Does trading require talent?

[temptrader]

I don't want or need hope, I'm perfectly happy with the person that I am. After all, I am able to mold myself into anything your imagination can conceive

No seriously, I have backup up every post I've made with scientific research. Not opinions, but facts. Results. Statistics. Numbers. Hypotheses been tested and validated. Regardless whether we agree or disagree, this post doesn't exactly show much respect to the other party. As far as I can tell, I've shown respect for new_trader and at this point I better understand his view on the matter. Which is important, if you want to discuss rationally.

Good God, firewalker, you still don't get it do you? Let me be utterly - and brutally - clear with you, if you can understand the proof to Fermat's Last Theorem I'd be very much interested in considering your view and opinions, and conversing with you and prodding your brain, until then I couldn't give a damn.

new_trader, cut the nonsense and get out here and tell them why you started this thread. Because I know you are delighted at what your mischief has achieved for you and how you and your friends at "the other side" are saying what a load of monkey posts that are being made here for your entertainment, I'm made fun of too no doubt.

 

[temptrader]

"they want "HOPE"."

I knew it temptrader! YOU...are a, NO HOPER!

The last dinner party old Livermore threw, you were there, going on and on about NO HOPE!

So thats why he put the gun in his mouth!

Oh, God, does that mean I got my first rotten tomatoe thrown at me now?

 

[Paul71]

Oh, God, does that mean I got my first rotten tomatoe thrown at me now?

:cheesy:

 

[temptrader]

And again you resort to ridicule and insults. So very scientific of you.

If you are so wise and knowledgable and have all the answers why can you not debate your point of view without insults?

Cheers,
PKFFW
P.S: My nick has less letters than your own, it should be easy enough even for someone of your capabilities to get right.

You think I'm insulting you? Where did you get that idea from?

Rational discussion? nah, what you need is a discussion in philosophy of science, and unfortunately I can't entertain you on that since I'm a crap philosopher.

 

[Profitaker]

Was it DBP that that predicted that this thread would go around in circles (N to the pwr of 10 times) ? Where N = No. of posts.

Some fascinating posts along the way, but are we now any closer to a consecus opinion ?

 

[firewalker99]

Good God, firewalker, you still don't get it do you? Let me be utterly - and brutally - clear with you, if you can read the proof to Fermat's Last Theorem I'd be very much interested in considering your view and opinions, until then I couldn't give a damn.

I don't need to, there's plenty of literature available for those who are willing to understand research, without vulgarizing things into a media circus. Maybe the exact problem you have, is the attitude "I couldn't give a damn". If you did, you would've at least reviewed some of the things posted and said here.

And if you really did, you might have even tried to get in touch with some of these scientific brains (like I did) who are on to discoveries that might change the way we think about ourselves and value our talents/abilities.

But there's little point in continuining a discussion, if you truly believe that only those who are capable of solving Fermat's last theorem are fit to discuss the matter. So why did you engage and participate in this thread then?

For the record, I've contributed posts to both sides of the argument, in case you failed to notice. At least I'm open to suggestion.

new_trader, cut the nonsense and get out here and tell them why you started this thread. Because I know you are delighted at what your mischief has achieved for you and how you and your friends at "the other side" are saying what a load of monkey posts that are being made here for your entertainment, I'm made fun of too no doubt.

I hope "the other side" is enjoying this as much as I am

 

[firewalker99]

Was it DBP that that predicted that this thread would go around in circles (N to the pwr of 10 times) ? Where N = No. of posts.

Some fascinating posts along the way, but are we now any closer to a consecus opinion ?

The problem is, as dbp also iterated on several occasions, there is no consensus about the definitions. Before you can discuss anything, you must first be clear about what it is you are saying. During the course of this thread, it's been clearly shown that not everybody has been clear about that and (no offense) new_trade also confused several terms which in turn might lead to misunderstands and miscommunications.

So, going back to the first post, new_trader asked "does trading require talent?" he should first define what he means by "talent".

