Does trading require talent?

[temptrader]

The preponderance of psychological evidence indicates that experts are made, not born.

Analysis shows that "genius" is really a set of exceptional skills cultivated through disciplined study

The two articles that you link to are jokes. Jokes in the sense that nobody at this moment in time truly understand how the mind works. We have models and theories, but that's all, and to imply what they imply makes for good copy to sell papers - that's the media for you.

Hard work and disciplined study are necessary conditions (no one would argue about that), and that has always been known unless you happen to live on a different planet from the rest of us, so the articles are just quoting the blindingly obvious. But hard work and disciplined study are not a SUFFICIENT conditions for "genius", as borne out by the fact that there are many academics who have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of their fields and study hard but don't actually make any notable contributions.

We could argue forever about this, but it is of no use because we are talking about unfalsifiable things/concepts, and when you get to that, we might as well discuss faith.

 

[new_trader]

The two articles that you link to are jokes. Jokes in the sense that nobody at this moment in time truly understand how the mind works. We have models and theories, but that's all, and to imply what they imply makes for good copy to sell papers - that's the media for you.

Hard work and disciplined study are necessary conditions (no one would argue about that), and that has always been known unless you happen to live on a different planet from the rest of us, so the articles are just quoting the blindingly obvious. But hard work and disciplined study are not a SUFFICIENT conditions for "genius", as borne out by the fact that there are many academics who have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of their fields and study hard but don't actually make any notable contributions.

We could argue forever about this, but it is of no use because we are talking about unfalsifiable things/concepts, and when you get to that, we might as well discuss faith.

Knowledge and intelligence are two different things altogether. Having "encyclopedic knowledge of their fields" does not make anyone a genius. Genius is a measure of the "raw" processing power of the brain and generally denotes an exceptional natural capacity of intellect and creative originality in areas of art, literature, music, science and mathematics.

"Hard work and disciplined study are not a SUFFICIENT conditions for genius"

Sufficient conditions? They are not conditions at all, not even close. Generally, genius is a term used to describe a person’s intelligence as measured by a standardised intelligence test. Genius alone does not guarantee success in any endeavour just like hard work and disciplined study alone will not. In certain endeavours you need both if you want to succeed.

In regard to trading, I think these definitions of genius are highly appropriate:

- Genius is the ability to independently arrive at and understand concepts that would normally have to be taught by another person.

- This genius is a talent for producing ideas which can be described as non-imitative.

 

[firewalker99]

Sufficient conditions? They are not conditions at all, not even close. Generally, genius is a term used to describe a person’s intelligence as measured by a standardised intelligence test. Genius alone does not guarantee success in any endeavour just like hard work and disciplined study alone will not. In certain endeavours you need both if you want to succeed.

As talent, intelligence is much overrated. It's nowhere near as close as people a think a "you are either born with it or not"-element. Research has shown on multiple occasions that you càn in fact change your IQ (to a certain extent). Yes, there are genetic factors to take into account, but I believe there are other factors that override the significance of heritability. I'm talking about: mountains of work, quality instruction or mentoring, fitted environment, deliberate practice,... all those can significantly impact one's chances to become a "genius".

Through the ages we have treated intelligence as the scale by which we distinguish us better than animals or other people.

As a sidenote however, I disagree with your definition of "genius". One can be a real genius in sports, arts, juggling,... without necessarily having an extraordinary high intellect.

 

[new_trader]

As talent, intelligence is much overrated. It's nowhere near as close as people a think a "you are either born with it or not"-element. Research has shown on multiple occasions that you càn in fact change your IQ (to a certain extent). Yes, there are genetic factors to take into account, but I believe there are other factors that override the significance of heritability. I'm talking about: mountains of work, quality instruction or mentoring, fitted environment, deliberate practice,... all those can significantly impact one's chances to become a "genius".

Through the ages we have treated intelligence as the scale by which we distinguish us better than animals or other people.

As a sidenote however, I disagree with your definition of "genius". One can be a real genius in sports, arts, juggling,... without necessarily having an extraordinary high intellect.

IMO: People misuse the word "genius" when describing a person's ability to perform certain tasks. You are mistaken when you say people can change their IQ, they can't really. What they can do is improve their score on IQ tests. You cannot escape biology which sets the maximum limit of intelligence at birth, as a result you cannot actually increase it, you can only exploit flaws in the way it is measured.

