Plaupius said:
Squilliam said:
Because for someone who seems to think he understands, he actually doesn't.
- His posts read like a cross between a get rich quick book and cultist literature. They do not understand, while you the reader understands because you listen to me.
- He has a propensity for creating straw man arguments to caricature people like analysts/journalists/publishers/console developers etc and then defeating them.
- He is an "intuitive type" but without hard data that analysts have access to, he may as well sit in the lotus position and smoke his bong for all the understanding it will give him of the "market"
- His bias is extremely evident in everything he writes. He appears to only accept information that supports his world view. In mathematics class if I get lucky and give the right answer but the method to get that answer was completely wrong, giving the correct answer doesn't matter because I still fail.
|
You have some valid points, Malstrom's writing style is, IMO, working against him. But where I disagree with you is the lack of hard data: Malstrom is analyzing business strategy, and for that purpose his articles have plenty of hard data. He also uses the theory of disruption to explain Nintendo's success and the relative failure of the more hardcore industry players in a sound way. His problem is he's labeled people in a disrespectful manner (for example his continuous use of "birdmen"), which inevitably causes a defensive reaction if the reader happens to be one of those people.
|
Excellent post, Plaupius. I couldn't have said it better.
I for one, however, get a kick out of Malstrom's writing style.