 

[temptrader]

I don't need to, there's plenty of literature available for those who are willing to understand research, without vulgarizing things into a media circus. Maybe the exact problem you have, is the attitude "I couldn't give a damn". If you did, you would've at least reviewed some of the things posted and said here.

And if you really did, you might have even tried to get in touch with some of these scientific brains (like I did) who are on to discoveries that might change the think about ourselves and value our talents/abilities.

"who are on to discoveries that might change the think about ourselves and value our talents/abilities", (cough, cough, cough). Erm, what were you saying? Something in my throat there.

But there's little point in continuining a discussion, if you truly believe that only those who are capable of solving Fermat's last theorem are fit to discuss the matter. So why did you engage and participate in this thread then?

For the record, I've contributed posts to both sides of the argument, in case you failed to notice. At least I'm open to suggestion.

I hope "the other side" is enjoying this as much as I am

I mention that particular theorem as an example of "earning" one's rank. Because if you did, ever, get to understand that monumental piece of work(highly unlikely knowing that there are only less than 20 people on this earth capable of such a feat) you would not be exhibiting the traits/views that you have on this thread. My engagement in this thread was mainly to see why people believe in what they believe, and as an education in why people like to read things into results that are probably not well understood yet. Do you follow that logic or not?

I've given you digital bounds, and mentioned certain flaws in the argument. If you want to take this discussion further we will be drifting to philosophy, and I'm a crap philosopher so excuse me before I get more tomatoes thrown at me.

 

[Profitaker]

Before you can discuss anything, you must first be clear about what it is you are saying.

Indeed, and that was never made clear. The thread title was extremely vague and subjective.

I hope "the other side" is enjoying this as much as I am

Can we stay on thread topic please, and not bring this site into disrepute by association.

 

[tune]

So, going back to the first post, new_trader asked "does trading require talent?" he should first define what he means by "talent".

Not having to do the work methinks.

 

[temptrader]

Before you can discuss anything, you must first be clear about what it is you are saying.

Indeed!!! If this thread was about a mathematical theorem I'd wipe the floor with you firewalker!!

Mathematics requires axioms (rules of the game), that we accept without question since they are the rules of the game.

The problem at the heart of this thread lies in our disputes over the very axioms about how we see/view the world and what the consequence of those axioms are. And when that happens, you might as well talk crap . . . (I'm glutten for punishment ain't I?)

 

[firewalker99]

temptrader, let me ask you the following question.

The majority of the scientific community will agree that it is we, humans, who are (to a certain extent) responsible for the change in earth's climate and temperature. There is a small minority who (setting political motives aside) claim that human CO-2 emissions are far too tiny to matter.

Now the first group, the larger one, has attracted the public's attention. You'll probably find articles about the climate in your average women's magazine these days. I bet only a handful of people will have read, let alone understood completely, every research study. Yet there seems to be consent about what caused the change.

The IPCC's report included words as "extremely likely", "virtually certain",... [that the change is to be attributed to human activity].

You are entitled to your own opinion. We all are. But my question is, at which point are you going to accept the possibility that the first group might be right? Those who argue that there is insufficent proof for the anthropogenic attribution usually come up with new physical mechanism to try and explain what has caused this to happen. Do you accept these hypotheses to be more plausible than those of the first group?

Compare all this to the biological versus social determinism debate and I hope you understand my point. Feel free to share your thoughts.

 

[PKFFW]

You think I'm insulting you? Where did you get that idea from?

Rational discussion? nah, what you need is a discussion in philosophy of science, and unfortunately I can't entertain you on that since I'm a crap philosopher.

No that time the ridicule wasn't directed at me. Doesn't mean it wasn't ridicule though now does it?

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[PKFFW]

Indeed!!! If this thread was about a mathematical theorem I'd wipe the floor with you firewalker!!

Mathematics requires axioms (rules of the game), that we accept without question since they are the rules of the game.

The problem at the heart of this thread lies in our disputes over the very axioms about how we see/view the world and what the consequence of those axioms are. And when that happens, you might as well talk crap . . . (I'm glutten for punishment ain't I?)

And so we get to the crux of the matter.

You are desperate to show your own supposed superiority.

