⚖️ No diopter specific advice - rightful law or not?

One of of the top rules is ‘no diopter specific advice’, this means don’t tell someone what correction they should wear, they should figure this out for themselves.

There’s arguments for and against a rule like this. Arguments for:

  1. The person will blame themselves instead of ‘bad advice’ which is the right mindset to improve
  2. Asking for exact numbers means you have to do less research, and you will end up dependent on other people for the journey
  3. Legal liability from scary people(?)

Arguments against:

  1. You can actually generalise a lot of the time. You’ll usually get like -0.5 to -1 diopters of ciliary spasm, buy newer glasses from there and below. If you’re 20/20 without ciliary spasm, drop that by 0.25. You could probably write a decent web app to give out advice like this and it wouldn’t be half bad.
  2. EM struggles with onboarding as it is, pointing people who have seemed to do some research in the right direction and ‘correcting’ their own suggestions for diopters seems like a good idea. If we can generalise principles for the right and wrong way to do things, why not throw out advice?

Telling someone that their next pair of normalised having a -0.75 reduction instead of a -0.25 being a bad idea seems like a good idea to me. Spoonfeeding everything to someone is never a good idea.

3 Likes

I’ve been watching a couple threads and the trouble seems to be that different people have different ideas and their good suggestions are not being thrown into the pot of ideas from which to choose but instead seem fodder for unending questions and debate by the newbie.

A statement that would have helped me at first if it had sunk in is that you have to take a stab at it and see if it works. You can’t reason out what the result will be - only what it might be.

6 Likes

Based on other forum experiences, another point for the “Arguments against”:
If we allow these kind of questions large amount of the topics will be about these questions, and it will be hard to find other discussions. Of course it can be solved by creating a separate category (maybe not public) for them, and only allow these questions there.

Also don’t forget that because everything is running under endmyopia.org banner Jake is a single point of attack for everything. Practically whatever is written on these forums can be blamed (legally) on Jake. So the “1. Legal liability from scary people(?)” is a bit different here than in a facebook group or in a subreddit.

4 Likes

I’m not sure about the legal liability thing to be honest, what is written should fall under user generated content. A good thing about more voices in the EMosphere is that it spreads risk away from one person. Even so good luck getting Jake, he hides in a dangerous jungle

Formalising the plzbro process sounds like a pretty funny and bad idea, we do have the question and answer category though. I think there’s like a delineation between the plzbros and the people who have done research but need some guidance - applying the rule strictly kind of doesn’t help the latter who might do better with some help.

…we should really get some stats sometime as well about if plzbros ever get converted into successful reductionistas :rofl:
(collective term for people reversing myopia, do we have one?)

1 Like

Most of the time the question is really saying “I don’t want to figure this out myself, do my homework for me, just give me da numberzz!”

Hey now.

:thinking:

2 Likes

Do we…stalk them (ie. track their posts one by one and evaluate if they are getting any better?) or do we make a poll asking: Have you been converted from a plzbro into one of the successful EM peeps? :sweat_smile: :rofl:

How exactly are we going to collect this impossible kind of stat? :rofl:

As for rightful law or not, doesn’t this statement trump all of your other arguments? :thinking:

3 Likes

Hell yea

Nah, there isn’t a way. One of these days resources for EM are gonna get so good that hopefully plzbros will be extinct… right?

Occasionally a small bit of advice can go a long way, there’s a spectrum. Without my forum thread I wouldn’t have learned a whole bunch of things from the community which would have been really helpful. I didn’t really ask for diopter specific advice, sometimes there are subtleties in diopter numbers that are good to say. I guess what I’m saying is that limited diopter specific advice is fine as long as there’s no spoonfeeding and the person appears to have done research.

1 Like

I’m less optimistic… I have dropped articles that answer the plzbros question plus the follow up questions and rather than read the whole thing they just ask again… it makes it hard to hope that there will ever be enough resources to stem them, too often it is laziness, pure and simple. They just don’t want to do the work, which always makes me wonder why/how they get to EM in the first place.

