Another example of some uncharitable reading(standard). Giving advice from the negative as you described is fine.
Are we playing this game?
Complaining that someone is not qualifield to give advice because they did not take any risk "in the field" or did not "experience it themselves" without qualifying what would constitute good advice or a good advisor is pretty standard too. At least personally I would not insist on my physician having had cancer before.
Though I do have to admit that the comment about the average nerd is more accurate than I'd like to admit. I won't continue this discussion further.
Follow-Up to: A Guide to Rational Investing Financial Planning Sequence (defunct) The Rational Investor
What are your recommendations and ideas about financial effectiveness?
This post is created in response to a comment on this Altruistic Effectiveness post and thus may have a slight focus on EA. But it is nonetheless meant as a general request for financial effectiveness information (effectiveness as in return on invested time mostly). I think this could accumulate a lot of advice and become part of the Repository Repository (which surprisingly has not much advice of this kind yet).
I seed this with a few posts about this found on LessWrong in the comments. What other posts and links about financial effectiveness do you know of?
Rules:
General Advice (from Guide to Rational Investing):
So what are your recommendations? You may give advanced as well as simple advice. The more the better for this to become a real repository. You may also repeat or link advice given elsewere on LessWrong.