Sounds pretty reasonable to me. It seems like most ERs come to a similar conclusion. It is an important conclusion and probably has to be discussed repeatedly so that newcomers who are just starting down the road to ER can be exposed to the issue.
new retire early home page article
- Thread starter wzd
- Start date
The two most recent posts strike me as being conciliatory in tone. That makes me think that it might not be a bad time for me to put forward an idea that I have been thinking over for some time that might help us diminish the friction that has come to dominate many SWR threads for several years now.
Our problem is that we have some posters who think that the conventional SWR methodology is the only way to go, some who think that the data-based SWR methodology is the only way to go, and some (perhaps most) whose viewpoints are somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. On some threads, it is nice to have input from the entire spectrum of SWR viewpoints. On some others, however, the poster starting the thread would prefer to have input only from other posters in the same SWR "camp." In those cases, friction results when a poster from the other camp ventures forth with a statement that is counter to the core assumptions of some others participating on the thread.
My suggestion is that posters starting an SWR thread indicate in the title of the thread what sort of feedback they are seeking. Option One would be not to specify a preference for one methodology or the other. On those threads, input from both advocates of the conventional methodology and from advocates of the data-based methodology would be welcomed. Option Two would be to put the words "Conventional SWR Thread:" at the beginning of the title of the thread, letting proponents of the data-based methodology know that this is not a thread where questioning of the premises of the conventional methodology studies is appropriate. Option Three would be to put the words "Data-Based SWR Thread:" at the beginning of the title of the thread, letting proponents of the conventional methodology know that this is not a thread where questioning of the premises of the data-based methodology is appropriate.
Any poster could participate on any thread, under this proposal. For example, I could participate on threads marked "Conventional Methodology Thread," and intercst could participate on threads marked "Data-Based Methodology Thread." However, it would not be appropriate for me to challenge the conventional methodology on conventional methodology threads, and it would not be appropriate for intercst to challenge the data-based methodology on data-based methodology threads.
Any thoughts?
Our problem is that we have some posters who think that the conventional SWR methodology is the only way to go, some who think that the data-based SWR methodology is the only way to go, and some (perhaps most) whose viewpoints are somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. On some threads, it is nice to have input from the entire spectrum of SWR viewpoints. On some others, however, the poster starting the thread would prefer to have input only from other posters in the same SWR "camp." In those cases, friction results when a poster from the other camp ventures forth with a statement that is counter to the core assumptions of some others participating on the thread.
My suggestion is that posters starting an SWR thread indicate in the title of the thread what sort of feedback they are seeking. Option One would be not to specify a preference for one methodology or the other. On those threads, input from both advocates of the conventional methodology and from advocates of the data-based methodology would be welcomed. Option Two would be to put the words "Conventional SWR Thread:" at the beginning of the title of the thread, letting proponents of the data-based methodology know that this is not a thread where questioning of the premises of the conventional methodology studies is appropriate. Option Three would be to put the words "Data-Based SWR Thread:" at the beginning of the title of the thread, letting proponents of the conventional methodology know that this is not a thread where questioning of the premises of the data-based methodology is appropriate.
Any poster could participate on any thread, under this proposal. For example, I could participate on threads marked "Conventional Methodology Thread," and intercst could participate on threads marked "Data-Based Methodology Thread." However, it would not be appropriate for me to challenge the conventional methodology on conventional methodology threads, and it would not be appropriate for intercst to challenge the data-based methodology on data-based methodology threads.
Any thoughts?
J
John Galt
Guest
Nope!
Oh, no! Not the folding kayaks! Please, I'll do anything. Just don't go with the folding kayaks again!
Beachbums had a good idea. We could go with a fish picture. Just promise me we won't do the folding kayaks again! Is there no mercy in this cold world? AAAHHH!
Beachbums had a good idea. We could go with a fish picture. Just promise me we won't do the folding kayaks again! Is there no mercy in this cold world? AAAHHH!
The advocates of the conventional methodology are unable to defend it.
Yeah, yeah. That's old news.
The question on the table at the moment is--Will it be folding kayak stories or fish pictures? I vote enthusiastically in favor of fish pictures.
Are you out there, Cut-Throat? We need a fish picture. Any old fish picture will do. But we need it fast.
Yeah, yeah. That's old news.
The question on the table at the moment is--Will it be folding kayak stories or fish pictures? I vote enthusiastically in favor of fish pictures.
Are you out there, Cut-Throat? We need a fish picture. Any old fish picture will do. But we need it fast.
.o.............................................................
..o..........+............................................
.............++.............................+...............
.o......+++++........................++..............
....+++O+\++++...............+++...............
.+++++++)+++++++++++++................
....+++++/++++...............+++...............
...........++++........................++..............
...............................................+...............
................................................................