 

[firewalker99]

IMO: People misuse the word "genius" when describing a person's ability to perform certain tasks. You are mistaken when you say people can change their IQ, they can't really. What they can do is improve their score on IQ tests. You cannot escape biology which sets the maximum limit of intelligence at birth, as a result you cannot actually increase it, you can only exploit flaws in the way it is measured.

I understand what you mean by your last sentence, but I wasn't talking about training your mind to gain a handful of points on standardized IQ tests.

I disagree with the biological determinism you seem to be an advocate of. There's a lot to be said about social determinism though. Which in your case most likely has led you to believing that you "cannot escape biology"

But scientists à la Stephen Jay Gould are much better at countering your arguments than I am.

 

[new_trader]

I understand what you mean by your last sentence, but I wasn't talking about training your mind to gain a handful of points on standardized IQ tests.

I disagree with the biological determinism you seem to be an advocate of. There's a lot to be said about social determinism though. Which in your case most likely has led you to believing that you "cannot escape biology"

But scientists à la Stephen Jay Gould are much better at countering your arguments than I am.

Well, I disagree. Nature and specifically evolution supports my argument. Nobody showed early humans how to create and maintain fire or use tools, they had to work it all out for themselves. Here we are now, not necessarily the culmination of biology, but certainly at the pinnacle of intelligent life on earth. There are no cat computers or kangaroo rockets and a cow will always act like a cow regardless of it's environment. If that isn't an example of biology setting limits, what is?

 

[firewalker99]

You cannot escape biology which sets the maximum limit of intelligence at birth, as a result you cannot actually increase it, you can only exploit flaws in the way it is measured.

Interestingly enough, it now seems that people who actually believe the above statement, will have a (be it conscious or unconscious) tendency of giving up faster than others. This means they will study less hard, try less hard at something they aren't good at, exactly bécause of their beliefs that they have not been "gifted" with certain abilities, skills, intelligence levels,... attributing their own lack of success to their lack of ability, hereby using excuses as heritability and other biological determinants.

Once again, it's the mindset that separates the winner from the loser

PS: Sure, some will slam the following as another "media joke article". But so far they haven't shown me some anything other than opinions rather than facts/studies/results.
Secret to raising smart kids

 

[tune]

“I know quite certainly that I myself have no special talent; curiosity, obsession and dogged endurance, combined with self-criticism, have brought me to my ideas.” -- Albert Einstein.

 

[mr_cassandra]

What are your thoughts/opinions/views?

I think its like any other form of endeavor. It requires hard work, persistence, willingness to learn. Fwiw, the program I use for my own trading was started 7 years ago and I've invested over 2000 hours.

 

[DT]

You are mistaken when you say people can change their IQ, they can't really. What they can do is improve their score on IQ tests. You cannot escape biology which sets the maximum limit of intelligence at birth, as a result you cannot actually increase it, you can only exploit flaws in the way it is measured.

Not sure you're right there - a friend of mine doing a Phd in neuroscience was involved with, amongst other things, a study on taxi drivers. They found that the part of the brain believed to be responsible for spacial awareness was significantly enlarged in London cabbies.

 

[nine]

Not sure you're right there - a friend of mine doing a Phd in neuroscience was involved with, amongst other things, a study on taxi drivers. They found that the part of the brain believed to be responsible for spacial awareness was significantly enlarged in London cabbies.

And recent studies on meditators have shown enlargement in different regions of the brain. Interestingly studies of the chronically depressed show reductions in one area. Neuroplasticity is a wonderful thing.

 

[mr_cassandra]

As talent, intelligence is much overrated. It's nowhere near as close as people a think a "you are either born with it or not"-element. Research has shown on multiple occasions that you càn in fact change your IQ (to a certain extent). Yes, there are genetic factors to take into account, but I believe there are other factors that override the significance of heritability. I'm talking about: mountains of work, quality instruction or mentoring, fitted environment, deliberate practice,... all those can significantly impact one's chances to become a "genius".

Through the ages we have treated intelligence as the scale by which we distinguish us better than animals or other people.

As a sidenote however, I disagree with your definition of "genius". One can be a real genius in sports, arts, juggling,... without necessarily having an extraordinary high intellect.

