Psychology Getting Started The Value of Coaching And The Difficulty in Finding One

Trader education has become a hot topic in recent years. Everywhere you look there is someone offering some course, seminar, training program, or whatever. Many are very pricey, and we can certainly debate the real value of quite a few. The proliferation of the products and such can't help but bring up some of the commonly debated topics related to whether traders can be taught or just have some innate talent which allows them to succeed. This article makes its own contribution to that discussion.

In the interest of openness, my personal view is that anyone can learn to trade effectively. By that, I mean we are all capable of trading toward a reasonable and rational set of goals and/or objectives determined by our own personal situation and means. Can everyone become George Soros, Paul Tudor Jones, or Warren Buffett? No, of course not. If we could all do that, those names wouldn't be as big as they are. Most people simply don't have the kind of resources traders like that have at their disposal. We all do, however, have the means to trade well within the scope of the money, time, risk tolerance, and other elements of our trading focus.

The starting point of effective trading, as with anything else in life, is education. There are certain things one needs to know in order to trade effectively. What those are vary a bit based on the market traded and instruments utilized, but there are some fundamentals. For example, all trading is based on the bid-offer mechanism at some level. There are numerous types of orders for entry in to positions and exit from them. There are exchange hours and instrument specifications. Brokerage commissions are a feature in most markets, and in all one needs to understand how profits and losses are determined. I think we can all agree that these are some of the basic building blocks of knowledge and understanding required to even contemplate trading.

At the next level we start getting more in to comprehension of the market action, its interpretation, and knowing how that translates in to profit opportunities and risk. On some level, trading requires analysis to make buy/sell decision - fundamental, technical, or quantitative. For the mechanical trader, that analysis is done through research in the development of one's trading system. For the discretionary trader it is more an on-going process. Likewise, some kind of risk management program is a requirement, regardless of trading style or analytic method.

All of this kind of core knowledge and understanding can, in my opinion, be learned from books, lectures, seminars, courses, etc. It is akin to earning a degree. In order to get that diploma, one must prove that certain things have been learned, skills gained. Once that is done, however, one's development becomes a more personal journey. It is the same thing in trading. There is a basic set of knowledge we must gain, but after that it is up to us to forge our own path in the markets as our own personal situation dictates.

Here is where things start getting muddled.

We must each determine our own course in trading, ideally based on a good assessment of the resources we have available to us. There are so many ways we can go, though. Everywhere there are people telling us that this path or that path is the one we should take. How are we to decide? Most of us end up stumbling along through a trial and error exploration of various systems, methods, techniques, and whatnot. Some of us find something that works. A great many do not, and quit in frustration, or broke. This is where having a coach or mentor can make a huge difference.

We need look no further than the world of athletics to see how important the role of a coach is to one's development. I happen to coach high level collegiate volleyball, so please permit me the indulgence of using that sport as an example.

There are certain physical attributes which can be strong determining factors for one's success in volleyball - height and jumping ability being two of them. As the saying goes, you can't teach height, and while a coach can help one jump higher, genetics goes a long way to determining what a given athlete can do in that regard. Being tall and able to jump high, however, does not guarantee success, and one can be quite good at the sport without being a top physical specimen. There is a lot more to volleyball, and that is where coaching comes in.

The role of the coach is basically that of facilitator. He or she aids the athlete in the development in their skills and the refinement of the game. For the novice that means a lot of teaching in regards to skill execution. When working with experienced players, it become much more a question of refinement and showing them how to apply what they know to the best effect given the situation at-hand.

Coaching or mentoring in trading should be the same thing. The advantages of having someone to oversee your development are many. There is the obvious element of teaching, as it is often assumed that the coach knows more about the markets and has more experience in them than the trainee. Possibly even more important, however, is the coach's role as external observer.

When I coach volleyball, I can see things a player is doing incorrectly that they cannot see because they lack the proper perspective. I can then tell them what they are doing wrong and help them correct it. A trading coach can do the same sort of thing.

At the same time, there is the mental and emotional element to coaching which is separate from the teaching one. Especially in the case of experienced athletes, it is often more a question of maintaining a proper level of motivation and a high degree of confidence to ensure peak performance than anything else. The same can be said of trading, where one's mental state often seriously influence one's performance just as it does in athletics.