..o..........+............................................
.............++.............................+...............
.o......+++++........................++..............
....+++O+\++++...............+++...............
.+++++++)+++++++++++++................
....+++++/++++...............+++...............
...........++++........................++..............
...............................................+...............
................................................................
J
John Galt
Guest
Nice fish!
JG
JG
C
Cut-Throat
Guest
Actually I was quite impressed with the artwork, but I was trying to get my fish posted as quick as possible, and neglected to comment on the artistic genius, just so the forum would not go into melt down
I was quite impressed with the artwork
Me too. It wasn't the hint of concern over becoming someone's dinner that you embedded in the otherwise joyful fish visage that bowled me over. I have come to expect that sort of attention to detail from you based on some earlier efforts with which you have graced this forum. What really got me was the amazing speed with which this particular work was produced. I am a journalist by trade, so I respect the ability to work under deadline pressure. I said it before and I'll say it again--you are made of the right stuff, SalaryGuru.
Me too. It wasn't the hint of concern over becoming someone's dinner that you embedded in the otherwise joyful fish visage that bowled me over. I have come to expect that sort of attention to detail from you based on some earlier efforts with which you have graced this forum. What really got me was the amazing speed with which this particular work was produced. I am a journalist by trade, so I respect the ability to work under deadline pressure. I said it before and I'll say it again--you are made of the right stuff, SalaryGuru.
Hyperborea
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
That is a nice fish CT. But I'm kind of offended that nobody made polite enquiry about my fish.
So, where did you catch it and what did you do with it?
From *****:
I don't think raddr has done a good job challenging JWR1945's findings on switching strategies. I think he has done a poor job. He has said that he does not read the work that JWR1945 posts at the SWR Research Group board. That means that he is uninformed on many of the details of how the research was conducted. And he did not post his "debunking" at the board at which the research appeared. That's lame.
That's not true. I have looked at much of the "research" on that board including the misleading PE switching studies that I effectively debunked in the thread referenced above. I have seen a lot of datamining and misapplication of statistics but not much competent research at the SWR board. It is little wonder that so few people pay much attention to it.
-raddr
I don't think raddr has done a good job challenging JWR1945's findings on switching strategies. I think he has done a poor job. He has said that he does not read the work that JWR1945 posts at the SWR Research Group board. That means that he is uninformed on many of the details of how the research was conducted. And he did not post his "debunking" at the board at which the research appeared. That's lame.
That's not true. I have looked at much of the "research" on that board including the misleading PE switching studies that I effectively debunked in the thread referenced above. I have seen a lot of datamining and misapplication of statistics but not much competent research at the SWR board. It is little wonder that so few people pay much attention to it.
-raddr
That's not true. I have looked at much of the "research" on that board
All that I am going by are your own statements, raddr. You have said on numerous occasions that you rarely look at the SWR Research Group board. JWR1945 has been studying the SWR question on a full-time basis for close to three years now. I think it is fair to say that, if you have read little of his work, you have missed out on a lot of his findings. If you want to truly understand his work, you are going to need to take a closer look at it. If you want to effectively "debunk" his findings, you are going to need to do the preparatory work necessary for you to be able to engage in a back-and-forth exchange with him.
JWR1945 has responsed to hundreds and hundreds of questions during the time he has been posting at the SWR board. I am certain that, if you have questions, he will respond to yours. JWR has never banned any other poster from the SWR board. You have banned two posters from your board before they ever put up their first post there. JWR1945 has opened his research to public scrutiny. You have not done the same.
It is little wonder that so few people pay much attention to it.
There was an earlier thread at this forum in which intercst supplied a link to a page at his website where the data supporting JWR1945's findings can be downloaded by any interested party. That thread went up months ago. No community member in the time since has reported on any flaws in his findings. There are obviosuly a good number who would be happy to do so if any could be found. JWR1945 has done his work out in the open and it has passed every test so far.
There are a number of people at this forum and elsewhere who have expressed their gratitude for the work that JWR1945 has done for this community. I am confident that he will be recognized for many years to come as a hero to the community of people looking for solid information on how to win financial freedom early in life. He is incredibly smart. He works incredibly hard. And he is incredibly gracious in all of his comments to fellow community members.
I have stated many times that I rank you as my third favorite poster of all time (JWR1945 is first and Wanderer is second). I stand by that assessment. I stated in a post above that your smears of JWR1945 and his work are shameful. I stand by that assessment too.
I have a question for you, raddr. I noted earlier in this thread that your own SWR research reveals grave flaws in the REHP study. You put up scores of research-based posts critical of the REHP study in earlier days. Do you stand by those earlier posts? Do you stand by your earlier assessment of the REHP study, that it is a "bogus" piece of research? If not, why not?
