Alan, I'm going to disagree vehemently with you on this one. If an investment specialist wrote a book about how he made his clients 30% return in a year, but neglected to mention the following year when he bankrupted everyone, that just wouldn't fly as a "true" report. Similarly, any events involving variance, wherein one cherry picks the data segment one prefers to report, while ignoring others, is not exactly an "accurate" report by any scientific measure. In science, you can't compartmentalize data and just report what you prefer. You can do that in modern capitalist advertising, but that doesn't make the reportage "true" in any overall sense.
If Dancer did indeed blow a healthy chunk of his 500K immediately after the convenient end-point of the book, as Rob reports, then he's cherry-picking his data. Whatever the opposite of a "hatchet job" is, he's doing it. It's as if I reported winning 17 consecutive games (which I did three years ago), and then neglected to report I immediately lost 18 in a row (which I did not). Did I tell a "true story?" Maybe by modern advertising standards. But certainly not by any scientific ones. You can't just choose what you want to report and think that's a valid representation of reality.
Reply With Quote