The question of where one finds a coach or mentor is a difficult one. Brett Steenbarger (author of The Psychology of Trading and a contributor to this site on the topic of trader development) and I recently discussed this very topic. There are certainly a great many experienced traders out there willing to share what they know in one way or another. But are they really prepared to provide the guidance needed? Some may be good teachers - imparters of knowledge - but lacking in the ability to be a coach in the full sense of the word. Others might be great motivators, but perhaps do not have the breadth of knowledge and/or experience needed for the educational element of coaching.

There are two major obstacles to finding a good trading coach. First of all, it is the tendency of many people to look for someone who's had a great deal of success as a mentor. The problem with that is in a many cases those people are not well equipped to coach. It's something seen in athletics all the time. Look to the ranks of coaches in your favorite sport. How many of them can you point to and say he or she was a great player? Now consider how many were good players, but not superstars. There are way more of the latter in the coaching ranks than the former because the average players tend to have to work harder and become better students of the game to be competitive.

The other difficulty in finding good trader coaches is that there are no real training programs for these people. As a volleyball coach I can go to training seminars and courses, earn national and even international levels of certification, and work under the direction of other coaches more knowledgeable and experienced than myself. As yet, there is no such readily available structure in trading. We cannot look, for example, at someone's resume and see that he or she is a Level III certified coach, having been so declared by a recognized training and testing organization.

So where does that leave us? Well, clearly there is value in having a coach to help us maximize our performance in the markets. As things currently stand, though, finding a good one for our particular situation is going to remain a challenge. It requires the discipline to not just look at someone's returns and assume that they can teach you how to do that yourself (remember, teaching you a trading system is not the same as coaching you through applying a trading system). It also requires legwork to check out a possible coach. Have they coached others before? Get references. Make sure you find someone who will fulfill your particular requirements and be a good match. If you can do that, you should see your development as an effective trader really take off.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gosh!

Many pages ago I posed the question how does the interested prospective student approach the coach / mentor who promotes himself as a successful professional trader able and willing (for a fee) to teach the student to trade as he does but steadfastly declines to produce hard evidence of his success as a trader.

Amazing how much interesting material such an enquiry can generate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mr.marcus said:
....yes the point you make is of course equally valid that a good coach doesnt necessarily have to be the best trader..or in fact trading at all....and i see you also acknowledge my point that those who know the real deal as far as knowledge in any given field can tell those who do not.so lets combine the 2...what if the mentor is well meaning....and a good at presenting information and helping to bring out the most in pupil etc....BUT.....the information is 100% wrong......they are unwittingly taking them down dead ends as far as learning..and this can be seen by those who know the deal....then you have a dangerous situation......

...i wonder how this situation could be addressed without causing offence....a tricky one to deal with especially for those who know the deal and would like to highlight this situation for the sake of the student....do they make it apparent and risk appearing to be dismissive and confrontational even when approached in the most diplomatic of ways.......reason being not wanting others to end up on weed laden paths.......or do they keep quite?a no win situation....if you keep quite down the line people when they find out say....why didnt you tell me....if you tell them earlier they may tell you to but out....hehe....anyways....

cheers mark j
One could address it by simply saying something along the lines of........

"Alot of well meaning (and possibly not so well meaning) coaches/guru's do not know what they are talking about and hence would not be the best person to learn from. Therefore, to the best of your ability, do your due diligence and attempt to find someone who does know what they are talking about. Should you make a mistake and end up with the former rather than the latter, chalk it up to experience and move on to another coach/mentor or on to some other way of learning all together."

In no way is that a personal attack. It warns the novice of the pitfalls. It gets the message across.

On the other hand, posting something such as "your remarks are so off the wall as to be laughable" and "you are pontificating about things you have no experience in" are personally abusive. Further to that, ridiculing someone for making a post about something you assume they have no knowledge about is hypocritical when you are doing the very same thing by making an assumption about their knowledge in that field. That was my point.

Cheers,
PKFFW
 
post 70 above by Mr.Marcus edit by barjon said:
Last edited by barjon : Today at 08:36 AM. Reason: deleted the quoted post which itself had been deleted
Unless the quoted post was deleted due to a transgression of site guidelines, why was Mr. Marcus' quote of that post also deleted?

This current fad of doing this unnecessary housekeeping leads to an irritating loss of context.

If somebody posts and subsequently chooses to delete that post - fine. But having posted it and someone else responds to it, why is it felt necessary to cascade the process?
 
TheBramble said:
Unless the quoted post was deleted due to a transgression of site guidelines, why was Mr. Marcus' quote of that post also deleted?

