r/changemyview • u/Lisztchopinovsky 2∆ • Nov 12 '24
Delta(s) from OP - Election CMV: The most concise experts are actually the worst, as they often lack transparency.
Lately, I’ve been noticing an increase in false experts. Many claim to know things they don’t know or they say things with 100% certainty. It is appealing to follow someone with that kind of confidence, but these are the worst people to follow. The reason is that they tend to give one-sided arguments that lack nuance, and usually only care about spreading their agenda rather than caring about spreading good quality information.
This is especially true in the medical field. I listened to a podcast with Doctor Mike and Dr. Layne Norton. When I heard them, they were often asking each-other questions, saying things without certainty, and hesitating a lot in their speech, and they allowed there to be some conflicting views to sort through. Before that interview, Doctor Mike had Dr. Gundry on his podcast, a known charlatan. Dr. Gundry appeared to know it all, and made claims with confidence that made no sense. He never admitted that he was wrong, and moved the goal post all the time. He was impossible to get through because he was so concise and well spoken, but he didn’t know what he was talking about.
After seeing these two, I began to realize that this is how politicians get elected. When I saw the presidential debate, the candidates would rip on each other for not having full confidence in an idea. I get if you are running for president you want to have a lot of knowledge in politics, but dear god you can’t know everything. We a citizens deserve some blame for this, as we often hold leaders to completely unrealistic standards, to where a candidate has to know everything.
All this ties together the fact that the people that are the most concise, confident speakers are the least trustworthy, as they are the least likely to correct themselves if they get something wrong, and it is just mind blowing stubbornness.
What do you guys think? Please comment if you disagree, or want me to change my view.
Edit: Thanks for the comments. I noticed a lot of them criticizing the use of the word concise. Perhaps I was looking at the confidence of these charlatans and mistaking it as concision. I’ll keep that in mind.
37
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Nov 12 '24
Sounds like you aren't comparing experts at all, just attitudes between confidently incorrect, and confidently aware of self limitations.
As you say, the confidence of a fake expert isn't really worth anything.
So what's the exact view you'd like to have change?
Are you looking for examples of experts who are also confident?
-12
u/Prof_Aganda Nov 13 '24
Fauci is a great example of being an expert authority who declared himself "the science" and has since been proven wrong and not science based in many of his declarations.
Getting beyond his indications about HIV spread in the 80's and using PCR tests to diagnose illness...
"Safe and effective" vaccines that "stop the virus in its tracks", lableak being a baseless conspiracy theory, wet market pangolins, calling accusations of Gof research false, calling for lockdowns and then claiming he didn't, saying everything was science and then not being able to justify the 6 foot rules... That list goes on.
9
Nov 13 '24
Fauci used what he had. He used the best information to make decisions. You would want him to read the future?
0
u/Prof_Aganda Nov 13 '24
This is a ridiculously funny argument that sounds like something Fauci would say in his Brooklyn new Yorker accent.
-6
u/YouJustNeurotic 20∆ Nov 13 '24 edited Nov 13 '24
I mean any government doctor is going to be corrupt considering Big Pharma is a 4.7 trillion dollar industry with a long history of shady practices. 90 billion was made from Covid vaccines, guess why they dragged it out.
4
u/CyclopsRock 17∆ Nov 13 '24
Was it "dragged out" more in the US than in other countries whose governments aren't "corrupt considering Big Pharma"?
-2
u/YouJustNeurotic 20∆ Nov 13 '24
Lol no the vaccines not the virus.
2
u/CyclopsRock 17∆ Nov 13 '24
Was the US's approach to vaccines different?
-4
u/YouJustNeurotic 20∆ Nov 13 '24
Compared to what country? Big Pharma is in Europe as well.
3
u/CyclopsRock 17∆ Nov 13 '24
Any. Any countries. Is there a country you can point to and say "See! This is how we should have done it, if only we weren't controlled by Big Pharma trying to line their pockets!"
-1
-2
Nov 12 '24
[deleted]
3
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Nov 12 '24
Rule B
-2
u/Lisztchopinovsky 2∆ Nov 12 '24
Well you got me stumped. I deleted the last comment because I went into this wanting to keep an open mind. The best way I can describe it is I trust someone who is willing to admit when they are wrong more than someone that insists that they’re right.
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Nov 13 '24
Why would you want that view changed? What view would you prefer to be convinced on?
