> I'm not trying to be overly negative, but I think these dreamy, sometimes delusional posts can lead people astray, thinking that they're missing out on some great riches that everyone else is claiming to be achieving.
I'm not a psychologist, and I don't know you personally, but is it possible that maybe you feel a bit misled because you think you might be missing out on some great riches that everyone else is claiming to be achieving?
I think that, at the end of the day, everyone has a bullshit detector, but everyone's bullshit threshold is going to be determined by how close they are to greatness (whether they themsleves are achieving it, or the people around them are achieving it). For me, HN represents a rare intersection of do'ers and dreamers. Are all the people who claim to be "doing" actually doing it? Of course not, but there are still valuable lessons here. There are enough lessons in Patio11's posts that even if he were exaggeratting his claims to promote his brand (and I don't perosnally think that he is), I'd still consider his contributions to be worthwhile reading.
Skepticism is a healthy thing in moderation, but I for one, would rather be surrounded by a lot of people who are optimistic (if a bit boastful), then a lot of people who are pessimistic and critical, but I'd trade them both for genuine friends with efficacy and cogency.
This sounds like a variation of the "you're just jealous" reply, which is an easy, convenient retort to virtually all skepticism for even the most incredible claims. When we want something to be true, the easiest way to undermine doubts are to cry jealousy.
Super weight loss regime. Visit with aliens. Top secret NSA/CIA/FBI/FSB clearance. Quintuple black belt. No-effort muscle building technique. Endless success with the ladies. Exponential stock market success. All demonstrated by just words?
Doubts and questions = jealousy. It is the charlatan's ally among human denial techniques.
Two wrongs don't make a right, so whatever follows here notwithstanding: your point is fair.
But the GP did say this:
People lie. People embellish. Many people can even contrive rationale for why doing that is okay. Human nature.
That can reasonably be inferred, from context, as an attack on Patrick's personality. Not saying it is for sure, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to interpret it that way.
In that light, shifting the personality blame game back on GP is less damning than you make it sound. It's still not the golden standard of rhetoric, sure. But there is something to be said for it.
Consider it "defending a friend." Patrick's being personally attacked, OP attacks back.
Again, two wrongs don't make a right. But this one is defensible.
I'm not a psychologist, and I don't know you personally, but is it possible that maybe you feel a bit misled because you think you might be missing out on some great riches that everyone else is claiming to be achieving?
I think that, at the end of the day, everyone has a bullshit detector, but everyone's bullshit threshold is going to be determined by how close they are to greatness (whether they themsleves are achieving it, or the people around them are achieving it). For me, HN represents a rare intersection of do'ers and dreamers. Are all the people who claim to be "doing" actually doing it? Of course not, but there are still valuable lessons here. There are enough lessons in Patio11's posts that even if he were exaggeratting his claims to promote his brand (and I don't perosnally think that he is), I'd still consider his contributions to be worthwhile reading.
Skepticism is a healthy thing in moderation, but I for one, would rather be surrounded by a lot of people who are optimistic (if a bit boastful), then a lot of people who are pessimistic and critical, but I'd trade them both for genuine friends with efficacy and cogency.