"They approached me," he told The Telegraph. "I'm an
attention seeker. That is the main reason I speak.
That is the reason I agreed to go on the BBC. Trading
is a like a hobby. It is not a business. I am a talker.
I talk a lot. I love the whole idea of public speaking."
Sounds to me like he has no real qualifications, and I should pay just as much attention to him as other self-proclaimed experts. Whether I want to believe what he says or not, there seems to be no reason to believe he knows more than anyone else.
However, you seem to want to believe him uncritically, and that's your prerogative.
No, I didn't, and don't, disbelieve him uncritically. I read the article in the telegraph, and I've come to the conclusion that he is unqualified. That doesn't mean he's wrong, but it does mean that I want more evidence, and I want to listen to others who aren't just hobby traders who want to get attention.
That, to me, seems a more balanced position, and a more credible source.
In short, I'd like to believe the things he's saying, I'm predisposed to believe the things he's saying, but I've gone out and looked for more evidence. In the end, I think his position is too extreme, and no matter how tempting, I don't believe it without further evidence.
Comments
It sounds to me like you really want to believe that this guy has the absolute line on truth. I see you've made similar comments here:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3049244
and here:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3049240
So I suggest you read the article linked to from here:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3045980
Quoting from that article:
Sounds to me like he has no real qualifications, and I should pay just as much attention to him as other self-proclaimed experts. Whether I want to believe what he says or not, there seems to be no reason to believe he knows more than anyone else.However, you seem to want to believe him uncritically, and that's your prerogative.
However, you seem to want to disbelieve him uncritically, and that's your prerogative.
No, I didn't, and don't, disbelieve him uncritically. I read the article in the telegraph, and I've come to the conclusion that he is unqualified. That doesn't mean he's wrong, but it does mean that I want more evidence, and I want to listen to others who aren't just hobby traders who want to get attention.
Consider this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15095191
That, to me, seems a more balanced position, and a more credible source.
In short, I'd like to believe the things he's saying, I'm predisposed to believe the things he's saying, but I've gone out and looked for more evidence. In the end, I think his position is too extreme, and no matter how tempting, I don't believe it without further evidence.
And I've seen no evidence that he's qualified.