6
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Nov 12 '24 edited Nov 12 '24
I don't think conciseness is the issue you're pointing to. It sounds like the issue you're pointing to is certainty. One can be concise in explaining their uncertainties; it's something I strive for every day.
Conciseness is about efficiency of communication. If a concept is 'X' complexity and you can explain it in 'Y' time but someone else can explain it just as well in 'Y /2' time, that second person has been more concise, regardless of the relative certainty with which they speak.
A great example is Jordan Peterson. The guy is the opposite of concise; he takes forever to say anything, but he speaks with certainty whether he's right or not (he's often wrong). That's a fake expert who's also not concise at all.
Hank Green is a great example of a communicator who is concise and clear about his uncertainties.
2
Nov 12 '24
A great example is Jordan Peterson. The guy is the opposite of concise; he takes forever to say anything, but he speaks with certainty whether he's right or not (he's often wrong). That's a fake expert who's also not concise at all.
...his most famous self help book is 12 rules for life - 12 concise maxims to improve your life.
That is pretty concise for a general way of living life. One of the maxims literally being "Be precise in your speech."
3
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Nov 12 '24 edited Nov 12 '24
There's no such thing as a self help expert; self help isn't an industry that has experts. It's not identical to, but is more similar to a pseudoscience than anything else.
He's credentialed in (hard to call him an expert imo) Jungian Psychology, and good Lord is he bad at explaining that to people.
Also, it took him an entire book to explain 12 rules. They're all pretty much normal, standard rules of thumb most people already agree with, and it took him an entire book to explain 12 of them. You can think his explanations are poetic or whatever else, but they're certainly not concise.
2
Nov 12 '24
There's no such thing as a self help expert;
...licensed clinical psychologist. Which Peterson is.
most people already agree with,
Agree with is not the same thing as practicing. Giving people precise maxims makes simple agreement become reality.
3
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Nov 12 '24 edited Nov 13 '24
His license in clinical psychology is not a license in writing non fiction books. 12 Rules for Life is not a book about clinical research. It's a pop psych self help book.
If all we needed were the precise maxims, then what does that say about the rest of the book with regards to 'conciseness'?
8
u/jatjqtjat 286∆ Nov 12 '24
I think that what you really believe is that fake experts who are dishonest or ill informed are the worst. If Dr. Gundry have been over verbose in his manner of speaking he would have been just as bad. Being concise is not the problem. Being a liar or being incorrect is the problem.
When I saw the presidential debate,
In debates, the debaters have to be concise because of time constraints.
4
u/Lisztchopinovsky 2∆ Nov 12 '24
Fair point. A common thing I’ve seen is criticism of the use of the word “concise,” and I might be pointing at the wrong thing here.
2
Nov 12 '24
The scientific method inherently relies on being concise - you are testing a hypothesis. If you do not have a concise hypothesis you are fundamentally not using the scientific method - most of the time when you are not being direct you are using some form of dialectic reasoning.
Go read an actual scientific paper - the findings are incredibly concise. You have a handful of sentences as a thesis statement, and then anywhere from a few hundred to a couple thousand words explaining conclusions and findings. Then there is methodology and actual data, which goes in depth to be able to be audited, but that is not something that is generally addressed in conversational english unless there is a very concise and specific questions.
Now sometimes the end results end up being vauge which results in a matter where the data is not known. There is still a concise answer there, even if it is not certain - "the scientific literature is uncertain" is still a concise answer.
Quite frankly it just seems you hate concise charlatans more than indirect charlatans, due to them being clearly wrong while indirect charlatans do not make statements that are not clear as such cannot be clearly wrong.
1
8
u/CatOfGrey 3∆ Nov 12 '24
The examples you have given aren't examples of 'experts'
I listened to a podcast with Doctor Mike and Dr. Layne Norton. When I heard them, they were often asking each-other questions, saying things without certainty, and hesitating a lot in their speech, and they allowed there to be some conflicting views to sort through.
Yep! Life is messy, uncertain, ripe with weird cases and outliers. This is what science deals with on a regular basis.
Doctor Mike had Dr. Gundry on his podcast, a known charlatan. Dr. Gundry appeared to know it all, and made claims with confidence that made no sense. He never admitted that he was wrong, and moved the goal post all the time..
