Yes, some Talkers have great ideas, and some Doers offer terrible advice. I think a more nuanced mental framework that avoids ad-hominem is "opinions" vs "exper

Yes, some Talkers have great ideas, and some Doers offer terrible advice. I think a more nuanced mental framework that avoids ad-hominem is "opinions" vs "experiences". Some Talkers peddle opinions because they haven't got any experience. Most Doers peddle the experiences they had. Why does this matter? Anything can be opinion if it isn't backed by data. Many opinions that look great on paper are terrible in practice. If someone is offering you an experience (or anecdote), at least they have a single data point to back it up. A surprising amount of influence is exerted on the internet based on "one guy's opinion". The better Talkers aggregate experiences of others to back up their opinions. This tends to provide better evidence than a single anecdote, and can be done even if you have no hands on experience with the subject. So to your point a better way to frame it might be "what data/evidence is this person giving to support their argument?"