I said that I fear that medical research is "primarily" populated by dedicated people who must master an enormous body of knowledge to the point where they "may" not be able to unclutter their mind to think of original approaches. Kindly do not exaggerate.

I didn't mention it in the book but I recently got a newsletter from Harvard Medical School where they erroneously said that since a drug passed a trial there was at least a 95% chance it worked. (Rather than the MUCH different but correct statement that there is a five percent chance that a placebo would give this result.) When I wrote them about it they admitted their mistake but then derisively commented about people who understand these things.

As to the AIDS theory, I DID try to to research it. And I wound up writing "unfortunately I haven't been able to pin down whether my facts are accurate." I could have tried harder but why should I? Let the readers of the book who know the subject do the resarch more efficiently. You think they won't do it because I insulted them? Meanwhile to keep the idea to myself simply because I knew I was probably wrong is unjustifiable.

I don't think I exaggerate; the corollary being, if AIDS research worldwide missed such information, even though it got published in a non-specialized magazine/newspaper, it would be an incredible sign of incompetency, in my opinion.

I can't comment on this obviously, since I don't know what happened exactly. Perhaps the newsletter is run by interns or whatever. Scientists are not very good at PR...

What's wrong with asking an experienced medical school graduate? His opinion would be much more pertinent than yours on these questions.

It may be worth it for you to throw many ideas in various fields so as to try and get a free hit somewhere (getting full credit since you avoid expert advice), and nevermind when it does not -- but as a reader I would much prefer reading about facts rather than conjectures that have a high risk of being totally inaccurate (eg. unemployment).

Kant's Categorical imperative only "applies" if you beleive it is the correct method for finding "moral actions".

Kant's Categorical Imperative is just a normative ethical theory that can NOT be proven true (in any mathematical or scientific sense)

Shandrax, It seems you are disagreeing with the "DUCY?" book based purely on moral reasons. This is completely fine, but you are acting like they can be proven. when they can't.

Their are many other normative theories that conflict with Kant's, Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, et cetera.

Shandrax, just imagine you believed that John Stewart Mill's Utilitarianism is the true(correct) normative theory for finding/doing moral actions.

PS. I have not yet read the book, but i plan to eventually

I just hope prospective readers realize that only a very small percentage of the ideas in DUCY could be conceivably be put in this category and usually when they are in that category, I point it out in the book. 90% of the stuff I'd lay big odds is totally correct and as in my poker books, I usually explain why.

Yes, the above criticism applies to specific parts of the book, and overall I'm much cooler with the rest of the book (up to p.200 at least).

Also Shandrax, I would like to add that any reasonable application of the categorical imperative would show that playing poker for money is immoral.

David,

I'd like to address some of of the stylistic issues, (both positive and negative), that I have encountered with the book so far. Please note I have only read about halfway through so far, as I read the book during short breaks from reading for law school and other academic activities.

As I sift through your book, I imagine this sort of loose structure: 1) Introduce yourself and your co-author, 2) establish your own credibility with the reader while introducing some basic concepts, 3) begin teaching the foundation for your logical deductions, 4) reveal the external applications of your intellectual reasoning and logical thinking process, and 5) provide some examples of how such intellectual pursuits can help every person in real life.

So far I am through 1-2 and have begun reading 3. I felt it appropriate at this time to respond with some of my stylistic and thematic concerns for the first part of the book before I bias myself by reading the rest.

I understand your need to introduce your own credibility in the beginning of the book. I am writing with the assumptions that 1) you believe yourself to be a credible authority on the subjects you opine on and 2) you do not expect at least a significant (not necessarily a majority) part of your targeted reader-base to open the book with the assumption that you are a credible authority.

So you feel it necessary to establish your credibility early on in the book, and you do this by relaying your interactions and experiences with Bob.