4 Likes

But that’s already happening and sort of allowed. What you simply cannot say that: “Now you should wear -5.25 differentials”. But you can totally say that “for differentials you should reduce 1.5 compared to your full prescription” or “you should reduce by 0.25 diopter compared to your previous differentials”. If that amount of maths causing problems, then there will be other problems too anyway.
So then I don’t understand what your proposal is :slight_smile:

2 Likes

That’s actual law in Hungary :slight_smile: I know that most likely won’t affect you, but who knows when Hungary become a superpower :smiley:

If that’s the case then there’s no proposal. You’re right, this is already happening. I guess it’s just… being reminded it’s okay :open_mouth:

I get messages quite a bit where someone says what normalised they are planning on getting and wearing based on their progress. Sometimes I say ‘sounds good’, other times I say ‘too low, you want to be more like -4.75’ which is an exact diopter. I’m breaking the golden ruuuuule. But it’s usually easier to say that than to say (like i also used to) ‘go read more resources’. I still say that but give them some advice too. Like not total spoonfeeding, proportional spoonfeeding.

:man_shrugging:

1 Like

Well, officially we have the rule of “no diopter specific advice”.

I agree with the rule in the sense that if newbies enter the forum with zero reading or measurement, no understanding on the basics, and no commitment to put in the work then they should not just throw in a prescription and ask for suggestions on norms and diffs. “Sir I have R: -8.25D L: -7.00 tell me what to do”, but this also has quite a few more subtle variations. You can spot these people by maintaining only their own threads (=> not reading others’) or by posting the exact same questions on several different threads going round and round (=> shortcut to only take and not give)

But there is another group of people who have read a lot, have their ideas but want to run them past others for a bit of group brainstorming. They are committed to go ahead even by their own ideas but may modify them based on feedback. And these are typically the ones who know about the rule, so they don’t give their current prescription values. I found it difficult to brainstorm with them without seeing if they are low-mid-high myopes, if they have a difference between the eyes, if they have cyl and how much, etc. So yes, in those cases it is sometimes actually me asking for the specifics.

(Note: the irony of things is that the individuals falling in the first category don’t care, and the individuals falling in the second category having more self-awareness now may think I was talking about them under category one… This can’t be helped.)

Obviously anything I say to someone’s question is my opinion based on my eyes and my experience and / or my mini statistics drawn from the forum. I.e. what I would do if those were my eyes. I’m not a medical professional. Should not be taken more seriously than me helping someone choose the colour of the wallpaper for the living room…

3 Likes

IMO, how in tune someone is with their vision is the prerequisite for choosing accurate diopters. If the person themself isn’t in tune with their vision then they can’t even depict whether the prescription they have is too strong, just right or too weak. And if they can’t figure that out, how can we?

Otherwise, I think it’s lawfully safe for us to recommend .25 from their current prescription since chances are it will still leave them highly functional.

Also, if someone hasn’t familiarized themself with how varying levels of blur looks like, or doesn’t put in the effort to play with their vision, I get the sense that even with the right diopter levels they wouldn’t even be able to make visual gains at all, and if they do it’d be like reducing 0.25 diopters a year. Or worse, we prove the optometry bros right, that underprescribing makes myopic worsen quicker.

Has any plz bros tried the EM FB bot yet?

2 Likes

Sadly not the traffic I would have hoped. And for the people who do try it, it often turns out multiple choice buttons are too complicated :frowning:
I had really thought the bot would be a great bridge to basically hold newbie hands without actually having to have someone literally do it for each and every one. But the majority seems to find it easier to spam the community instead of trying to help themselves… At least the wiki helps though, so much easier to drop relevant links and try to get out. Especially when the individual actually reads them! :joy:

4 Likes

I looked up what successful cults do and it seems like stalking is the way to go. I think we should sneak in the middle of the night and measure their eyeballs. :heart_eyes:

“Honey! What’s that noise?”
“Oh don’t worry dear, it’s just one of the Endmyopian Cultists climbing down the fire escape, they wanted to check my astigmatism. They show up in the middle of the night if you don’t post often enough on the forum.”

2 Likes

I turn on ‘post approval’ for them on Facebook. That way I see all posts before they go public. I don’t know if they get notified. Some of them actually start asking vaguely more acceptable questions. Still a fair bit of wanton purposeful terrible spelling, but … :man_shrugging:

4 Likes