This current fad of doing this unnecessary housekeeping leads to an irritating loss of context.

If somebody posts and subsequently chooses to delete that post - fine. But having posted it and someone else responds to it, why is it felt necessary to cascade the process?

Tony

Because I thought mr.m's post had validity in it's own right and was not out of context with what had gone before. The deleted post was deleted because it concentrated on an earlier post that had been deleted and readers would, therefore, be somewhat confused.

All this sounds as if I have been deletion mad , but it was only two early ones that were a bit personal. Other edits/deletions stemmed from that initial action.

You could argue that I was too quick to pounce on early signs of personal "attacks" but I think the quality of discussion that transpired, free of such disruptive asides, made that early attention worthwhile. I hope you agree.

good trading

jon
 
PKFFW said:
One could address it by simply saying something along the lines of........

"Alot of well meaning (and possibly not so well meaning) coaches/guru's do not know what they are talking about and hence would not be the best person to learn from. Therefore, to the best of your ability, do your due diligence and attempt to find someone who does know what they are talking about. Should you make a mistake and end up with the former rather than the latter, chalk it up to experience and move on to another coach/mentor or on to some other way of learning all together."

In no way is that a personal attack. It warns the novice of the pitfalls. It gets the message across.

On the other hand, posting something such as "your remarks are so off the wall as to be laughable" and "you are pontificating about things you have no experience in" are personally abusive. Further to that, ridiculing someone for making a post about something you assume they have no knowledge about is hypocritical when you are doing the very same thing by making an assumption about their knowledge in that field. That was my point.

Cheers,
PKFFW
The main bulk of the day's operations are complete to my satisfaction, so I have some spare time to make a comment.

I will help you understand more clearly...

Let me see...what happens is that everyone has to start somewhere.

All of us do, because no one is born an expert.

But....

It is a bit like the Grand National.Steeplechase...

It is a HUGE obstacle course in front of evereybody...and...everyone does his best.

But everyone does his best according to his own frame of reference you see..

Along this obstacle course there are lots of hurdles to be overcome, and like the jumps on the racecourse, they come in a certain order....there is order in it....and not randonimity.

All it takes is for a fall at the wrong hurdle and if you are diligent you have to start all over again from the very beginning.....but the great majority do not have the patience and stamina to do this...why ?....simple....nearly everybody gets stimulated by the idea of money...wealth...cash...banknotes....do you see ? And they forget what it is they have to do.

This distracting influence prevents people from properly putting their attention on two things :~

The first is what they have to do.

And the second, which is the most important, IS PUTTING THEIR ATTENTION ON THEIR VERY SELVES

BOTH go hand in hand, but the second is by far the most important.

On these boards, there are a handful of us who have completed the entire obstacle course.
We are able to recognise each other without the slightest difficulty.

For this reason, as a consequence of our experience, we are able to SPOT IMMEDIATELY everything that others in various stages of progress along the obstacle course are either unaware of, or have not experienced for themselves, or disregard, or do not know, or derelict.

Now this is why tutoring is so difficult.

It can never be the tutor at fault. The tutor has done all of the obstacle course.

It is the reluctance of the aspirant to complete the obstacle course as directed that causes all the problems, and all the aggravation and nuisance.

Incidentally, so that you will be able to appreciate how perverse in abstraction all of this can be, the aspirant may believe he is thinking the right things, but because thought is silent, no one gets to know until after the event....by then the horse and rider have fallen at Beecher's Brook.

I have said this before, but I am going to say it again.

The second phase in the development of a trader is the most delicate, the most difficult and the one that is fraught with the most risks.

This is because of an inbuilt reluctance to change.

Now you may think this is unnecessary.

But I promise you it is not, whether you are a mechanical trader or an intuitive, the same rules apply, because none of it is constructed for your benefit, as if it were a free orchard anyone can wander into and pick the choicest fruit at any time.
 
PKFFW said:
Interesting.

You have written quite extensively about the need to rewire the inner core. To create an inner core dedicated only to trading. To change how one thinks and perceives and, indeed, the very essence of who one is. You admonish the masses about your perception of their inability to do this. You proclaim your proficiency in having done all this and thus being a superior trader.

Then you go and contradict your entire premise by saying traders are born and not made. If a trader is born and not made where does the need to change one's very being in order to succeed come into it?

So which is it?

Cheers,
PKFFW
It is very very simple.

