No, it doesn't mean I'm right. However the fact that you have no rational response to anything I've said is a pretty strong indicator that you are not. Once again, can you offer any specifics on anything I said as opposed to broad anti intellectual platitudes, or is that all you're left with? By the way, are you the guy who just 3 posts ago said "so I'll pick one point that I can utterly destroy" and an hour later said "Listen man just because you take one sentence and blow it up doesn't mean you're right."? Are you kidding me, at least have some basic level of internal consistency from one hour to the next man, this is pitiful! I've obviously found myself in a battle of wits with an unarmed man, I'm going to let you go forth and contradict yourself by yourself. Good day.
The problem in conversing with you is one sentence from me turns into 2 paragraphs from you. It is not anti-intellectual to refuse to read unfocused drivel, which is what you produce.
That book is unreadable for me. I preferred his other books, more geared towards nonintellectual retails like me. But it is easier said than done: How do I apply his concepts in trading?
I hate to argue with you because often you made a lot of sense to me. What is needed in the debate is always to have an open mind and not afraid to listen to the other side, no matter how ridiculous it may appear on the surface. Often the scientific "consensus" can be off base too.The history of science are full of scientific "consensus" of that time that eventually turned out to be wrong or off base.
That's actually another part of the "everyone's opinions are equally valid" movement that really bugs the heck out of me. Of course you need to keep an open mind in science, it's not only a good idea it's a central tenet of the scientific method! The entire concept of the scientific method is that we have a working theory that everyone attempts to refine or rebut, after all even gravity is "just a theory". But having an open mind is a completely different thing to the idea that every jackass who wishes to opine on something has an equally valid point. You have to have a modicum of understanding of any advanced subject to be able to talk intelligently about it. Pretty much never was a guy in a trailer park with an 11th grade education whose primary study has been bong design the person to determine the current tunneling electron consensus is incorrect. That's the "million monkeys in a room full of typewriters will eventually type out War and Peace" theory. Pretty much never is a truck driver better at brain surgery than a brain surgeon (or the other way around for that matter). However if the truck driver has an 11th grade education but is an amateur astronomer who has been studying and observing for the last 15 years, he's absolutely able to not only have an intelligent conversation about astronomy but contribute to the field and legitimately question current convention. That's a completely different thing than the folks we see here declaring all economists "IYIs" without knowing the first thing about economics, for example. Listening to the amateur astronomer is having an open mind. Listening to the punter is wasting your time if they have already displayed they don't even know basic concepts of the field they're opining on. Or even downright dangerous when it comes to anti-vaxxers, for example, putting vulnerable populations who can't be vaccinated at risk because they feel their "skin in the game" and something they read on Facebook trumps thousands of medical professionals who have spent entire careers researching this. Those folks don't have "open minds" and I don't feel I'm being at all closed minded to call them out for danger they are.
How do you know @nooby_mcnoob is not an amateur economist, one the IYI? I don't know economics but am trying hard to understand, finished an online Economics 101 class taught by Prof. Peter Navarro of UCI a couple of years ago. Many don't like his thinking so maybe he one of @nooby_mcnoob's IYI?
That's the beauty of the online MOOCs, pretty much anyone can have access to the basic level of knowledge necessary to have an intelligent conversation about a specialty these days, you just have to care enough to put the effort in. Prof. Navarro is actually a great example, thanks for bringing him up. I happen to disagree with many of his positions, but at the same time I would never call him an "IYI" and would be the first to admit that the gap between my experience and his in economics is vast enough that I'd only engage him in a professional debate if it was about a pretty narrow bit of the field that I actually do work in.
One characteristic of IYIs is that they put too much emphasis on what they know and not enough emphasis on what they don't know. This way, they can build up a hierarchy which is the entire purpose of their behaviour (c.f., elite schools, SAT scores, etc).
So again, you've got to avoid contradicting yourself from post to post and now inside of a single post with only two sentences! You have not attended an elite school, you don't have that experience, and yet you claim to know how elite schools teach and what they emphasize. So does experience and "skin in the game" trump all, or when it comes to deciding what elite schools teach you get to decide that by your own self without having experienced it and you get to tell those of us who have experienced it that we don't know what we're talking about? Who's the "IYI" here now? BTW, you couldn't be more wrong about the lack of emphasis on what you don't know. In fact, I'd go further and say at least in my experience my grad school education was very much focused on being aware of what you don't know you don't know and how to narrow that universe to include more areas you know you don't know but know how to find out when and if you need to. Did you have a different grad school experience, and if so I'd be curious to know where that line of teaching takes place?