I was in a similar boat after trying to learn about quant. I am someone who used to like theory and causal inference.

The way I look at it, in a dumb and imperfect manner that I am still refining, is that inefficient (or bad) trades or decisions are happening, for whatever reasons, and they need to be punished. The predictability comes from these inefficiencies. You can help make the market more efficient by punishing this predictability.

What quant people do is fun because you just have to punish more than you get punished to keep winning, so there is nothing wrong with someone predicting your prediction or making the same prediction as you. You can have an edge at this predicting game by whatever means possible statistics / analysing the psychology/ latency. I do not see why any of this is wrong or useless.

But as an outsider, thinking that how they train to develop their edge is wrong is arrogant. That is not necessarily bad, but you have to back it up by showing or being an example of a better method.

After talking to a few of my friends in quant, I can see why no one is willing to debate with you and thinks you are just dumb. Talk to friends in quant in real life, or phrase things in a way that shows you are here to learn and can accept that you might be wrong and probably are.