A few people are BORN with the innate ability to change their inner cores at will, on command without much difficulty in order to achieve some objective.

It does not matter what the objective might be, from climbing Mount Everest to becoming a Surgeon and slicing bodies open every day, to being a Soldier in battle, to being an Explorer prepared to cross Antartica on foot, to being an Astronaut going where no one has gone before or to being a Trader.

The great majority are not born with this innate ability.

They have to work much harder to do it.

But anyone who really sets his mind to do what it is they are absolutely determined to achieve can and will do it, if they truly, desperately, relentlessly, ferociously........are determined to do it, at any cost, and that.......is the difference.
Hence the few, the very few.
 
Last edited:
Spandex Catsuits Sales Rocket As Uphill Skiing Gains Increasing Popularity

dbphoenix said:
However, if the coach takes the position that the purpose of the coaching is to teach the coachee to implement the coachee's own rulebook, then the goal is not so much "I'm going to teach you how to trade (according to what the coach thinks trading is)" but rather "I'm going to teach you how to stick to your own plan and achieve the results that your plan states that you ought to be reaching". If the coachee's plan is inadequate, it's up to the coach to teach the coachee how to fix the problems. If the coachee has no plan at all, it's up to the coach to teach him how to develop one. Thus, however the coach him/herself trades is unimportant.

One could argue, in fact, that it may not be necessary for the coach to trade at all. This will appall a number of people, but those who seek to exit the ranks of the needy and become independent traders would do well to think carefully about just what it is that they want.

"Spandex Catsuits Sales Rocket As Uphill Skiing Gains Increasing Popularity , Leading coaches say uphill, downhill ,whats the difference lets just Ski " Some Skiers however were miffed at reading "How to ski uphill with no downside" by Hanz Flippen Floppen (3 times Self praised Uphill Practioner ) when they realised Skiing Uphill just didnt seem right , many students quit saying "Uphill Skiing is Rubbish ! hell we even fell over trying to ski uphill and started rollin downhill and begun to get a place in the finish so we knew uphill skiing might be Iffy also further reinforced by the realisation that downhill skiers won all the prizes and seemed to be smiling more".

when challenged Hanz Flippen Floppen remarked, " My students want to Ski uphill and I'll deliver that "

--------------------------------------------------------------

hmmm but would the coach still advise read all that method nonsense any will do go to a seminar or read a couple books etc i'll paste that in your plan etc... i'll teach you to exectue flawlessly whilst holding a state of total trading nirvana , then after that for a break I'll take you skiing, Uphill Of course .......

"Here is where things start getting muddled."

Yes thats right because your skiing uphill because

"All of this kind of core knowledge and understanding can, in my opinion, be learned from books, lectures, seminars, courses, etc"


hmm I dunno I assume that any student would be perhaps better placed if they used a person who could demonstrate "All that is and all that isnt and that which is neither" awareness with trading .


Too much to be looking for maybe from a coach/trainer?

"How to ski uphill with no downside" by Hanz Flippen Floppen one for T2W Bookstore maybe ?
 
Last edited:
SOCRATES said:
The main bulk of the day's operations are complete to my satisfaction, so I have some spare time to make a comment.

I will help you understand more clearly...

Let me see...what happens is that everyone has to start somewhere.

All of us do, because no one is born an expert.

But....

It is a bit like the Grand National.Steeplechase...

It is a HUGE obstacle course in front of evereybody...and...everyone does his best.

But everyone does his best according to his own frame of reference you see..

Along this obstacle course there are lots of hurdles to be overcome, and like the jumps on the racecourse, they come in a certain order....there is order in it....and not randonimity.

All it takes is for a fall at the wrong hurdle and if you are diligent you have to start all over again from the very beginning.....but the great majority do not have the patience and stamina to do this...why ?....simple....nearly everybody gets stimulated by the idea of money...wealth...cash...banknotes....do you see ? And they forget what it is they have to do.
I am not familiar with the Grand National Steeplechase so please correct me if I am wrong. However, I know of no race ever run where if one was to stumble one had to commence the race over again in order to successfully complete the race.

Trading is no different. We will all stumble along the way. Reach obstacles that stump us for a while. Some will give up, others will work through those obstacles. The lessons learned will be with one forever. They do not have to go back and begin their training in trading all over again.
SOCRATES said:
This distracting influence prevents people from properly putting their attention on two things :~

The first is what they have to do.

