It turns out that the information was exaggerated in such a way that, had I not bothered verifying, I would have updated much more strongly in favor of the efficacy of an organization of which he was a member.
I initially misread this as saying you were impressed with his persuasive skill and strongly tempted to update on the organization’s effectiveness based on that.
In this case it was my fault for not reading closely; I was really commenting on the irony that the reverse of what you said was an equally if not more plausible LW comment.
I initially misread this as saying you were impressed with his persuasive skill and strongly tempted to update on the organization’s effectiveness based on that.
Ah, sorry. Clarity is far from my strongest skill. Any recommendations on how I might improve that would be very welcome.
In this case it was my fault for not reading closely; I was really commenting on the irony that the reverse of what you said was an equally if not more plausible LW comment.