[Zetice]

There have absolutely been published and cited papers in this conversation (I cited one and then cited a book with literally hundreds more), the fact that you don't realize that should make it clear to anyone left reading this what's going on.

[fantasticshower]

More examples of you assuming the worst about me. I'm well aware of what you posted.

My sarcasm didn't go through. I mean no one has written a published and cited paper about our conversation. Therefore no one should make any decisions based on our discussion.

[Zetice]

It wasn't good sarcasm. There are published and highly cited papers people can read to learn more about what I am saying (and how what you're saying is nonsense).

I am stunned sometimes when I discover how completely unaware people are of how to apply critical thinking in the modern world. It's second nature to me, but conversations like these make it abundantly clear it's not a universal skill.

[fantasticshower]

It's so interesting to me that your conclusion about me is that I'm not a critical thinker. If you knew me in real life you'd rank me among the most critical thinkers you know (or my whole life experience is wrong).

I think it speaks to the medium of communication we're using (you've misinterpreted things I've said as one problem with the medium), mixed with the topic being a very emotionally charged one.

[Zetice]

You may think "critically" a great deal, but it's clear to me you don't know how to do it well, as source selection is a substantial part of successful analysis.

For example, you believe "whole life experience" is something worth noting, as if you have no clue whatsoever about how bad humans are at self evaluation.

Why wouldn't you know about that? What kind of "critical thinker" goes through life fully unaware of the impact that bias has on their ability to think critically?

A bad critical thinker wouldn't understand this concept.

A bad critical thinker would also not understand the value of avoiding sources from organizations misaligned to their incentives, because they'd know how powerful bad arguments can be, and their inherent limitations at recognizing them as a result of said bias.

I don't know you. But I do know how you've behaved in this conversation, and if you think this conversation is representative of your method of evaluating ideas and arguments, then yeah I would consider your critical thinking skills to be limited, regardless of how much you engage them.

[fantasticshower]

I don't know you but I think you have categorized me as one of "them" (people who don't think critically) and have been arguing with me from that perspective.

I think you have a rigid idea of what the right idea is with investing and there's some resistance to anything that might challenge that. I understand why you'd feel that way. There's comfort in believing your filter and your method for gaining understanding of this complex world is totally correct. I find myself thinking that way sometimes too!

[Zetice]

You're close, but meaningfully off (unsurprisingly).

I have categorized you as someone who has a substantially inflated sense of their capabilities, but when faced with any kind of challenge to that belief they wilt magnificently, usually in the form of, "That's just your opinion."

You discount the concept of bias as inapplicable to you for some reason, which more or less renders you incapable of meaningful critical analysis, yet you falsely think whatever remaining machinations you're capable of are useful.

You're trying to fly without any wings, declaring that you falling on your ass counts, and then refusing to even acknowledge the existence of gravity when its pointed out to you.

I may be entirely wrong about how personal finance works, this is possible and fine with me. What I'm not wrong about however, is your behavior. It's fundamentally and profoundly broken, if its purpose is to accurately predict future outcomes such as you claim it is.