And the second, which is the most important, IS PUTTING THEIR ATTENTION ON THEIR VERY SELVES

BOTH go hand in hand, but the second is by far the most important.

On these boards, there are a handful of us who have completed the entire obstacle course.
We are able to recognise each other without the slightest difficulty.

For this reason, as a consequence of our experience, we are able to SPOT IMMEDIATELY everything that others in various stages of progress along the obstacle course are either unaware of, or have not experienced for themselves, or disregard, or do not know, or derelict.
Firstly I agree that the most important thing is to focus on oneself.

Secondly, you assume everyone is running the same obstacle course. This assumption could not possibly be based in reality as we are all different. Your metaphor of the Grand National Steeplechase is flawed in that respect. It is really only your ego that puts forward the idea that the way you progressed to success in trading must be the only way for anyone to do it.

The lessons each of us must learn in order to be a successful trader will, by reason of our varied personalities, experiences, intellect and a whole host of other things, be different. We are not all lined up at the start of exactly the same obstacle course. This idea is a nonsense.

Hence your assertion that you, being a successful trader,(which by the way I have no reason to doubt and am not in any way suggesting you are not) are able to see exactly where anyone is on the road to success is simply unfounded and rather egotistical.
SOCRATES said:
Now this is why tutoring is so difficult.

It can never be the tutor at fault. The tutor has done all of the obstacle course.

It is the reluctance of the aspirant to complete the obstacle course as directed that causes all the problems, and all the aggravation and nuisance.

Incidentally, so that you will be able to appreciate how perverse in abstraction all of this can be, the aspirant may believe he is thinking the right things, but because thought is silent, no one gets to know until after the event....by then the horse and rider have fallen at Beecher's Brook.
I find it amazing that the truly successful teachers/mentors/coaches in any endeavour always seem to agree that "there is no bad student, only a bad teacher".

Maybe it is the assumption that the the tutee must complete the very same obstacle course as the tutor that is the problem. Perhaps it is the tutor who can not seem to look beyond his/her own experiences and attempt to see to the root cause of the problem in the tutee that is causing the problem. Perhaps it is the tutors lack of an effective bridging method to overcome this lack of shared experience in order to guide the tutee to success. Perhaps it is the tutors projection of his own trials and tribulations onto the tutee that is the problem.

Just some suggestions anyway..........
SOCRATES said:
I have said this before, but I am going to say it again.

The second phase in the development of a trader is the most delicate, the most difficult and the one that is fraught with the most risks.

This is because of an inbuilt reluctance to change.

Now you may think this is unnecessary.

But I promise you it is not, whether you are a mechanical trader or an intuitive, the same rules apply, because none of it is constructed for your benefit, as if it were a free orchard anyone can wander into and pick the choicest fruit at any time.
I do not think it unnecessary at all. I think it is totally necessary. I just think that your assumption that because this was the most difficult part for you, then it must be the most difficult part for everyone, is without basis in reality.

Cheers,
PKFFW
 
SOCRATES said:
It is very very simple.

A few people are BORN with the innate ability to change their inner cores at will, on command without much difficulty in order to achieve some objective.

It does not matter what the objective might be, from climbing Mount Everest to becoming a Surgeon and slicing bodies open every day, to being a Soldier in battle, to being an Explorer prepared to cross Antartica on foot, to being an Astronaut going where no one has gone before or to being a Trader.

The great majority are not born with this innate ability.

They have to work much harder to do it.

But anyone who really sets his mind to do what it is they are absolutely determined to achieve can and will do it, if they truly, desperately, relentlessly, ferociously........are determined to do it, at any cost, and that.......is the difference.
Hence the few, the very few.
So really your point is not that "traders are born and not made" at all. Your point is that success at trading will be easier for some than for others due to their inherent personality.

That is as self evident as saying the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. It is a point I have previously put forward in another thread.

Cheers,
PKFFW
 
Please yourself ...I cannot and will not spend all day in tit for tat argument, sorry.
 
PKFFW said:
I find it amazing that the truly successful teachers/mentors/coaches in any endeavour always seem to agree that "there is no bad student, only a bad teacher".

Maybe it is the assumption that the the tutee must complete the very same obstacle course as the tutor that is the problem. Perhaps it is the tutor who can not seem to look beyond his/her own experiences and attempt to see to the root cause of the problem in the tutee that is causing the problem. Perhaps it is the tutors lack of an effective bridging method to overcome this lack of shared experience in order to guide the tutee to success. Perhaps it is the tutors projection of his own trials and tribulations onto the tutee that is the problem.