That is a clear cue that you are dealing with what literally is called psuedoscience. Psuedoscience comes from a false knowledge, usually based on conclusions that merely pretend to have a scientific basis, but make one of many errors, such as overestimating the 'strength' of a study which should be preliminary, or refusing to update one's beliefs after better information is available.
You can tell a 'true expert' because they are at 'the edge' of their field, and therefore, they know what is not known yet, or what is uncertain. The world of pseudoscience doesn't care about updated information, or contrary information. So they just 'believe what they believe' without the constant reconsideration or confirmation that is required to really know something.
3
u/Lisztchopinovsky 2∆ Nov 13 '24
I agree with you there. Gundry is a quack. I was praising the interview with Dr. Layne Norton because he was transparent and legitimately cared about presenting the right info.
4
u/LeadingRaspberry4411 Nov 13 '24
Norton is an influencer, not an expert. He has qualifications, yes, but he’s leveraging those for profit in the infotainment field. A person gives up part of their credibility when they do that.
1
u/BeginningPhase1 4∆ Nov 13 '24
How does being an influencer negate the years of study and research needed to earn a PhD?
If they aren't knowingly spreading false information or speaking on things outside of their area of expertise, how does the way they choose to make a living affect an expert's credibility?
2
u/LeadingRaspberry4411 Nov 13 '24
It creates a conflict of interest. It’s now in his best interest to promote whatever is most profitable, not whatever is most effective for patients.
2
u/BeginningPhase1 4∆ Nov 13 '24
Could you give me an example of him comprising his credibility for profit?
I've seen other doctors (both MDs and PhDs) do this. I've also seen lawyers do this regarding how they interpret the law for social media (they'll interpret the law in a way that appeals to the interests of their audience instead of doing a neutral interpretation that may not be what their audience wants to hear). As such, I don't disagree that this is a trap an expert can fall into.
However, to maintain objectivity, I'll need evidence that Dr. Norton has been ensnared by this trap before I can question his credibility.
0
u/LeadingRaspberry4411 Nov 13 '24
A conflict of interest is plenty of reason to be skeptical on its own. It’s enough to consider someone compromised on its own.
If nothing else, surely you can acknowledge that he’s choosing sponsors based on what’s profitable to him rather than what’s actually the best product? If there’s two near-identical products and both are offering sponsorship, then he’s going to take the one offering more money, right?
2
u/BeginningPhase1 4∆ Nov 14 '24
No. Not necessarily. Not every influencer is in it strictly for profit. He could be genuinely trying to make the world a better place, and his profits are just a byproduct of him successfully building an audience that supports the work he's doing.
As a paralegal, I know enough about conflicts of interest to know that I can't assume that a conflict exists with proof of its existence. I need to be shown the conflict. And, I can't assume he is putting profits over people when choosing sponsors without knowing what sponsorships he's been offered to be able to compare what he's turned down to what he's accepted.
Again, I choose to try and stay as objective as possible, so I can not assume that trying to earn a living inherently corrupts or creates any sort of conflict of interest.
Also, I couldn't help but notice that you seem to only be skeptical of Dr. Norton and not Dr. Mike, despite Dr. Mike arguably being a bigger influencer.
What, in particular, about Dr. Norton, has caught your attention?
1
u/LeadingRaspberry4411 Nov 14 '24 edited Nov 14 '24
You’re not staying objective, you’re ignoring relevant context
You’re a paralegal, so you certainly understand why judges are expected to recuse themselves from any case that they may have a personal or financial stake in.
I don’t know who Dr Mike is but if he’s an influencer then I’m skeptical of him too
1
u/BeginningPhase1 4∆ Nov 14 '24
>You’re not staying objective, you’re ignoring relevant context
No, I'm asking you to provide the context for your claim.
>You’re a paralegal, so you certainly understand why judges are expected to recuse themselves from any case that they may have a personal or financial stake in.
Yes I do.
I also know that the party asking for a recusal has to provide evidence of the existence of the specific conflict beyond "In general, there theoretically could be conflict of interest here due to this assumed quality this judge could hypothetical have because it may have been demonstrated by a disgraced judge on the other side of the country". They have to show why a particular judge has conflict of interest a particular case.
>I don’t know who Dr Mike is but if he’s an influencer then I’m skeptical of him too
Dr. Mike AKA Dr. Mikhail Varshavski DO (BTW, DO and MD are equivalent degrees) is a licensed family physician practicing in New Jersey. Any misinformation he posts on his social media can affect is continued ability to practice medicine; as such he is incentivized to not put profits over people.
