I don't and (didn't) discount training at all. I do think people should be selective in where they get that training and who's giving it to them. The same also applies to the opinions they choose to listen to and take to heart.
Example: There's a certain trainer out there who has quite a following. They call him an "expert". He's been an instructor for years, but his actual experience is almost ZERO. And when he was getting the experience (again...almost zero), he performed very poorly by all accounts except his own. Yet, he's a recognized "expert" because he has been "teaching this stuff for years".
That's my point. Does having a resume bullet that says "10 years instructing CQB" make you an expert if your basis for instructing is almost no actual experience conducting CQB for real? Or would you say the guy who's not a recognized expert (simply because he doesn't care to be recognized as one), but has legitimate real world experience, has a better grasp of the subject?
That was all I was getting at. And I'm not directing it at anyone in particular or trying to stir the pot. Just a point to take into consideration.