When it comes to outperforming your opponent experience will in any and all cases
beat lack of experience. There are so many factors that comes into play but the basic
concept and rule remains the same: knowing the situation and mindset from first
hand experience and point of view is invaluable when trying to counter or avoid the
opponent, whether it is a person, concept, subject, an action or abstract phenomena.
You cannot possibly tell someone how to drive a car efficiently if you yourself have
never driven one yourself, simply because you do not know how to operate in that
mindset, you do not know how a person who drives a car actually thinks and reacts;
thus making the driver of a car superior to a non driver in terms of experience and
knowledge; if you have never been in severe pain, you cannot even begin to imagine
how it feels or how you would think or react when you are subjected to that situation.
This applies to any and all fields of life, if you want to counter or overcome any
opposition, you will succeed with the greatest ease and success if you yourself have
previous experience of being in that situation and mindset. A book might give you a
hint or clue, but actual experience will give you the full knowledge, because experience
is based in genuine struggle. A scholar without practice is nothing but a storage for data
whereas a scholar with actual experience is a true performer; in whichever field it might be.
I myself as someone who have experienced both being completely oblivious and
completely enlightened know with great certainty when somebody speaks out of
experience or just plain intellectual regurgitation. That is how I know when to strike,
defend or apply a con.

"Check"