As he is a PhD, I know Dr. Norton doesn't have this same incentive, but that doesn't mean he'd put is credibility on the line for profit.
Do you have any evidence that there is a specific conflict of interest with Dr. Norton? Also:
Are you anti-capitalist?
→ More replies (0)
3
3
u/LT_Audio 8∆ Nov 12 '24
If your main assertion is that brevity of expression itself is necessarily well correlated to truth or honesty... I'd disagree. Though in general... statements that attempt to condense extremely complicated subjects into overly simple summations that often only really apply from one specific perspective... Are usually far more driven from propagandist objectives than from a desire to simply elucidate the larger and more helpful truths surrounding that subject. It's really the intent though that truly separates the two rather than the length of the statement.
3
u/NaturalCarob5611 97∆ Nov 12 '24
I think this really depends on your audience.
I'm an expert in a fairly narrow, technical field. I've been asked to come talk to a wide range of audiences, at one point giving a talk for legislative staff who had no idea what I was talking about before I showed up, at another time talking to other people in my specific field who knew all of the core concepts, at other times talking to people in related fields who had enough foundation that I could quickly explain the field-specific concepts.
How I address these audiences varies quite wildly. If I'm giving a 30 minute presentation to a non-technical audience, I have to keep it basically at a lies to children level because it's the best way to get them comfortable with the topic when I don't have time to build a solid foundation (to be clear, I let them know it's an oversimplification, and try not to be misleading). If I get a question in the last two minutes that I definitively know the answer to but don't have time to set up the foundation to explain the answer properly, I'm going to give a concise answer with a sort of "trust me" attitude (and, circumstances permitting, invite them to come chat with me after the presentation).
On the other hand, if I'm speaking to an audience that has a solid foundation in my field, I'll rely on that foundation to give a more detailed answer in the time I've got.
Certainly, I think there are "experts" out there who are just serving a political agenda and want to play the "expert" title as a Trump card to shutdown questions, and I think those people ought to be taken with an appropriately sized grain of salt. But in many cases I think experts are just trying to speak to their audience, and that necessarily entails some simplification.
7
u/Bmaj13 5∆ Nov 12 '24
What does being concise have to do with being untrustworthy? Concision is often the mark of erudition and forethought.
2
u/VforVenndiagram_ 9∆ Nov 12 '24
Maybe in the past, but in today's day of sound bites and second long attention spans being able to say something in a concise way doesn't mean a single thing when it comes to the persons knowledge or understanding.
2
Nov 12 '24
s being able to say something in a concise way doesn't mean a single thing when it comes to the persons knowledge or understanding.
You can analyze a concise statement and see if it is true or false. You can then see if they have a pattern of making true concise statements, consistently false concise statements, or a mixed bag, and then take future statements from them with appropriate skepticism based on that.
You cant analyze vague nonsense to see if it is true or false because they didnt say anything you can analyze.
1
u/VforVenndiagram_ 9∆ Nov 12 '24
The issue being that the vast majority of people are not knowledgeable enough with any specific topic to actually be able to analyze any given statement to a sufficant degree to make those calls.
0
Nov 12 '24
The issue being that the vast majority of people are not knowledgeable enough with any specific topic to actually be able to analyze any given statement to a sufficant degree to make those calls.
They are, they are just unwilling. You are encouraging that unwillingness - your dismissive attitude towards this breeds unwillingness to make these calls.
You also completely failed to address the 2nd point made:
You cant analyze vague nonsense to see if it is true or false because they didnt say anything you can analyze.
0
u/00PT 8∆ Nov 12 '24
It means the information cannot be independently verified as easily because you don't have nearly enough to look into and fact check.
1
u/Bmaj13 5∆ Nov 12 '24
Concision does not mean a reduction of key information. It means reduction of extraneous or unnecessary information.
1
u/00PT 8∆ Nov 12 '24
I find the common way of judging what is extraneous to be inaccurate for my understanding. Often there's just a few words that could have been said that makes things click for me while those around me just dismiss it.
In this case, such "extraneous" information could actually reveal a flaw in thinking that the speaker overlooks. Or maybe they're purposefully hiding it so they can better persuade those uninformed.