I'm responding to this because it seems particularly relevant to the subject of the thread, which, again, stems from the article at its head.

There comes a time in most traders' progress when they have a giant Ah Ha! moment. They've found it! This is the answer! This is what they've been looking for! And, for them, this is the way to do it. The only way to do it. Because this is what does it for them. And they effectively shut the doors to their brains.

I went through this myself at one point, which may be why I'm better able to understand those who believe that if they can't do it, it can't be done. That is, if they can't trade with pivots, then pivots are nonsense. If they can't trade with Fib, then Fib is nonsense. If they can't trade with stochastics or MA crossovers or Gann or planetary alignment, then it's all nonsense and anybody who says you can is automatically misguided at best, and at worst a scammer.

That's why I began asking my preliminary questions: what exactly do you want? what exactly are you trying to accomplish? why are you doing this? what do you want out of it? (the details are here: http://www.trade2win.com/boards/showpost.php?p=202729). The point being that if somebody truly believes that pivots are the road to riches, that's just fine. If he can make them work, more power to him. I can't show him how to make them work because I've never found a way to make them work for me. Is this my problem or the pivots' problem? Doesn't matter. What's more important is that I can show him how to find out whether or not he can make pivots work for him. If he can't, does this mean that pivots are nonsense? Not necessarily. But it does mean that he has at least regained control over his own education and his own progress. He may at some point revisit the issue of pivots and find some new way of making them work. But, in the meantime, he's free to explore other options and find something that may work even better.

For my part, I trade by price. The people who ask for my help are also for the most part interested in trading by price, or at least learning how to do so. Since the subject is trading by price, I don't get into indicators or Fib or Gann or anything else other than price (and, if appropriate, volume). Even if I were being paid to do so, there wouldn't be any point in my spending time finding out where the student is with regard to his quest to learn how to trade with MACD or ADX or whatever because I wouldn't be of much help, though I could show him how to find out for himself (I don't, however, because my interest is in trading by price, not in learning how to trade per se). A more efficient option would be to send him to somebody that knows whatever it is backwards and forwards and watch that somebody.

So, as far as the bad teacher thing, yes and no. When I taught college and was involved in teacher training (for the elementary school level), I held that view. But this presupposes a student who makes at least some small effort. If the student just sits there like a giant lump, there's not a whole lot for the teacher to work with. Yes, one could argue that it's the teacher's responsibility to find some way of motivating this giant lump. But there are practical limits, and other children, and limited time. If the student is making that effort, though, and nothing is happening with regard to the teacher/student interaction, then, yes, I suggest that this rests mostly on the teacher's shoulders. It is the teacher, after all, who is supposed to have the experience and the knowledge and the skill, if only to know to whom to send the student for help the teacher can't provide.

Ultimately, that teacher may fail, in which case he ought to be willing to refund the student's money. Sometimes these things just don't work out. But all of this presupposes at least some effort from both parties, i.e., a form of contract. Without that, the outlook is not encouraging.

Db
 
SOCRATES said:
Please yourself ...I cannot and will not spend all day in tit for tat argument, sorry.
Of course you can't and wont. You never do like to back up your generalistic presumptions and assumptions with any relevant facts. This is mostly due to there being nothing to back your arguments up with.

What worked for you, worked for you. This does not mean it is the only way to success. Your experiences are yours and yours alone. Your seeming inability to see that is simply your ego being unwilling to see beyond its own self importance.

You are willing to make assumptions about what I am and am not willing to do. You claim my perspective is all wrong. You suggest that your way is the only way and hence can know exactly what my problem is and where I am in the "obstacle course" that is your way. Of course you claim that for my own benefit you will not point out what my problem is though. Yet you are not willing to back any of it up. Not even willing to discuss the points you yourself raise. Why is that?

Cheers,
PKFFW
 
dbphoenix said:
I'm responding to this because it seems particularly relevant to the subject of the thread, which, again, stems from the article at its head............

...........But this presupposes a student who makes at least some small effort. If the student just sits there like a giant lump, there's not a whole lot for the teacher to work with.........

Ultimately, that teacher may fail, in which case he ought to be willing to refund the student's money. Sometimes these things just don't work out. But all of this presupposes at least some effort from both parties, i.e., a form of contract. Without that, the outlook is not encouraging.

