Quote from electron:
I too can say things most people will not understand. Does that mean that they are beginners? Perhaps, but first of all it means that I cannot communicate properly at their level. I have spent many years in the academia and I am really appaled by Jack's pretentious jerking around using terms that do not hold water after a closer scrutiny. If you cannot explain things so that you are understood that's your failure and not those who cannot grasp your bogus brilliance.
DT-Waw is absolutely right in his analogy to Sokal's hoax.
You are right here in a few points, however I think the reference to Sokal's hoax is a little far-fetched and nothing but a potential witness of your own inability to discern and filter valuable knowledge from hoax / bogus information.
And yes - I, too have criticized bubba and told him not to use so many abbreviations and far-streched / widely unused terms as he does - See "scalping" thread amongst others. And yes - I also have told him that his stance and conclusions are arrogant sometimes (see "trading inversely" thread), besides many other anti-posts and "bullshit" agreements to other's anti-posts. I think I have given him a good deal of shit altogether. And I think this is enough.
Yes, you are also partly right about the "pretentious jerking around using terms that do not hold water..." - BUT: Still the old thing applies, which I described in my previous post here:
Quote from Scientist:
I have enjoyed a great many of his posts and learned a lot of valuable things from them - And still do. Of course all under the protection of self-evaluation. I take it in, evaluate it, use what's useful and throw the rest away. That's what everybody trying to learn should do.
This is what it's all about. The "protection of self-evaluation". What we really need in order to learn is an applicable set of filters to discern bogus from valuable knowledge. And since every source, no matter how credible, has some elements of bogus / bias in it, we really have to foster the development of these filters. The way to do this is by constant education. If we've read 3+m of trading books (Victor Sperandeo has 2,000+ trading books!), plus read thousands of ET posts, plus had a bit of our own live market exposure, plus our own experiences developing and training/tweaking trading systems - Then chances are your "bogus filters" are pretty well developed.
Once these filters are developed, we i.e. laugh about trading education sites etc whose every word and claim we would have believed 5 years ago... etc etc etc. This applies to anything in life. The only way to acquire comprehensive and non-misleading knowledge is by putting in boatloads of hard work and study - That's just the way it is.
All this said, once these filters are developed well, we should use them to their full potential, to graze every bit of information out there. Now that the filters are effective, we can read thousands of ET posts, articles, books etc and pick up those little gems of knowledge here and there. This is what I really meant with "take it in, evaluate it and take what's useful, throw the rest away..."
It's a continuous "data-mining" process. To discuss how much of what Jack says is nonsense, "doesn't hold water" and so on bla bla - Is a complete waste of time! You people, and particularly the "critics" should seriously stop wasting your time criticizing others and instead focusing on datamining, to find the few bits of value they have to deliver. You'll be way ahead of the crowd.
As I already mentioned, it doesn't matter who you're listening to. There's a little bit of value in anybody's speech. Even in the speeches of Saddam Hussein, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, George Bush etc there are interesting bits of information and elements of truth to be found. To completely discredit somebody's every future word for particular actions, statements etc not only discredits the freedom of speech and opinion, it also discredits that individuals' ability to learn, evolve and change his mind, which is something we all go through, even Jack Hershey in his late 70's. Even well-remembered ET members like FPC (god bless him) had something funny or of value to add every so often. This is why I don't use the "ignore" feature at all.
But let me say this much to your (critics) very credit: If you've realized that a lot of Jack's stuff is bogus - You're already halfway there in the process towards becoming a successful dataminer. You have recognized the bogus.
The next step in your evolution will be to sort out the bogus effortlessly and without time-delay, until you can effectively find the gems in anything you read. Once you have achieved this, you will be well ahead of a crowd of sceptics that makes up for about 99% of the population.
Trust me - You may all feel very smart being sceptics - But there's a step ahead of being a sceptic. And that's being an information / value scavenger.
Think about it. It's the next step to intellectual evolution...
All the Best,
~Scientist
