> Zed shaw is too cocky, so whatever he says is shit.
I don't find Zed's views on programming to be terribly insightful either. I have a hunch that one directly leads to the other. I watched a talk he did about Javascript, several times, making sure I understood what he was saying when he was calling it a pile of shit, and walked away with the realization that Zed either didn't understand basic OOP, or did at some point then decided that it wasn't sexy anymore. Because all the problems he found could be easily fixed with basic SOLID techniques.
I have a hunch that his "Learn XXX the hard way" books wouldn't be very helpful either, the tone set in the title indicates to me that instead of translating good principles to code, he's going to beat us over the head with a bottom-up approach to learning a language rather than the saner way.
All of this points to Zed as someone trying to fit the world to his personality, rather than trying to truly understand the world as it is. His first response to some programming thing not fitting in with the way he thinks it should is to lambast it as stupid, this goes with languages, other developers, pretty much anything.
Now, that's not exactly "Zed's cocky, so everything he says sucks," but what it does mean is that unless you have Zed's personality, you're not going to get much out of what he has to say. Because you won't approach problems the same way he does.
Personally I prefer Giles Bowkett, whose tone and personality doesn't get in the way of his ideas. When something gets in his way, he works around it (with a small amount of cursing) rather than call it shit for 30 minutes. His books solve problems rather than creates them.
So while criticizing a person's personality isn't, by itself, the way to enlightenment, you shouldn't completely ignore such things, either. Because if you look closely enough, these traits will point to the deeper problems with their ideas that you do need to come to a fuller understanding.