Yet more misleading reporting from LTT. (And still no transparent issue tracker to report these things.)

[NubCak]

On 8/30/2023 at 1:50 PM, moatmote said:

The recent video on the Dasung E Ink monitor starts with a misleading intro that heavily implies permanent eye damage might result from using traditional monitors:

This does two things:

1. It sets the tone of the video as either "This display, due to the nature of E Ink, may be the aforementioned 'solution'. Let's find out if it is." which could also be interpreted as "Dasung claims that this display, due to the nature of E Ink, is the aforementioned 'solution'. Let's test that claim."
2. It suggests that there may be a link between light-emitting displays and permanent eye damage.

Despite this, for the bulk of the remainder of the video, the claim above is never really put to the test until this chapter at the very end (aptly labeled "Contesting their claims"):

However, the well-informed or critically thinking among you may have already caught the problem with this section: It doesn't actually answer the questions they asked at the begining. Are traditional monitors permanently damaging your vision and is E Ink the "better solution"? All they've done here is establish that E Ink doesn't help with nearsightedness and digital eye strain.

 

The problem is that most people aren't going to catch this distinction. To most people watching this, the intro told them that something about light-emitting displays could permanently damage their eyes, and then asked if E Ink was the solution to this. Then, the chapter quoted above answered that question with a definitive "No, it's not just light-emitting displays. E Ink is not the 'solution'.", while talking a whole lot about "digital eye strain" all of a sudden. This directly correlates (in most people's minds) "digital eye strain" with "permanent eye damage", which is extremely misleading, as there is zero evidence that supports any correlation between the two.

 

Now to see if this post becomes popular enough that this is seen as an issue worth addressing. I'll end this with a quote of my own words, since even after all the recent controversy, a popularity contest (either here, on other socials, or in YouTube comments) is still the only way for your "community" to get issues in front of staff post-publishing.

 

tl;dr open a public issue tracker.

 

---

 

Edit because people love to read what they want to read instead of what I wrote:

How have you entirely missed the point? I never claimed that LTT claimed that light from monitors permanently hurt your eyes. I said that the statement sets an expectation for an answer in the video. And by not actually directly addressing those "what if"s in the conclusion, and instead answering a slightly different question, it's very easy for the layman to conflate the two.

 

After watching the intro, it's not hard to imagine that many people will be thinking "Oh I wonder if light from monitors is actually a problem that could lead to permanent vision damage and if E Ink is the answer. Let me keep watching to find out!" And upon hearing "E Ink still causes eye strain" at the end, reaching the conclusion "Oh they said E Ink still causes eye strain because of <stuff about focusing>, so the light wasn't the culprit and both technologies could lead to permanent damage to my vision because they both cause digital eye strain."

 

Is that a logically sound conclusion? No. Is that the conclusion this video baits people towards? Yes.

Jesus christ, maybe you should go read the british medical journal or something, cause clearly youtube is too much entertainment for you.

[Lebon14]

bruh.

by the end of the video, they even debunk what you made the whole f'ing thread about, WHAT THEY SAID IN THE INTRO and even posted the damn sources in the description that say that, indeed, light-imitting device does not harm vision. god fucking grieffers.

[moatmote]

45 minutes ago, Lebon14 said:

bruh.

by the end of the video, they even debunk what you made the whole f'ing thread about, WHAT THEY SAID IN THE INTRO and even posted the damn sources in the description that say that, indeed, light-imitting device does not harm vision. god fucking grieffers.

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.

[Blue4130]

16 minutes ago, moatmote said:

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.

As a long term educator, That means that you were ot effective in conveying your original message.

[moatmote]

20 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

As a long term educator, That means that you were ot effective in conveying your original message.

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.

 

On 8/30/2023 at 3:50 PM, moatmote said:

The problem is that most people aren't going to catch this distinction.

On 8/30/2023 at 3:50 PM, moatmote said:

Is that a logically sound conclusion? No. Is that the conclusion this video baits people towards? Yes.

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.

[Blue4130]

1 hour ago, moatmote said:

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.

Something else I can recognize is someone puffing up their vocabulary to either seem like they know more about what they are talking about or try to confuse the reader/listener. It's not just you doing it though in this thread. It has been happening across both sides.

[moatmote]

18 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

Something else I can recognize is someone puffing up their vocabulary to either seem like they know more about what they are talking about or try to confuse the reader/listener. It's not just you doing it though in this thread. It has been happening across both sides.

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".

[Blue4130]

Just now, moatmote said:

Interesting that you didn't actually address a single point that I contested from your previous comment and instead resorted to ad hominems though. I would've expected better from a "long term educator".

I didn't address anything, because at this point, I don't think there is anything new to bring to the argument. Everyone seems pretty set in their opinions. Nothing I add will likely change anyones mind, so it would be a wasted effort.

[moatmote]

1 minute ago, Blue4130 said:

I didn't address anything, because at this point, I don't think there is anything new to bring to the argument. Everyone seems pretty set in their opinions. Nothing I add will likely change anyones mind, so it would be a wasted effort.

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

[Blue4130]

1 minute ago, moatmote said:

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

Ok. I didn't address it because I don't see the point in arguing with a random internet stranger. Is that better?

 

5 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

Everyone seems pretty set in their opinions. Nothing I add will likely change anyones mind, so it would be a wasted effort.

This part still stands. You seem pretty set in your ways. Nothing I say will change your opinion, so what's the point?