“I Believe That the Second Explanation — The Charitable Explanation That the ‘Experts’ in This Field Are Suffering from Cognitive Dissonance — Is the Right One”

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently put to another blog entry at this site:

Once again, we look at patterns and we see that these very smart people have given and continue to give considerable thought and study to each issue. Basically, we look at people’s track record in order to assign credibility. The same measure is applied to everyone, including you.

You have not presented a case that is credible.

I disagree, Questions.

I put forward my famous post pointing out the errors in the Old School safe withdrawal rate studies on the morning of May 13, 2002. Not one of those studies has been corrected to this day. That tells the story.

There are two conclusions that can be drawn:

1) The uncharitable conclusion that the “experts” in this field are 100 percent corrupt; and

2) The charitable conclusion that the “experts” in this field are suffering from cognitive dissonance.

I believe that the second explanation is the right one (and I have seen a good bit of evidence supporting my conclusion on this point).

There’s only one way to bring the cognitive dissonance to an end. That’s to open every board and blog on the internet to honest posting on safe withdrawal rates and scores of other critically important investment-related topics.

We all learn by talking things over. So long as the “experts” don’t permit anyone who has not been taken in by their errors near them, they are never going to learn the realities. The ONLY way to take things to a good place is to launch a national debate on these questions.

That’s my sincere take, Questions.

Hang in there, man.

Rob