I think you have a point. Its not just what you're born with, its what you do with and what you learn along the way. I had 4 years college in business courses but I've learned more from self-made businessmen, one of whom dropped out of high school. this guy named his business A-1 sales. I asked him why and and he said 'first in the phone book'. fast forward to a few years later, my wife was working for a self-made businessman with a large custom t-shirt business. I started to tell him the same story and he finished the sentence by saying 'first in the phonebook'.

My point is their thinking process, and it can be learned from others if you are open and receptive. But, if you go thru life with a closed, lock-ed in mindset, thats where you'll end up.

Another point about genius or intelligence, if not coupled with common-sense, it can be fairly useless. Example, I once had a huge go round with someone online who was vehemntly convinced that because his vix numbers were off from mine by .001 , this was a huge problem I should immediately investigate for my program and its signals.

I didn't know as much about people then as i do now; so I did. It took 4 hours to load the data, and NOTHING changed in my signals. This gentleman was very succesful in his own field but totally unable to common-sense analyze that .001 is hideously important in ant-virus research and totally meaningless in my program.

 

[new_trader]

Not sure you're right there - a friend of mine doing a Phd in neuroscience was involved with, amongst other things, a study on taxi drivers. They found that the part of the brain believed to be responsible for spacial awareness was significantly enlarged in London cabbies.

Yes, but it is also believed (and confirmed) that certain brain functions can be developed or enhanced through "exercise" just like any other muscle. Books and games (like the Nintendo Brain game) exercise parts of the brain that are usually dormant or underutilised and hence people misinterpret this as increasing their intelligence. This is the misconception about “increasing” intelligence. These areas have a saturation point and as far as I know it cannot be developed further. Just like there is a point where an Olympic athlete cannot go higher, faster or further no matter how much they train but sooner or later their old world record gets broken by another athlete.

There have been studies that show under certain circumstances brain cells regenerate, and there is mounting evidence that brain cell regeneration continues throughout adulthood in humans. Nothing I have read suggests this results in an increase in intelligence.

 

[RichieE]

The Turtle experiment was set-up to answer this very question. If you believe in the purported success of the Turtles (and I do), the answer is no, it doesn't require talent, but a skill set which can be trained.

Profittaker, have you read "The Way Of The Turtle"? Curtis mentions that there were some turtles who didn't make it because their character traits prevented them from executing the turtle rules effectively, if at all. (e.g. chasing losses, not taking profits).

Personally I believe that it is a combination of talent, training and luck.

 

[Profitaker]

Profittaker, have you read "The Way Of The Turtle"? Curtis mentions that there were some turtles who didn't make it because their character traits prevented them from executing the turtle rules effectively, if at all. (e.g. chasing losses, not taking profits).

I haven't read the book, but read many a brief synopsis. Not sure exaclty what Curtis meant by "didn't make it" (bit vague ?), but I understood that Richard Dennis won the bet ? In other words it was agreed that they had conclusively proved that successfull trading does not require any special talent ?

 

[grantx]

Firstly, I wish we could ditch the notion of “IQ”. It has been discredited so many times it value is non-existent.

In my opinion, the two most significant points:

NT: “Knowledge and intelligence are two different things altogether. Having "encyclopedic knowledge of their fields" does not make anyone a genius. Genius is a measure of the "raw" processing power of the brain and generally denotes an exceptional natural capacity of intellect and creative originality in areas of art, literature, music, science and mathematics.”

The person on whom the Rainman (Dustin Hoffman) was based could be regarded as having encyclopaedic knowledge, acquired through retaining detail of two books read simultaneously. However, intellectually he was totally lacking; his powers of rationalisation and deduction were zero. Further, he lacked the measure of “genius” (a term I hate) that I consider essential, and pointed out by NT – creativity. We can all acquire knowledge but the skill is in utilising the whole beyond its own terms of reference , ie the sum is greater than the parts (hope that’s not too vague).

Also “certain brain functions can be developed or enhanced through "exercise"”.

However, NT, I don’t accept biological determinism. Neither of my parents are graduates, all three of their sons are. It could be argued my parents had unrealised potential but this would be difficult to prove, and somewhat ad hoc.

Next, Mr Cassandra: “like any other form of endeavor... requires hard work, persistence, willingness to learn.” As witnessed many time on T2W, this is totally alien. Similarly, given time and opportunity, I believe anyone with basic intelligence is capable of anything (excluding those with physical pre-conditions, eg an 80-year old is never going to do a 4-minute mile). For example, flying a fighter jet. I would like to understand higher mathematics (or even basic, for that matter). The problem for me, Mr Cassandra, is deciding when a pursuit is better abandoned for something else with may yield something positive.

