In my case I get a lot of well-meaning but misguided advice from fellow runners who can't understand why I don't focus on optimizing my race times. But my goal is to continue running marathons in my 80s and beyond like Fauja Singh or Ed Whitlock, so I make different tradeoffs.
A 2:30 runner giving a more recreational runner advice about improving times is trying to be helpful and supportive sharing their learnings and expertise, even if misguided.
A HN-er that has never ran before throwing out stuff about barefoot running since they read Born to Run a few years ago is just plain ignorance.
This seems uncharitable. I see only one comment that favorably mentions Born to Run and a couple that favorably mention minimalist running shoes but none of these give any indication that the poster has never run before.
It seems like a barefoot-style runner giving someone advice about training barefoot to strengthen stabilizing muscles or improve ankle proprioception or something is similarly trying to be helpful and supportive, even if misguided.
I agree with your underlying point though -- it's a very personal sport. That's why it's hard to specific advice about shoes or training unless you know whether someone is running to improve their race times, cardiovascular health, mental health, age gracefully, physical therapy, lose weight, or something else. Because the right approach for one goal might be counterproductive for another.
I should clarify that it's not that I don't pay any attention to race times, just that it's not my primary focus -- I regularly sacrifice PRs to make sure I feel good and avoid injury.
“We want to make good time, but for us now this is measured with emphasis on “good” rather than “time” and when you make that shift in emphasis the whole approach changes.” — Robert M. Pirsig
Yes, you've read born to run, well done. It it's a good story, not a handbook of practical advice. Telling 2:30 marathon runners doing hundreds of miles a week that running shoes are bad and they should be going bare foot. OK.