Reading books and 2+2 vs. Experience

[Triumph36]

This is an odd post, so bear with me.

I multi-table NL200 6 max. I've built my roll from an initial deposit of $400 into around $6000 over the last nine months.

I've read most of the books I can get my hands on - Super/System, PL/NL by Ciaffone and Reuben, Ace on the River I own and have read several times, I've read HEFAP and some of TOP.

Yet I wonder how good I'd be at poker if I hadn't read those books or read this website. Back when I was crushing the Paradise Poker 7 stud play money and only understood the basic concepts - could I have figured the more complicated concepts out, like the 5 and 10 rule? Would I have even come up with the idea of implied odds, if I hadn't read about it? I've worked hard to build this bankroll, both by studying and playing, but I take pride in figuring things out myself. I see players overplaying their ace queen or calling too much pre-flop with a pocket pair and think, would I be doing that if I hadn't read not to? When would it have occured to me through experience that high broadway cards are a trap hand rather than a Vince Van Patten 'real hand'?

I understand the stock response to this kind of thought is that the books are available to anyone who wants them, and 2+2 is available to anyone who wants it, and that I'm just taking advantage. Maybe I just want to claim I'm a self-taught genius like Prahlad Friedman or Phil Ivey - or I just want to be better than the fish I beat even without the extra advantages. I don't know.