Db
Yes I agree, the phrase is a generalisation. It presupposes effort upon the students' part. I would argue if there is no effort on the students' part then he/she is not truly a student.

Cheers,
PKFFW
 
PKFFW said:
Of course you can't and wont. You never do like to back up your generalistic presumptions and assumptions with any relevant facts. This is mostly due to there being nothing to back your arguments up with.

What worked for you, worked for you. This does not mean it is the only way to success. Your experiences are yours and yours alone. Your seeming inability to see that is simply your ego being unwilling to see beyond its own self importance.

You are willing to make assumptions about what I am and am not willing to do. You claim my perspective is all wrong. You suggest that your way is the only way and hence can know exactly what my problem is and where I am in the "obstacle course" that is your way. Of course you claim that for my own benefit you will not point out what my problem is though. Yet you are not willing to back any of it up. Not even willing to discuss the points you yourself raise. Why is that?

Cheers,

PKFFW
Because I have laid it all out in very great detail and very clearly indeed.

And because I am not interested in engaging in any further tit for tat argument, as I have more important and satisfying things to do.

And because you bore me to tears, frankly.
 
PKFFW said:
Of course you can't and wont. You never do like to back up your generalistic presumptions and assumptions with any relevant facts. This is mostly due to there being nothing to back your arguments up with.

What worked for you, worked for you. This does not mean it is the only way to success. Your experiences are yours and yours alone. Your seeming inability to see that is simply your ego being unwilling to see beyond its own self importance.

You are willing to make assumptions about what I am and am not willing to do. You claim my perspective is all wrong. You suggest that your way is the only way and hence can know exactly what my problem is and where I am in the "obstacle course" that is your way. Of course you claim that for my own benefit you will not point out what my problem is though. Yet you are not willing to back any of it up. Not even willing to discuss the points you yourself raise. Why is that?

Cheers,
PKFFW

PKFFW,

I'm struggling to see why you're bothering since you are obviously on a hiding to nothing ;)

One of the difficulties here of course is that different people have different ideas of what success means. There are a great many levels of accomplishment between master and **** wit. My own experience is that under normal circumstances, those at the top of the tree rarely, if ever, have cause to see things from the perspective of those of us lower down, but then why should they? Why should they be asked to contemplate any definition of success other than their own? Why should they be called upon explain any route to success other than the one they took?

The sharp-end of the financial services industry, and by that I don't just mean trading, is full of **** holes. Some incredibly talented, some not quite so talented. But once you get to the highest levels you pretty much observe the same characteristics across the board.

Were the circumstances surrounding your current exchange more formal you might have been told (as I was once by the head of fixed income in large IB) to "**** off and If I have anything to do with it you'll never work in the city again". However, since this isn't a formalised environment, we can fool ourselves into thinking that less than formal rules of engagement, etiquette and dialogue apply.

This board, and boards like it, sometimes present us with a unique opportunity when it comes to exchanging views with and obtaining insights from market professionals. Unfortunately I think, a side effect of that is we tend to start to believe that it's a level playing field with open access to all and that there is somehow a right of passage. Needless to say it isn't and there isn't.

Regards
 
SOCRATES said:
Because I have laid it all out in very great detail and very clearly indeed.

And because I am not interested in engaging in any further tit for tat argument, as I have more important and satisfying things to do.

And because you bore me to tears, frankly.
Come now Socrates, you and I both know that you have not laid out anything at all. You certainly have not done so in any clear or detailed way either. If fact you repeatedly proclaim you will not lay anything out for anyone as you have learnt your lesson and have now decided to clam up and never again bless us with your pearls of wisdom.

You have made sweeping generalisations backed up with nothing. You have proclaimed your experience to be the only valid one. You have said my perspective is back to front and "external" but refused to explain yourself when I have pointed out that my point was undeniable fact.

You have argued that success requires extreme dedication, work and diligence in order to change one's very core being and personality. Then you contradict yourself by egotisticaly claiming traders are born and not made. Suggesting that only a blessed few born with the inherent greatness have a chance of success. When asked to explain you spout some garbage about only a select few are able to change themselves easily and it is these that can be traders. Anyone can change, some more easily than others. When it is shown clearly in black and white rather than verbosely in purple it is clear your deep profundity is rather self evident to all.

At that point you retire and proclaim you can not argue your own point.

So where is the detail? Actually don't bother answering that as we both already know there is no detail.