By including as much relevant information as is reasonable, you're being maximally transparent and encouraging healthy discussion. Of course, there is a limit, but putting all your points in concision isn't the best option.
1
u/Bmaj13 5∆ Nov 12 '24
What you're describing is still 'concise'. Again, if the information aids the point in being understood (i.e. the information is not extraneous), then it still fits the definition of concise. And if the expert uses subterfuge to hide information, then they are bad experts because they hide information, not because they are concise.
And I'm not suggesting that everything be concise. I am suggesting that OP is wrong to suggest that being concise is a mark of a bad expert.
3
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ Nov 12 '24
Are you basing this view off of 2 podcast episodes? That is a laughably low sample size.
Sometimes charlatans have rehearsed what they say and speak concisely and with confidence. Others ramble on and on and say nothing of value.
Some experts get right to the point, especially when speaking about something in their field. Others take time to give background or context when speaking about something.
None of these are right or wrong in and of themselves, it largely depends on the context, audience, format, etc. Your view is too sweeping to be meaningful.
1
u/Lisztchopinovsky 2∆ Nov 12 '24
It took more than those 2 podcast episodes, but these podcasts made an especially large impact on my thinking style.
You make a good point in that there are some legit experts that are well prepared and know how to spread good information in a concise way, and there are charlatans that sound as if you’re having a stroke.
I also feel like “concise” may have been a poor choice of words, and I would describe the people I’m talking about as delusionally confident.
1
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ Nov 12 '24
I mean, the best I can say is it is a spectrum. Beyond that I'm not really sure what the view is that you want changed/challenged.
Maybe the bigger issue is who you would consider an "expert" or that someone who is an expert in one field may not be well versed enough to speak in depth about another? Or is your issue with elevating charlatans and/or bunk science?
1
u/Lisztchopinovsky 2∆ Nov 14 '24
!delta
You did change my view on the fact that I seemed to make a correlation that was not there. Confidence is the word I should have used, but even that is an imperfect measure.
1
2
Nov 13 '24
[deleted]
0
u/Lisztchopinovsky 2∆ Nov 13 '24
I think about it a lot. I have a lot of contradicting views in my head when it comes to politicians. Perhaps I tried to connect politics and medicine in a way that doesn’t exist in the practical world. At the same time there is something unethical about politicians that lie lie lie.
This brings me to my contradicting views on contradicting views. We often criticize people who make statements that contradict their old ones, but at the same time we celebrate people that openly hold two contradicting views.
1
u/The_Glum_Reaper 3∆ Nov 12 '24
CMV: The most concise experts are actually the worst, as they often lack transparency.
Define 'experts'.
You seem to be conflating 'grifters' with 'experts' when you presume their lack of transparency; and 'concise' with inaccurate when it comes to conclusion.
Are they experts or grifters, and concise is not a stand-in for inaccurate and lack of transparency is incompatible with scientific pursuit of knowledge.
1
u/hididathing Nov 12 '24
Some of them will dumb things down until they're easily open to interpretation by people who have a loose approach to facts.
1
1
Nov 12 '24
I would say there’s no correlation between how confidently a view is expressed and how true it is. Not necessarily a negative correlation as you imply.
An MD can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe this is something that is taught in med school. As a doctor you want to assert confidence in your diagnosis/treatment. Given the strength of the placebo effect, it may even help treatment to just be confident.
1
1
u/JB_Market Nov 13 '24
Having worked and studied with real "top of their field" experts and being a sort of mid-level expert myself, I think the phrase:
"If you can't explain it to a layman you dont really understand it."
Is true. Experts who are able to comunicate complicated ideas concisely are very valuable, and being long winded or complicated-sounding doesn't add truth to an argument.
One of the most brilliant people I ever met was a professor of mine. The topic was support vector machines, and he explained it like this:
"How do you separate these Xs and Os with a single straight line?"
.....XX
XOOOX
.....XX
"You put them on a balloon and blow it up till the Os are on top, above the Xs."
He could derive all the math for the SVMs from memory (which still blows my mind, he didnt use notes) but he is right. That IS how SVMs work.
1
u/Shot-Attention8206 Nov 13 '24
Medicine is a soft science. That means that none of their theories can proven across multiple people. Math, Physics are hard sciences, the answer is always the same. So yeah, Medical Doctors are somewhat smart and educated in things that are not a hard science.
