[Zetice]

If you can't smell the salesmanship taking place on this link, there is a whole lot more wrong with your filtering abilities than I had initially thought.

So based on this, I think you have a filter problem; you seem to be unable to accurately evaluate sources for their credibility, and take in any/all arguments without understanding how easy it is to be manipulated by un-credible sources into believing hard-to-disprove ideas that are nonetheless actively harmful to you and your ability to grow your investments.

This leaves you susceptible to charlatans and snake-oil salespeople, which fully explains your desire to believe proven-wrong ideas on investing. When you lose out on these market timing attempts, you apparently do so in a way that allows others to profit directly off of you, and you further advocate for others to follow suit.

You're a great mark, I'll give you that.

[fantasticshower]

We certainly have different types of filters. Your filter apparently catches blogs and that's fine. I feel I've been exposed to many interesting things on blogs. I'm sure others would agree.

Your model/filter may be better because you don't have to think about as many things. There's certainly more information out there than one has the ability to ingest. In my experience many things I thought were settled turned out not to be upon further inspection. A simple filter might be good enough for your purposes!

I think your ideas about investing can be correct (in that they produce favorable outcomes) and other ideas can be correct too.

Not a perfect analogy, but Newton's ideas about gravity are correct to explain a lot of things. Einstein's ideas expand and explain more. They are both correct, depending on the level of detail you need. Sometimes "correct" roughly equals "useful".

[Zetice]

I didn’t filter your link because it was a blog, I filtered it because it was an obvious pitch for a product the authors sell.

Do you really not understand the issues there? Incredible.

[fantasticshower]

It's a logical fallacy to assume what they are saying is false because they might stand to profit from it. They might be biased but can't we investigate their claims independently?

[Zetice]

No, you can’t investigate their claims, as you are not a domain expert. They rely on you trying, however.

And it is not a logical fallacy to disregard their argument entirely. I didn’t say they were wrong, I said they weren’t credible.

[fantasticshower]

I guess we'll have to disagree about whether I'm capable of investigating their claims. Maybe you aren't and that's well and good for you. If you cannot investigate their claims, I don't think there's much more to discuss on this topic.

Thanks for the lively discussion, Zetice!

[Zetice]

Thank you for being a live demonstration to anyone left reading this of how fools and their money are soon parted.

Knowing your limits and knowing how bias creeps in are two skills you clearly lack. I hope nobody depends on you to make these kinds of decisions for them or in a way that impacts them.