You are claiming "This thing never works (and therefore your own experience is wrong)."
The person making a categorical claim has a higher burden of proof than the one making an individual one, especially when the former is attempting to invalidate the lived experience of the latter.
You may not feel like that's what you're doing, but lines like
> you're vastly overestimating what you can learn
> highly experienced people in this industry never post in chatrooms
> don't know what you don't know
...are all very condescending and attempt to generalize your experience to infinity. They absolutely attempt to invalidate other people's experience—they're not even just saying "what you're saying is impossible"; they're outright saying "(unlike me, who's smarter and/or more experienced) you don't realize that the learning you claim to have gotten was crap."
Well, you're misquoting me. Here is what I actually wrote:
> You're vastly overestimating what you can learn from randos in chatrooms and forums. Most of the best, highly experienced people in this industry never post in chatrooms or forums. You're getting a biased sample, and don't know what you don't know
These are simple facts. They're not "condescending", and more importantly, you wouldn't know if you were wrong, because you're getting a biased sample. That's the point. You don't see or hear from the people who don't post.
But, see, here's the thing: you also wouldn't know if you're wrong, because you'd be getting just as biased a sample, only from the other side—if you're just in the wrong chatrooms and forums.
Furthermore, what you are doing is absolutely, unquestionably, telling other people "I don't know what you learned from these people, and furthermore, I don't have to know, because my experience, which is universal and unassailable in all possible ways, tells me that it must not be enough. If you think you learned enough from these people to be a good mid-to-upper-level programmer, you're wrong. No one can learn to be that good from this. Again, with the only evidence given being that I was unable to do that in this way."
> you also wouldn't know if you're wrong, because you'd be getting just as biased a sample, only from the other side—if you're just in the wrong chatrooms and forums.
Of everywhere I have ever worked and everyone I have ever worked with -- including some big, extremely well-known names -- only a tiny percentage of those people were active contributors online. Moreover, the most experienced, productive, highest-ranking people contributed less, for a variety of practical reasons, ranging from "PR risk" to "I don't want to get fired from my job" to "don't have the time".
This is consistent with an entire career working on the web, where the pattern is always that the vast majority of people lurk.
Could my sample be horribly misrepresentative? I suppose, but it isn't likely.
And if you were coming into a discussion with people saying "I think this thing happens", and you said "No, I don't think this thing happens, based on my personal experience," that would be one thing.
You're not.
You're coming into a discussion with people saying, "I have experienced this thing happening to me," and you're saying "I don't think this thing happens, based on my experience", which means you are trying to use your non-universal experience to tell other people that their experience didn't happen.
The impression you gave me matches that quote you dismiss relatively well.
Perhaps you should also re-read it, you may have carried less of the nuance you intended into the actual text. What you wrote suggested that one can only attain a moderate capability without in-person mentoring from experts. If nothing else this heavily insinuates those you're conversing with are incapable and inexpert.
> What you wrote suggested that one can only attain a moderate capability without in-person mentoring from experts.
Like I said, it's hard to frame "you don't have this life experience yet" in any other way. I did use these words:
> this will only take you from absolute noob to moderately competent junior
...in reference to learning stuff online. I stand by that, because even if you are fully remote for your entire career, you're going to need some level of mentoring to level up. That's just a fact. Reductio ad absurdum: suggesting that you can become John Carmack or Jeff Dean by reading Stack Overflow.
But I also explicitly put an edit on the end of it where I disclaim the generalization you're making -- before you made your comment.
You can become better than
Jeff Dean or John Carmack without mentoring in fact mentoring is negatively associated with self learning which you will need to blaze a new trail.
I have actually done what OP is proposing, and found it to be inadequate. I tried to explain why.