Does trading require talent?

[mr_cassandra]

I agree that creativity should come naturally. You can't "force" people to suddenly think out of the box in the next 15 minutes. Creativity should come as something fresh, unexpected, and may result in a totally new concept or idea.

This is a key point. Imo, first you need to realize that society, church and govt has programmed you and everyone around you with a large mount of beliefs that may or may not be true. The degree to which you can ferret this out and get past it will be closely related to enhancing your ability to 'think outside the box'

I'm using many factors in my program that 'online self-styled experts' told me wouldn't work. But when you questioned them, they were mostly parroting a good sounding catch phrase, like all systems fail. Many times they had never even checked but just ran with the ball, as if it were the gospel.

 

[Rhody Trader]

On the creativity subject, I've come to believe we all have it. I didn't always think that. In fact I long considered myself not to be creative. It was a changing of that view point which really opened me up to being so. It was a question of allowing myself to be and not thinking myself into not being.

That said, creativity does need foundational material upon which to work. No one is going to just up and think of something completely new and unrelated to anything they have ever thought of, been exposed to, or experienced along the way.

 

[firewalker99]

On the creativity subject, I've come to believe we all have it. I didn't always think that. In fact I long considered myself not to be creative. It was a changing of that view point which really opened me up to being so. It was a question of allowing myself to be and not thinking myself into not being.

That said, creativity does need foundational material upon which to work. No one is going to just up and think of something completely new and unrelated to anything they have ever thought of, been exposed to, or experienced along the way.

But most of the creative outburst happen when we least expect it. All of us can probably remember a time where we suddenly found ourselves lying awake at night and getting exactly that idea or solution to a problem we had been dwelling on for some time. Archimedes reportedly had his Aha-erlebnis whilst taking a bath

 

[mr_cassandra]

creattivity

But most of the creative outburst happen when we most expect it. All of us can probably remember a time where we suddenly found ourselves lying awake at night and getting exactly that idea or solution to a problem we had been dwelling on for some time. Archimedes reportedly had his Aha-erlebnis whilst taking a bath

I feel another important aspect is thinking outside the box. Not meaning any specific person or idea, you have to understand that the world is full of learned sounding pontifications, for example in mechanical trading systems. If you dig into the person making the pronouncemnts, sometimes you'll find they have never even built one of their own, but are just 'parroting' something they once heard.

Point being, part of the creative process is to disable the limiting beliefs these boards abound with.

 

[Rhody Trader]

But most of the creative outburst happen when we most expect it. All of us can probably remember a time where we suddenly found ourselves lying awake at night and getting exactly that idea or solution to a problem we had been dwelling on for some time. Archimedes reportedly had his Aha-erlebnis whilst taking a bath

I'm guess you mean to say when we least expect it rather than most.

I definitely agree with that point. Walking and driving have always been some of my best inspiration times, just letting my mind flow.

But my point was that inspiration is based on something pre-exisiting. You have to have a foundation of knowledge and/or experience from which to be inspired. Inspiration doesn't just come out of nothing. Just as one cannot expect to trade well if you know nothing about trading.

 

[Rhody Trader]

I feel another important aspect is thinking outside the box. Not meaning any specific person or idea, you have to understand that the world is full of learned sounding pontifications, for example in mechanical trading systems. If you dig into the person making the pronouncemnts, sometimes you'll find they have never even built one of their own, but are just 'parroting' something they once heard.

Point being, part of the creative process is to disable the limiting beliefs these boards abound with.

It's not even necessarily about whether someone has experience applying what they are telling you. There are a great many researchers in science and other fields who make fantastic discoveries and can tell us extremely useful things, but aren't what we would call practitioners.

To my mind the bigger problems with the exchange of information between traders here on T2W and in other places is that a great many traders have relatively narrow scopes of experience and end up speaking from it as if there were no other market viewpoints.

We've all seen it. A question gets asked and someone answers it saying you should only risk x%, you should aim for an x:1 win/loss ratio, you shouldn't use a system with less than x% winners ---- insert absolute statement here. The answer fails to take into account other potentialities.

You can often tell the more experienced traders on these threads pretty clearly from the newer ones simply by the fact that they don't get really specific when doling out the advice. They know that everyone has to approach things differently and that there are a lot of ways to make money in the markets, not one specific one in any area of trading.

 

[PKFFW]

.......driving have always been some of my best inspiration times, just letting my mind flow.

I hope I'm not on the road when you are.

j/k
PKFFW

 

[temptrader]

about time I had a bit of FUN

If you were Mr Newton living in the 17th century, how would you like it if someone who only read bits of your work propose that light is the same speed within all inertial frames, or that one day it is possible to split the atom and harness that energy, and offer no proof or background to go about this and instead talk a load of total BS about "willing" and "positive thinking"? Notwithstanding that the person is right, of what f*cking practical use would it be in the 17th century when all the groundwork has not even been laid yet?

I wouldn't be so caught up in my own self congratulatory wealth of knowledge as to suggest what the person was talking about was illrelevent, impossible and "total BS".

Then again, I like to come from a point of view of investigating an idea before I discard it because it doesn't fit with what I think is so.

hmmmm. . . . . Are you by any chance high on drugs, self esteem, or just messed up in the head? I mean, come on, there are limits to people's patience but I didn't realised I let this BS of yours slip by. There is no limits to imagination, of that I would agree. But there are limits to our logical understanding and experimental capabilities, and that defines our bounds. To reach and understand the latter requires a lot of hard work, it also involves the supreme use of one's intelligence and patience. It also involves admitting you are wrong when you are wrong - something that few are able to do. Imagination costs nothing, to discover/prove something in a scientific framework does. It needs to be refereed, discussed openly and empirically tested. And all this done with total transparency and impartiality.

I wouldn't be so caught up in my own self congratulatory wealth of knowledge as to suggest what the person was talking about was illrelevent, impossible and "total BS".

My point, if you have not bothered to realise, is that there are loads of nutcases, cranks, idiots on this earth claiming this and that, with no proof or experimental evidence, or it's just that what they claim is not technological feasible to prove at this moment in time. So what does one do with such claims? We treat them as either wrong (because they contradict other established theories/notions) or cast them as anomalies (something not possible to explain yet; surprise, surprise even the scientists don't have all the answers!!) or they belong to the unfalsifiable (in which case there is no point in discussing them, because if we did it would get nowhere). I am all for a revolutionary set of ideas and ways of looking at things, but those revolutions have always been within a testable/logical/scientific framework.

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.

No actually, I'm not one of the 20 that understand the proof I have the proof and a few books on it. For me to get to partially understanding the proof would probably take 10 years. I am ignorant of most things because that's what specialisation does to you, if you ever trodden that path that is.

Did you say: "latest research and evidence into the nature of matter and the malleability of matter by thought"? LOL!!! I'm sure FW is in on this crap as well.

I'll be honest here: my reason on this thread has always been the same - seeing how people believe what they want to believe and how they defend their beliefs. And it's sad, because it's to do with the ego. The ego in the sense that people want to believe in strange/weird crap because they have not got much in life, are not particularly intelligent, generally lazy and any suggestions/concepts that might seem plausible and which fits/strengthens their beliefs they latch onto as a form of social identity. That's why idiots like David Icke will always have followers, because his followers are messed up people who basically have no real intelligence, and think with their feelings instead of logic and common sense. And there's also a need to feel special and have an "us and them" game with the outside world.

 

[PKFFW]

I shouldn't bother but since you find it fun who am I to deny you what is seemingly your only enjoyment in life?

I'll be honest here: my reason on this thread has always been the same - seeing how people believe what they want to believe and how they defend their beliefs.

No, your reason here is quite obviously to bait and hook and stir up crap.

And it's sad, because it's to do with the ego. The ego in the sense that people want to believe in strange/weird crap because they have not got much in life, are not particularly intelligent, generally lazy and any suggestions/concepts that might seem plausible and which fits/strengthens their beliefs they latch onto as a form of social identity.

Let me see......

1: The topic has been left dormant for about 6 weeks
2: It was left dormant because it was obvious to all involved that no agreement could be reached. Further, your remarks and posts took on a particularly personally insulting tone.
3: You bring up the topic again and add nothing but personal insults and vitriolic diatribe.

Now what's that you say about ego and the need to defend what one believes?

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[temptrader]

I like a good fight . . .

I shouldn't bother but since you find it fun who am I to deny you what is seemingly your only enjoyment in life?

No, your reason here is quite obviously to bait and hook and stir up crap.

Let me see......

1: The topic has been left dormant for about 6 weeks
2: It was left dormant because it was obvious to all involved that no agreement could be reached. Further, your remarks and posts took on a particularly personally insulting tone.
3: You bring up the topic again and add nothing but personal insults and vitiolic diatribe.

Now what's that you say about ego and the need to defend what one believes?

Cheers,
PKFFW

Tell me, PKFFW, for what it's worth, has any technological applications/inventions have ever resulted from your beliefs in these energy waves/positive thinking crap? Because I would hazard a guess that the answer is a definite NO. Why is that do you think? Is it just because you talk unfalsifiable CRAP? Or am I missing something here? If you read carefully what I've bothered to post you'll see what I'm getting at.

There was a program recently on channel 4 that go into conspiracy theories (and it covered David Icke amongst others). What they found out was that people who felt victimised, alienated throughout their lives were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. They even had one of the psychology professors talk to Icke and the result was as expected.

I hold the view here that people believe in all this unfalsifiable crap because they themselves are just that: rubbish. They neither have the intelligence/talent to get to where they can discuss things properly, see things in the right light, because it eludes them - they don't have what it takes. Hence it's easier for them to believe/be persuaded by all this mumbo jumbo that we have, because that requires no work/logical thinking at all. All that is required is an appeal to "maybe, just maybe" this is what's happening. . . .

 

[PKFFW]

Tell me, PKFFW, for what it's worth, has any technological applications/inventions have ever resulted from your beliefs in these energy waves/positive thinking crap? Because I would hazard a guess that the answer is a definite NO. Why is that do you think? Is it just because you talk unfalsifiable CRAP?

I have stated again and again that what I am talking about is the very latest scientific theories and experiements.

Now tell me, did any invention or technology become suddenly available when Newton theorised about gravity? Did the atom bomb spring into existence immediatly upon completion of Einsteins' theory of relativity? No. Now that those ideas/theories have been fully comprehended and studied further many fruitful things have come from them.

You seem to be implying that if no technology or invention has resulted from something then it simply can not be true. That is a very illogical and very unscientific view point.

Or am I missing something here?

Yes you are missing something here. Whether by design or simple ignorance I do not know and nor do I care.

If you read carefully what I've bothered to post you'll see what I'm getting at.

You have not posted anything of interest to me or relevence to what I am talking about.

There was a program recently on channel 4 that go into conspiracy theories (and it covered David Icke amongst others). What they found out was that people who felt victimised, alienated throughout their lives were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. They even had one of the psychology professors talk to Icke and the result was as expected.

Your point?

I have never discussed conspiracy theories. As far as I know this thread has not once brought up conspiracy theories.

Your are falling back on the old "build a strawman and then destroy it" type of argument. This is only used by those who can not defend their point through rational discussion.

I hold the view here that people believe in all this unfalsifiable crap because they themselves are just that: rubbish. They neither have the intelligence/talent to get to where they can discuss things properly, see things in the right light, because it eludes them - they don't have what it takes. Hence it's easier for them to believe/be persuaded by all this mumbo jumbo that we have, because that requires no work/logical thinking at all. All that is required is an appeal to "maybe, just maybe" this is what's happening. . . .

What view you hold about something I have not been discussing at all holds no interest to me.

I am done with this thread now.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[firewalker99]

But most of the creative outburst happen when we least expect it. All of us can probably remember a time where we suddenly found ourselves lying awake at night and getting exactly that idea or solution to a problem we had been dwelling on for some time. Archimedes reportedly had his Aha-erlebnis whilst taking a bath

One month later, scientists confirm what most of us intuitively already knew:

"...if you’re stuck on a problem that requires creativity, the first thing to do is relax, mentally. Stop pursuing the same old dead ends. Let your thoughts wander. Let your attention flit between seemingly irrelevant memories and thoughts. That’s the best way to let disparate pieces of the puzzle come together into your own eureka moment."

Full article can be found here:
Eureka

 

[firewalker99]

Did you say: "latest research and evidence into the nature of matter and the malleability of matter by thought"? LOL!!! I'm sure FW is in on this crap as well.

As PKFFW has said, there's little point in digging up something from some months ago. But as far as I still remember I never said anything like the statement above where you are incorrectly assuming other people's beliefs or convictions. That sounds hardly scientific to me...

As for the television documentary you are refering to, I hardly find Channel 4 a reliable resource. Don't get me wrong, I think David Icke is worth nothing more than a good laugh, but that's not the point. The point is all of my arguments have been backed up with at least some references or articles from scientific journals. Yours have been backup up by personal experience as you've stated on more than one occasion.

But anyway, as PKFFW said... little point in bringing this thread back active unless you have a new original topic to discuss. But without having anything concrete we can go around walking in circles and unless I read something new or original, I have better things to do really.

 

[temptrader]

As PKFFW has said, there's little point in digging up something from some months ago. But as far as I still remember I never said anything like the statement above where you are incorrectly assuming other people's beliefs or convictions. That sounds hardly scientific to me...

As for the television documentary you are refering to, I hardly find Channel 4 a reliable resource. Don't get me wrong, I think David Icke is worth nothing more than a good laugh, but that's not the point. The point is all of my arguments have been backed up with at least some references or articles from scientific journals. Yours have been backup up by personal experience as you've stated on more than one occasion.

But anyway, as PKFFW said... little point in bringing this thread back active unless you have a new original topic to discuss. But without having anything concrete we can go around walking in circles and unless I read something new or original, I have better things to do really.

Dear FW,

The psychology professors were NOT interested in whether the conspiracy theories that the people believed were true or not - that's an entirely different matter - what they were interested in why some types of people were predisposed to take the conspiracy route, and are more suggestible to such paranoia.

I am not debating about creativity/genius here. If I were to be honest I take no real view since the human mind is something that science does not understand that well. We know more about the behaviour of atoms and elementary particles than people's prejudices.

Did you say that your points have been backed up by scientific evidence? LOL!!! Or is that certain individuals (scientists??!) who are seeing a bit too much into the data taken, and people like you all too ready to believe them. There are many scientists on this earth, and most of them are mediocre to say the least. They stumble on something here and there and argue it with the colleagues/committees, some convince themselves that their work is radical/revolutionary etc. . . . and some are right, but most are just deluded and continue at their work till either old age or lack of enthusiasm gets the better of them.

And I find that link to your article a piece of s***. It written more like some trashy "self help/you are worth it/anyone can do it" article, probably aimed at businessmen or people seeking ways to self improvement. I'm certain that the scientists in question did their jobs properly in collecting data, but what you don't seem to see is that we are using crude measures to understand something so complex. It's a shoddy piece of work. It would be like an ecologist studying animal behaviour with only the aid of a microphone and all he does is camp outside the jungle listening to the noises, without being able to observe the animals at all. What kind of picture do you think that would give? Granted he might get something, but what he gets is not the full picture, which requires better observation techniques/equipment to go further. I will believe and accept their findings of these people when they can go inside a human mind and capture the thoughts and images that the brain processes - until then it's all rather basic crap that everyone would see as plausible and know. It's a bit like the study carried out by a team of scientists who proved (statistically anyway) that men go for good looking women and women tend to go for wealthy/powerful men. Surprise, surprise, how many people in this world know that just by life experience and general observations? And what a waste of resources to come up with that, although to be fair it had merit in being an impartial and controlled study.

There is no disagreement between me and you, FW. You think the premise that hard work/study etc. . . and you can achieve anything you want. I submit that that is not only wishful thinking, it's utterly retarded and says more about your deluded beliefs. Throughout history there have been billions of people who have existed, but only a very tiny percentage of those were in the "genius" class. Always has, always will be.

 

[firewalker99]

And I find that link to your article a piece of s***. It written more like some trashy "self help/you are worth it/anyone can do it" article, probably aimed at businessmen or people seeking ways to self improvement.

Let's just be sure we are talking about the same thing. Which articles are you refering to? I think you are talking about the earlier links I posted several weeks ago in relation to the "hard work can achieve almost anything" and "talent is much overrated" concepts.

If so, than your obviously entitled to your own opinion. But like I said before, that's really the only thing you've contributed to this thread.

Instead you brazenly declare the work that people who've done much more study into the matter than you as "trash". Like PKFFW said... an ego issue more than anything.

I suggest you read through the near 1000 pages of the book "The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance" which summarize the studies and work done over the last couple of decades and from where the articles I posted got their mustard. Come back to this thread when you're done. If you truly consider it a "shoddy piece of work", than I think you should write to the authors and make some scientific publications of your own, debunking their original attempts at trying to study a complex matter.

 

[firewalker99]

It's a bit like the study carried out by a team of scientists who proved (statistically anyway) that men go for good looking women and women tend to go for wealthy/powerful men.

Which study might that be? Last thing I read on the matter - but I will admit being rather uninformed about the topic - told a different story. Wonder if you've seen the BBC documentary series "Secrets of the Sexes", definitely worth a view.

PS: “Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures."

 

[temptrader]

Which study might that be? Last thing I read on the matter - but I will admit being rather uninformed about the topic - told a different story. Wonder if you've seen the BBC documentary series "Secrets of the Sexes", definitely worth a view.

PS: “Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures."

FW,

You are speaking to someone who probably knows more about statistics than most people (massive hint there).

Tell me, FW, how come we have no idiot/cretins/morons (like your views about human psychology and PKF_whatshisname about positive thinking) critique about what Newton/Einstein and all the other physicists have done? I'll tell you why, it's because physics deals with rather simple objects. In fact the objects are so simple that they are totally uninteresting, and that's (strangely enough) is what makes them so interesting. We can do calculations on electron charge, work out the orbits of comet, work out energy usages etc. . .

But when you talk about human psychology, dear boy, you are opening a whole can of worms. Your studies and your links prove nothing - and are not conclusive, not in the slightest. Who's to say that certain alpha waves don't occur in other situations, and who's to say that they are a necessary AND sufficient condition for your eureka moment to take place? And who's to say that genius is all about Eureka moments? And how do you quantify/classify the degrees of these Eureka moments? Too many questions, too many variables, adds up to just inconclusive BS.

Also, I think you'll find that when you are stressed, or had a bad day, or something is bothering you, you are very unlikely to be at your mental best. But you don't need some scientists to prove that.

My view is that we will get further in understanding the prime numbers than we ever will our own psychology. If we did completely understood our psychology we don't need art, and we won't need Shakespeare/Golding/Camus etc . . . because they seem to understand us better than we do ourselves.

 

[firewalker99]

More evidence that the brain is more moldable than we thought

Forget Brain Age: Researchers Develop Software That Makes You Smarter

 

[BSD]

Thanks for sharing that, very interesting indeed !

 

[firewalker99]

Thanks for sharing that, very interesting indeed !

Thx, found so too! But these dual n-back tests aren't that easy...
Cognitive tests: Jaeggi-Buschkuehl dual n-back task