Failure to duplicate and implement a successful trading strategy is a recurring theme. I think the failure is because one cannot replicate or assume the mental processes of the successful user. Referring to Mr Cassandra, one needs to persevere; to train one’s brain through NT’s “exercise”.

Trading is no more “special” than any other profession or trade.

One phrase I hate: "You couldn't do that."

Grant.

 

[mr_cassandra]

Firstly, I wish we could ditch the notion of “IQ”. It has been discredited so many times it value is non-existent.

In my opinion, the two most significant points:

NT: “Knowledge and intelligence are two different things altogether. Having "encyclopedic knowledge of their fields" does not make anyone a genius. Genius is a measure of the "raw" processing power of the brain and generally denotes an exceptional natural capacity of intellect and creative originality in areas of art, literature, music, science and mathematics.”

The person on whom the Rainman (Dustin Hoffman) was based could be regarded as having encyclopaedic knowledge, acquired through retaining detail of two books read simultaneously. However, intellectually he was totally lacking; his powers of rationalisation and deduction were zero. Further, he lacked the measure of “genius” (a term I hate) that I consider essential, and pointed out by NT – creativity. We can all acquire knowledge but the skill is in utilising the whole beyond its own terms of reference , ie the sum is greater than the parts (hope that’s not too vague).

Also “certain brain functions can be developed or enhanced through "exercise"”.

However, NT, I don’t accept biological determinism. Neither of my parents are graduates, all three of their sons are. It could be argued my parents had unrealised potential but this would be difficult to prove, and somewhat ad hoc.

Next, Mr Cassandra: “like any other form of endeavor... requires hard work, persistence, willingness to learn.” As witnessed many time on T2W, this is totally alien. Similarly, given time and opportunity, I believe anyone with basic intelligence is capable of anything (excluding those with physical pre-conditions, eg an 80-year old is never going to do a 4-minute mile). For example, flying a fighter jet. I would like to understand higher mathematics (or even basic, for that matter). The problem for me, Mr Cassandra, is deciding when a pursuit is better abandoned for something else with may yield something positive.

Failure to duplicate and implement a successful trading strategy is a recurring theme. I think the failure is because one cannot replicate or assume the mental processes of the successful user. Referring to Mr Cassandra, one needs to persevere; to train one’s brain through NT’s “exercise”.

Trading is no more “special” than any other profession or trade.

One phrase I hate: "You couldn't do that."

Grant.

many good points. I especially like the one about when to fold and move on. Determination is one thing but if you've done all you can do, there probably is a better avenue waiting for you.

 

[Paul71]

many good points. I especially like the one about when to fold and move on. Determination is one thing but if you've done all you can do, there probably is a better avenue waiting for you.

I agree, Grants post was good. What about W D Gann? Read about him, then think of this thread.

Regards,

 

[the blades]

I haven't read the book, but read many a brief synopsis. Not sure exaclty what Curtis meant by "didn't make it" (bit vague ?), but I understood that Richard Dennis won the bet ? In other words it was agreed that they had conclusively proved that successfull trading does not require any special talent ?

weren't the turtles (pardon my clear ignorance) given a method, with an edge at the time? Didn't this just prove that if you are in posession of that, no special talent is required from that point on?

Developing another method once the edge disappears might require it?

UTB

 

[Profitaker]

weren't the turtles (pardon my clear ignorance) given a method, with an edge at the time? Didn't this just prove that if you are in posession of that, no special talent is required from that point on?

Developing another method once the edge disappears might require it?

UTB

Pardon my ignorance too sir, but I am not well versed on the Turtle phenomenon. I only understand that two accomplished traders had a bet with regard to trading & talent - indeed the very topic of this thread, and I'm sure a question always at the back of most traders mind.

I also understand that each then set out to prove the other party wrong. They advertised and signed up the butcher, the Baker, and the Candlestick maker. They then trained them, and they all became successful traders, the bet was determined, and the rest (as they say) is history.

Given that this is something that I have no doubt is broadly the reality anyway, I wasn't particularly drawn to any official publication, or particular Biography. So I cannot comment either way on any "edge at the time". Maybe I should buy the book, or better still remind somebody christmas is coming !