Yeah, you're right. I went for a rhetorical rather than reasonable point there and flopped. Sorry.
> So, there's no point in asking how the parent knows, if by that you mean what's their objective, measurable basis of knowing that.
That's really all I was trying to challenge, that GP was stating their opinion as objective fact.
> I don't think anybody said that we can't solve problems by reading books.
Not to be petty but that is what GP said.
> most problems in your life can't be solved by reading a book, period. Self-help or otherwise.
Eh?
> What's said is that some self-help books are merely profit-driven, platitudes, silver-bullet formulas, that don't work, and don't solve problems for the majority of people who cling to them (which tend to accumulate such books, and run from guru to guru, and method to method over the years).
With qualifications I can agree with that. I know a few people like that, and there are definitely charlatans in the self-help field.
> Of course there's also solid advice in some of those books. Usually of the kind that everybody knows already -- but have trouble following. Much akin the Christian "be kind" etc.
Other people do get a lot of help from those kinds of books. YMMV, eh?
Cheers, well met.
The parent however, we can presume, is neither of those things. And even if they were, they don't suggest you buy any particular work they sell in their comment, so the point still stands.
>I don't understand this sentence.
You asked the parent "How do you know?". This to be implies "where is your hard proof" - so I read it that way.
So, my point is, in this, and other cases, one does not "know" because they have some hard irrefutable hard proofs or statistics.
What would those be? Some official study cited as saying "94.2% of self-help books are inaccurate and bogus"? There can't be such a thing.
So, there's no point in asking how the parent knows, if by that you mean what's their objective, measurable basis of knowing that.
It's one of the many cases where people can only think and decide for themselves whether what the other says is valid, matches their own observations, makes sense, has some hidden intention/profit motive behind it or not, and so on.
>Right, and it seems to me that the way forward is to share our experiences in good faith to try to find the mutually true union of our worldviews, eh?
Yes.
>FFS, If you can't solve your problems by reading books we should just burn the libraries?
I don't think anybody said that we can't solve problems by reading books. E.g. we can certainly solve math problems, or a medical student learn how to fix diseases through books.
What's said is that self-helf books (and we could qualify it by saying most self-helf books), are mostly profit-driven, platitudes, silver-bullet formulas, that don't work, and don't solve problems for the majority of people who cling to them (which tend to accumulate such books, and run from guru to guru, and method to method over the years).
Of course there's also solid advice in some of those books. Usually of the kind that everybody knows already -- but have trouble following. Much akin the Christian "be kind" etc.