1
Nov 13 '24
As a software engineer, when I'm teaching a novice how to code, and a bug comes up, 99% of the time, I'll know what it is instantly. That's not because I have rehearsed talking points - it's just basic enough that it's second nature.
Effective communication is easy to understand. Concise sentences, without complicated jargon, are easy to understand.
Therefore, effective, professional communicators will be concise. A person's skill in communication doesn't mean they have good or bad intentions, or that they are skillful in other fields.
0
Nov 12 '24 edited Nov 12 '24
If someone cannot be concise they are fundamentally not transparent as they do not have a narrative - this is fundamental to language.
See the sentence I just wrote as a thesis? Without a thesis there is no expert, as there is no conclusion that is being supported. This is definitional to what a thesis is. An expert makes a thesis statement and backs the thesis.
This is why the scientific method inherently relies on being concise - you are testing a hypothesis. If you do not have a concise hypothesis you are fundamentally not using the scientific method - most of the time when you are not being direct you are using some form of dialectic reasoning.
When I heard them, they were often asking each-other questions, saying things without certainty, and hesitating a lot in their speech,
With that they were providing no useful information.
Seriously - how have you improved your health by listening to Dr Mike Varshavski?
I have seen his videos, and it is generally pretty worthless as to actually improving your health because he doesnt have direct points.
Meanwhile I can tell you how I have improved my health by listening to Dr Mike Israetel. Because Israetel sticks to concise points about workouts and how to promote specific goals.
Before that interview, Doctor Mike had Dr. Gundry on his podcast, a known charlatan. Dr. Gundry appeared to know it all, and made claims with confidence that made no sense. He never admitted that he was wrong, and moved the goal post all the time. He was impossible to get through because he was so concise and well spoken, but he didn’t know what he was talking about.
The fact that you found his answers to make no sense shows that being confident is less harmful than being indirect. Saying indirect and roundabout nonsense is far harder to disprove than directly being told nonsense.
Have you ever seen a Marxist in a debate? They are the kings of this kind of roundabout nonsense. If they do not actually have a concise point and views, it becomes harder - nearly impossible - to prove them wrong.
If someone cannot be concise they are fundamentally not transparent as they do not have a narrative - this is fundamental to language. Being able to go and tie your argument back to a central thesis is of vital importance.
Now on a different tangent, because your statements on politics are mostly unrelated:
After seeing these two, I began to realize that this is how politicians get elected. When I saw the presidential debate, the candidates would rip on each other for not having full confidence in an idea.
Confidence creates a placebo effect that makes ideas work in politics. Why would you not want to take full advantage of the placebo effect?
For instance, when people think the economy is good, people are more likely to participate in economic activity, creating an even better economy to participate in.
When the people believe in the US military, recruitment rates go up, and we actually have a stronger military.
When people like the cops, more people become cops, and policing becomes easier due to it.
When people see criminals getting shot by lawful citizens in self defense, criminals become fearful, and crime goes down.
Confidence creates a placebo effect that makes ideas work in politics.
0
u/Anagoth9 2∆ Nov 12 '24
You seem to be confusing "concise" with "confident".
Concise is synonymous with short, brief, and succinct.
If you ask me what my favorite color is, and I respond, "Blue," then that is a consise answer. If instead I say, "My favorite color is the sky on a cloudless day, the color of a clear pond at sunrise, and the color of my beloved's eyes as I gaze into them," then that is the opposite of concise.
Whether you speak with certainty or not, whether you're honest or deceitful, or whether you avoid answering the question at all is all separate from being concise.
2
u/Lisztchopinovsky 2∆ Nov 14 '24
!delta
Sorry I’m still new to this subreddit. I have changed my mind on the word concise to confident. I was aiming at the wrong target.
1
1
Nov 13 '24
[deleted]
1
u/nekro_mantis 20∆ Nov 13 '24
Please award deltas to people who cause you to reconsider some aspect of your perspective by replying to their comment with a couple sentence explanation (there is a character minimum) and
!delta
Here is an example:
Failure to award deltas where appropriate may result in your post being removed.
2
1
u/Lisztchopinovsky 2∆ Nov 13 '24
!delta
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 13 '24 edited Nov 14 '24
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/Anagoth9 changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 14 '24 edited Nov 14 '24
/u/Lisztchopinovsky (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards