using bait to make people watch. It's that the video is structured in a way that baits people towards a particular conclusion, despite them never explicitly drawing a connection. What's below goes into that a bit more, but isn't a response to you specifically, but rather continuing what kept being brought up earlier. The point I make above is also why I find all the "you claimed LTT claimed that <something I never accused LTT of claiming>" replies annoying as hell, as I was very particular about ensuring I'm not claiming they said anything they didn't actually say. People can't seem to understand that saying is not saying in any way that LTT is claiming there is a link. It's saying that the video is suggesting to the audience that a link might be present; and being positioned at the begining of the video, it sets the tone of what follows as "let's investigate if that claim has any merit". And then, as I said in the first post, when they don't ultimately follow through with that expectation, but instead shift focus to debunking claims about digital eye strain, some people will naturally assume this actually is following through (when it's not) and attribute the lack of protections against digital eye strain in either monitor to mean "even through this display doesn't blast you with light, it could still cause permanent eye damage", which is not a logically valid conclusion, but it's an easy assumption to make after watching the video. Essentially, their failure to mention permanent eye damage ever again leaves a hole, and the audience will fill that hole with the closest thing they can find, which is the remarks about both types of displays still causing digital eye strain. The fact that so many people here couldn't differentiate between that and me saying "LTT claims light-emitting displays cause permanent eye damage" more or less makes my point for me that the audience often doesn't have the nuance to identify that they haven't explicitly made a connection here and will naturally conflate the two issues. @XNOR makes a good point in the other thread about this video in the releases section: Perhaps if this video had a proper conclusion, they could have elaborated more on this to avoid the potential confusion.