All that I am going by are your own statements, raddr. You have said on numerous occasions that you rarely look at the SWR Research Group board. JWR1945 has been studying the SWR question on a full-time basis for close to three years now. I think it is fair to say that, if you have read little of his work, you have missed out on a lot of his findings. If you want to truly understand his work, you are going to need to take a closer look at it. If you want to effectively "debunk" his findings, you are going to need to do the preparatory work necessary for you to be able to engage in a back-and-forth exchange with him.
JWR1945 has responsed to hundreds and hundreds of questions during the time he has been posting at the SWR board. I am certain that, if you have questions, he will respond to yours. JWR has never banned any other poster from the SWR board. You have banned two posters from your board before they ever put up their first post there. JWR1945 has opened his research to public scrutiny. You have not done the same.
It is little wonder that so few people pay much attention to it.
There was an earlier thread at this forum in which intercst supplied a link to a page at his website where the data supporting JWR1945's findings can be downloaded by any interested party. That thread went up months ago. No community member in the time since has reported on any flaws in his findings. There are obviosuly a good number who would be happy to do so if any could be found. JWR1945 has done his work out in the open and it has passed every test so far.
There are a number of people at this forum and elsewhere who have expressed their gratitude for the work that JWR1945 has done for this community. I am confident that he will be recognized for many years to come as a hero to the community of people looking for solid information on how to win financial freedom early in life. He is incredibly smart. He works incredibly hard. And he is incredibly gracious in all of his comments to fellow community members.
I have stated many times that I rank you as my third favorite poster of all time (JWR1945 is first and Wanderer is second). I stand by that assessment. I stated in a post above that your smears of JWR1945 and his work are shameful. I stand by that assessment too.
I have a question for you, raddr. I noted earlier in this thread that your own SWR research reveals grave flaws in the REHP study. You put up scores of research-based posts critical of the REHP study in earlier days. Do you stand by those earlier posts? Do you stand by your earlier assessment of the REHP study, that it is a "bogus" piece of research? If not, why not?
No, his research is not bogus but I do believe that it suffers from some flaws, not the least of which is that there wasn't an investable index, much less a low cost way to invest, during about 100 of the 130 years of the study. His study, like many others, assumes an unrealistically low expense ratio during those years. But at least he doesn't misapply statistics and discard inconvenient time periods like I see being routinely done on the SWR "Research" board.
No, his research is not bogus but I do believe that it suffers from some flaws
Thanks very much for your response, raddr.
But at least he doesn't misapply statistics and discard inconvenient time periods like I see being routinely done on the SWR "Research" board.
I understand that you don't agree with JWR1945's findings. That is of course your right. I would like to see you open your board (raddr-pages.com) to input from both JWR1945 and me so that your readers could hear the other side of the story. I would also very much like to see you provide your input to the SWR Research Group (where I am the moderator). I don't want people to take JWR1945's findings on faith. I would like to see other Numbers Guys challenge it, just as I (a non-Numbers Guy) have challenged the REHP study. But I really think we all would enjoy more of a learning experience if the challenges raised were put forward as part of a reasoned back-and-forth exchange between JWR1945 and his critics.
The SWR Research Group board is a community resource. Anyone may participate. No one is required to participate, of course. But any member of any of the various FIRE/Retire Early posting communities will receive a warm welcome there. UncleMick put up a fine post there yesterday where he commented on how there are "acres of diamonds" to be discovered in mining the historical data. There are some things that UncleMick and me agree on and there are some things on which we do not. But we are soul mates on that one. On the most important question, his arrow hits the target right in the center of the red.
Thanks very much for your response, raddr.
But at least he doesn't misapply statistics and discard inconvenient time periods like I see being routinely done on the SWR "Research" board.
I understand that you don't agree with JWR1945's findings. That is of course your right. I would like to see you open your board (raddr-pages.com) to input from both JWR1945 and me so that your readers could hear the other side of the story. I would also very much like to see you provide your input to the SWR Research Group (where I am the moderator). I don't want people to take JWR1945's findings on faith. I would like to see other Numbers Guys challenge it, just as I (a non-Numbers Guy) have challenged the REHP study. But I really think we all would enjoy more of a learning experience if the challenges raised were put forward as part of a reasoned back-and-forth exchange between JWR1945 and his critics.
The SWR Research Group board is a community resource. Anyone may participate. No one is required to participate, of course. But any member of any of the various FIRE/Retire Early posting communities will receive a warm welcome there. UncleMick put up a fine post there yesterday where he commented on how there are "acres of diamonds" to be discovered in mining the historical data. There are some things that UncleMick and me agree on and there are some things on which we do not. But we are soul mates on that one. On the most important question, his arrow hits the target right in the center of the red.
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Long Wait Time to get Appointment with Dermatologist- Latest: braumeister
-
-
-