Unfortunately you are trying to argue from your own viewpoint and expertise. The ideas I have been putting forward do not fall in your area of expertise(mathematics). Your knowledge of the latest research and evidence relating to these matters falls obviously short and so you fall back on parrotting your expertise over and over and over again in the hopes that we will all bow down and proclaim our unworthiness to discuss anything with you.

Sounds like you deserve to be a member of that other site you mentioned earlier.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[firewalker99]

Not having to do the work methinks.

Good start, I think!

So my view is that nobody comes to a point of success without doing something.
For some "the work" might not feel as work though. For some "the work" will feel like fun and most likely these people -who enjoy doing what they are doing- will get better at a faster rate and will keep getting better because they like what they're doing. And they've found out for themselves, that practice makes perfect.

 

[firewalker99]

Indeed!!! If this thread was about a mathematical theorem I'd wipe the floor with you firewalker!!

Who knows? Perhaps you should start a thread to find out

Mathematics requires axioms (rules of the game), that we accept without question since they are the rules of the game.

Which rules do you want to lay down then? The need to accept certain axioms doesn't necessarily rule out everything else as false. Euclidean geometry defines that we can only draw one line through a given point, parallel to a given line. In non-Euclidean geometry we can have either two (hyperbolic geometry) or no lines (elliptic geometry). It all depends on what you start out with.

Getting back on topic, we started with talent.
Do some people just have it all going for them, is it luck, is it talent, or they born for greatness or did they all have to put a serious effort in to achieve their state of mastery?

 

[tune]

Good start, I think!

So my view is that nobody comes to a point of success without doing something.
For some "the work" might not feel as work though. For some "the work" will feel like fun and most likely these people -who enjoy doing what they are doing- will get better at a faster rate and will keep getting better because they like what they're doing. And they've found out for themselves, that practice makes perfect.

Dedication. That's what ya need.

 

[temptrader]

I told you I was glutton for punishment, now I've off to clean my face of all the rotten tomatoes thrown at me. . . .

You are desperate to show your own supposed superiority.

Superiority in what, pray tell? I was merely saying that if we accepted the AXIOMS there would no arguments and disagreements. When someone plays chess with me and they move the rook like a knight, does it show my "superiority" that I tell them that they've moved the rook the wrong way according to the rules of the game? Pray tell, dear sir.

And that is at the f*cking heart of this thread, we are getting different results/beliefs because the "axioms" are undefined/not agreed upon.

 

[PKFFW]

Superiority in what, pray tell? I was merely saying that if we accepted the AXIOMS there would no arguments and disagreements. When someone plays chess with me and they move the rook like a knight, does it show my "superiority" that I tell them that they've moved the rook the wrong way according to the rules of the game? Pray tell, dear sir.

And that is at the f*cking heart of this thread, we are getting different results/beliefs because the "axioms" are undefined/not agreed upon.

Firstly, as you have pointed out the "axioms" are undefined and not agreed upon. So it is not your right to advise someone they are "breaking the rules". The mere fact that you believe you do have the right speaks volumes.

Secondly, I believe what you posted was......

Indeed!!! If this thread was about a mathematical theorem I'd wipe the floor with you firewalker!!

Now if that doesn't hint just a little of believing in your own superiority I don't know what does.

And lets not forget how you stated it is not worth your time discussing things without the other person being able to understand some theorem or other and noting that only 20 people on earth can. Implying(without specifically stating I note) that you are one of those 20. No that doesn't smack of a self congratulatory egotistical superiority complex a little does it?

So you claim to be good at math. Once again, that doesn't prove you know squat about the latest research and evidence into the nature of matter and the malleability of matter by thought. If you ever do care to educate yourself in that area then feel free to come back and debate the issues I have raised. Until then you are simply proving your own ignorance in this area and whilst it is quite amusing to me it is also a little sad now.

Cheers,
PKFFW
P.S: Please do keep the name joke going it's quite amusing to see just what depths you will stoop to in order to avoid having to confront the actual issues raised.

 

[the blades]

does trading require talent? I don't know, but understanding this thread does. And it rules me out

UTB