I feel like this was a fine strategic choice and a great tactic. Rather than just introducing your thoughts to your reader and assuming he or she gives you authority, you take the time to introduce this authority. I think you understand that many people (perhaps incorrectly so much of the time) look to degrees and other academic honors to establish authority, and you realize you lack this type of credence in many readers' minds. I, like many others on the forums here, opened the book already knowing your established authority on certain subjects, but many do not. Recognizing this weakness, and certainly not a weakness by your own doing, but a weakness created by a societal norm, is a great strength in your authorship as you try to branch out to a wider audience.

However, I do take some gripes with your application of this overall idea. I say the following with the utmost respect, but your arrogance is absolutely overwhelming in the first part of the book. I hesitate to use the word arrogance, as that is certainly not how I interpret it, but I believe that's how many of your readers will interpret it. I understand it as exemplary self-confidence and personal belief in your own ideas.

I, personally, struggle with this from time to time. Both here and in real life I have been accused of being overly arrogant and egotistical, and this is oftentimes off-putting to people when I am trying to make a point. Rather than enlightened, they feel insulted or patronized. Is that my (or your) intent? Certainly not, but if these are the people you are trying to reach, I think it is something to consider.

I think you may do too much telling and not enough showing. I offer the following example from the early parts of your book. On page 39, discussing moving lines and not spreads, you conclude with "To the best of my knowledge, Bob did it before anybody else because of my idea."

I think you harm your own credibility with this tactic. Why do you feel it necessary to point out to the reader that it was your idea? Does the page that leads into that not develop it as solely your idea? To the random reader it seems you are either a) thinking your reader is far too stupid to connect this on his own (thus insulting the reader) or b) you doubt yourself and feel the need to constantly assert that these were YOUR ideas and this success was because of YOU (thus harming your own credibility). I think it is BLATANTLY obvious throughout the entire Bob section that the results of all these great projects were due to your own ingenuity, yet you painstakingly and incessantly point it out to the reader in plain language. Not only do you make a better and more impacting point when you allow your reader to develop this conclusion on his own, but you prevent the questions noted above from propping up.

David: this is all admittedly very nitty and I hope you do not interpret it as me being negative about the opening of your book. As I noted in the opening of my post, I thought your approach of developing credibility through the "Bob tales" was quite intelligent and successful, but I just think it would be better and possibly avoid turning a certain reader-base off if it were structured with more humility and gave the reader more credit. You also use the voice of Dr. Schoonmaker quite well. When you mix him in and take your own voice out of it (although I'm sure he contributed to all facets of the book as you did), you give the reader a different perspective, lending more credibility. In Dr. Schoonmaker's sections there are no issues of humility or arrogance because it is not your voice, at least in the reader's mind.

I hope these criticisms make sense. I also have an abundance of positive comments about the book, but I'd like to finish it before I comment any further. The tone certainly seems to have changed in the middle of the book, shifting away from your own assertions to simply standing on the strength of your ideas alone. I, both as an astute reader and someone who knows your works quite well, was not not put off by your opening and did not question your credibility. I'm simply trying to speak from the shoes of the mainstream, who I think you are trying to reach here. If your intentions were only to reach the audience of 2+2, then I withdraw my criticisms, but then would further assert that much of the opening is not necessary and that it could be intertwined with the rest. I think you know all this, however, so I do believe you were trying to reach readers beyond those who are already familiar with you.

I look forward to finishing the rest of your book and plan on recommending it to many of my friends.

I make this post with two questions in mind really: 1) was my interpretation of your approach correct and 2) what do you make of my, (and admittedly I am playing devil's advocate at times), criticisms?

+1, though not necessarily by Bear.

Purchased one last week. Awaiting reading when I arrive back from vacation.

I knew DUCY was coming out but never considered reading it until I heard DS speak about it on the Pokercast. Great advertising spot imo.

You make some good points.

Think this is still flawed, even if you assum that firearms take more lives than they save. It's not necessarily a question of principle vs. pragmatism, because, I think, from a pragmatic standpoint, it is not clear what the extent of outlawing will be -- i.e., even if outlawed, people will still get them, albeit illegally. So I'm not sure it can be a "slam dunk"; at least not from a purely logical standpoint.

