A Moderator's View

[DaveJB]

Sorry, I disagree - if you had attained any sort of mastery in thinking then you wouldn't need to refer to those you consider (presumably) great thinkers - you'd be quoting yourself. The vast tide of humanity can be criticised en masse very easily, it doesn't take much effort or ability to condescend, but within those masses are great and original thinkers... you're mistaking the ability to outmanoevre the majority for the ability to outthink the entirety.

 

[starspacer]

Sorry, I disagree - if you had attained any sort of mastery in thinking then you wouldn't need to refer to those you consider (presumably) great thinkers - you'd be quoting yourself. The vast tide of humanity can be criticised en masse very easily, it doesn't take much effort or ability to condescend, but within those masses are great and original thinkers... you're mistaking the ability to outmanoevre the majority for the ability to outthink the entirety.

May I say this with the humblest respect. You must know the question before asking for the answer.

There are no great thinkers within The Mob. That is why they are The Mob.

You of course will understand that each great thinker stands on the shoulders of previous Giants.

Trading is no different. I studied all the Greats, the legendary traders, their strategies for success (and failure). Then I adapted them, brought them up to date, added my own, original work to (imho) improve results. Does this mean I am not an 'original' trader, that I have plagiarised? Well, by your definition, yes.

But, you must remember 'there is nothing new under the sun'. We all therefore use language that has 'already been discovered'. We have to, otherwise no-one would be able to communicate effectively. I think the whole structure of language is inherently flawed, but I have to use it to communicate with The Mob. For now, at least.

 

[chump]

"I think the whole structure of language is inherently flawed"...what do you mean by language?..the written word,the spoken word ,the visual behaviour that can accompany either of the aforementioned? I take the view that much of the complaint over how language performs it's function arises not from the inadequacies of language ,albeit our database of 'words' leaves a lot to be desired, but from our ability to use it effectively....the average sender wishes to say something ,but can only do so in general by inserting his/her own perceptual bias...the average receiver similarly takes what is sent and applies all of his/her own perceptual bias.... the lack of empathy/objectivity on both parts prevents either party constructing ,or receiving a message devoid of same. This is nothing to do with the structure of language ,it is only to do with the way we use it. Effective use is enhanced by using both audi and visual channels and by applying empathy and objectivity (sounds like a contradiction in terms but it isn't)...that is simply removing oneself from the channel and attempting to see what the message is without internalising it and attempting to fit it into something you have already committed to 'memory', and simultaneously applying empathy ..that is try to be the other person.
However ,what I am suggesting is oft just impractical , redundancy /stereotyping (which are the basis for much perceptual bias) plays a huge part in daily behaviour and time saving processes. Thinking about this in terms of paretos law if redundancy works far more oft than it doesn't then it simply becomes a trade off ...do the 'messages' misinterpreted cost us more than we might gain were we to attempt to dispense with redundancy ? We are now a long way from simply talking about the flaws of language and talking about the practical outcomes of same.

 

[the blades]

My god buddist, you don't know who one of the leading thinkers of all time was? You serious?

As for the Mob. They are the 'great unwashed'. You can usually smell them a mile off.

You can tell them by the words they use - words like 'dude', 'crap', Da Man' and other such nonsense.

They can usually be found congregating at football matches.

my word, it took just a few short words from little old me to reduce a "great thinker" down to cheap insults

Now please unwrap yourself from my little finger, I have a heavy cold and better use for it

UTB

PS - I refute the suggestion that I don't wash. Twice a month (when the spreadbetting profits allow) I save up for a bottle of vintage 2006 Blue Nun, and take a long soak as I drink it.

 

[DaveJB]

UTB.
;-)
Dave

 

[starspacer]

"I think the whole structure of language is inherently flawed"...what do you mean by language?..the written word,the spoken word ,the visual behaviour that can accompany either of the aforementioned? I take the view that much of the complaint over how language performs it's function arises not from the inadequacies of language ,albeit our database of 'words' leaves a lot to be desired, but from our ability to use it effectively....the average sender wishes to say something ,but can only do so in general by inserting his/her own perceptual bias...the average receiver similarly takes what is sent and applies all of his/her own perceptual bias.... the lack of empathy/objectivity on both parts prevents either party constructing ,or receiving a message devoid of same. This is nothing to do with the structure of language ,it is only to do with the way we use it. Effective use is enhanced by using both audi and visual channels and by applying empathy and objectivity (sounds like a contradiction in terms but it isn't)...that is simply removing oneself from the channel and attempting to see what the message is without internalising it and attempting to fit it into something you have already committed to 'memory', and simultaneously applying empathy ..that is try to be the other person.
However ,what I am suggesting is oft just impractical , redundancy /stereotyping (which are the basis for much perceptual bias) plays a huge part in daily behaviour and time saving processes. Thinking about this in terms of paretos law if redundancy works far more oft than it doesn't then it simply becomes a trade off ...do the 'messages' misinterpreted cost us more than we might gain were we to attempt to dispense with redundancy ? We are now a long way from simply talking about the flaws of language and talking about the practical outcomes of same.

Sounds like this could be the beginnings of another thread.

I don't disagree with what you say. More precisely, I mean that the use of language has become 'lazy' - too many tautologies. Usually, most of what is said is just a combination of 'spin' and meaningless info.This wastes the recipient's time and insults their intelligence.

The reason I think philosophers can help here is that professional training encourages clarity of thought & communication. This should result in fewer communication problems and fewer instances of 'flaming' bad behaviour.