Fair enough. But my comment still holds. The example of guns is only germaine if outlawing guns is agreed to be the pragmatic position. Certainly those who want gun control think that is the case. They aren't invoking matters of principle.

Meanwhile I would again caution those who are pro gun as a matter of principle to heed my "tip about debating" chapter and not argue too forcefully about the pragmatism of handgun rights if they can't prove their point and it is not their real reason to hold their position. If they are later disproven by clearcut statistics they take a big hit that they didn't need to.

Karak nailed it down perfectly, very well analyzed and written.

To me it's like laugh tracks: in theory they are a nuisance, since if it is fun we'll laugh and if it is not we won't, and we don't need clues for that. But in practice, all producers know that people find a show more fun when there is some canned laughter, whatever they think. But if the canned laughter is very loud and uninterrupted, it instantly spoils it all.

In the same vein, people prefer a book from an assertive author, ie. an authority, even though what should really matter is the content/ideas. Thus, a small dose of self-assurance, implicit or explicit, is ok. However, you awfully overdid it here in my opinion, which is unfortunate since several of your ideas precisely required caution and humility in their presentation.

Somewhat on par with what Karak stated,

I am on page 70 (one page after the 9 dots puzzle), and have experienced exactly one emotion in my reading of DUCY thus far: frustration.

Your persistent undermining of the readers intelligence, who would you say is reading this book? I think its primarily poker players who respect your contributions to the poker world and are fascinated by other intelligent thinkers, your inability to withhold your own self reverence and deflect praise, and your persistent reminders to the reader of your own contributions to Stupak's legacy are just mind numbing.

I understand that this facet of your book was to develop credibility, but for someone who claims to have developed faculties for all types of intelligence, not just quantitative, you do a mediocre job of purveying any emotional intelligence. I want to assume at least, a true "jack of all intelligences" (if you will) would deeply consider the way your anecdotes would be perceived by a wide variety of all audiences, and consequently manipulate your language accordingly such that you'd maximize the impression you make on said audiences. A kinder, more objective way to say this is, like Karak said, delve more into the logical processes themselves rather than the mere fact that they occurred.

I considered that you just might not care about the readers interpretation of your ego, but then you wouldn't spend the time to validate your intelligence if you didn't care about the reader's opinion.

In fairness, this post is an expression of my frustration and thus has its own biases, but I just wanted to let you know that as a reader, I was constantly subverting your ideas in the book to comfort my annoyance with your ego, which simply means your book had the opposite effect that it intended.

And of course, I have to consider that you're simply leveling your entire readership, and this was just some sick psychological experiment to see how tone, style, and presentation affected the ways the reader would interpret particular "new ideas". Because, damn, some of your comments are just too shameless.

I'd love to discuss the interaction between ego, intelligence, and the ability to truly extend one's worldview beyond the catch-22 of a trench that high intelligence creates - but thats probably not appropriate here. Perhaps a new thread sometime.

Since I had no interest in writing the book if it would be read mainly by poker players I felt obligated to explain to prospective readers who have never heard of me, and who would tend to think of me merely as a clever poker playing college dropout, that I was more than that. I may have gone too far. On the other hand the category of reader who will be most upset with my tone figures to be the very intelligent, well educated, good poker player who has already heard of me. Not as many chapters will be eye opening for them and a few they will consider personal attacks. I'm guessing that those people are overstating the case when it comes to the man on the street. And remember that I had a coauthor Phd in psychology who was advising me on this sort of thing. But I am going to carefully consider all criticisms when I make changes in the second printing.

The lack of "emotional intelligence" also appears in some ideas eg. The Bob Stupak Porter (p.54). It was fairly easy to anticipate what happened (in a nutshell, a porter was given full authority to make sure everything went well in the hotel, and the other managers didn't cooperate).

Al comments "Egotism and bureaucracy killed David's great idea". I would say the idea was a huge favorite to fail, and what killed it was failling to recognize that the managers' responsibilities play an important role in their motivation, in addition to their salary. It's like prestige for academics.