By the way, tit for tat suggests an equality. Whilst I'm flattered you consider me your equal, I can't say the same for you. I have attempted to answer your points as directly as I can. You on the other hand continually ignore any of my points and questions that you find too hard to argue rationally against.

Cheerio,
PKFFW
 
sandpiper said:
PKFFW,

I'm struggling to see why you're bothering since you are obviously on a hiding to nothing ;)

One of the difficulties here of course is that different people have different ideas of what success means. There are a great many levels of accomplishment between master and **** wit. My own experience is that under normal circumstances, those at the top of the tree rarely, if ever, have cause to see things from the perspective of those of us lower down, but then why should they? Why should they be asked to contemplate any definition of success other than their own? Why should they be called upon explain any route to success other than the one they took?

The sharp-end of the financial services industry, and by that I don't just mean trading, is full of **** holes. Some incredibly talented, some not quite so talented. But once you get to the highest levels you pretty much observe the same characteristics across the board.

Were the circumstances surrounding your current exchange more formal you might have been told (as I was once by the head of fixed income in large IB) to "**** off and If I have anything to do with it you'll never work in the city again". However, since this isn't a formalised environment, we can fool ourselves into thinking that less than formal rules of engagement, etiquette and dialogue apply.

This board, and boards like it, sometimes present us with a unique opportunity when it comes to exchanging views with and obtaining insights from market professionals. Unfortunately I think, a side effect of that is we tend to start to believe that it's a level playing field with open access to all and that there is somehow a right of passage. Needless to say it isn't and there isn't.

Regards
Hiding to nothing? If you are suggesting Socrates has nothing to offer then I feel that is likely correct.

My point has never been about the definition of success. My point is that it is simply wrong to assume that how one achieved success in this game is the only way for anyone to achieve success. To assume the trials and tribulations along the way must, and will, be the same for all. That what one found difficult, all must find difficult. That if another has not walked the same path as oneself then they must not have achieved the same level of success.

Further to that, I have never asked Socrates to explain any other path to success. I have not even asked him to explain his path to success. I am not interested in that. I have merely attempted to guide him towards the realisation that his way can not be the only way. If it was, then no one else on earth would be able to achieve success in this game. We are all different and hence his way will not work for anyone but himself. Now surely even Socrates can admit others on this planet have achieved success in this game of trading. As such, his allusion toward being some all knowing god like figure that can see exactly where anyone else is on this "obstacle course to success" is simply ego talking.

For someone who admonishes others to give up the ego on such a regular basis, it is ironic that Socrates seems so incapable of giving up his own. It is only the ego that would have us believe that our path is the only path. That our success is the only success. That our trials, experiences and hardships are the only trials, experiences and hardships. It is only the ego that would have us argue so vehemently against any opposing view. To dismiss that opposing view out of hand. To deride any who would dare suggest another idea. It is only the ego that would then have us retreat into a facade of arrogance and disinterest when it is made apparent that our point of view may not be the only valid or correct one.

I think deep down Socrates already knows this. Ego is a strong influence though. Once we have made statements we often feel compelled to stick by those statements. To argue them even when their obvious shortcomings are pointed out. Our ego refuses to admit we could be in error. We may have overstated our position.

Not to worry, I'm sure if he applies himself as he advises all others to, he will get there in the end.

Cheers,
PKFFW
 
PKFFW said:
Hiding to nothing? If you are suggesting Socrates has nothing to offer then I feel that is likely correct.

My point has never been about the definition of success. My point is that it is simply wrong to assume that how one achieved success in this game is the only way for anyone to achieve success. To assume the trials and tribulations along the way must, and will, be the same for all. That what one found difficult, all must find difficult. That if another has not walked the same path as oneself then they must not have achieved the same level of success.

Further to that, I have never asked Socrates to explain any other path to success. I have not even asked him to explain his path to success. I am not interested in that. I have merely attempted to guide him towards the realisation that his way can not be the only way. If it was, then no one else on earth would be able to achieve success in this game. We are all different and hence his way will not work for anyone but himself. Now surely even Socrates can admit others on this planet have achieved success in this game of trading. As such, his allusion toward being some all knowing god like figure that can see exactly where anyone else is on this "obstacle course to success" is simply ego talking.

For someone who admonishes others to give up the ego on such a regular basis, it is ironic that Socrates seems so incapable of giving up his own. It is only the ego that would have us believe that our path is the only path. That our success is the only success. That our trials, experiences and hardships are the only trials, experiences and hardships. It is only the ego that would have us argue so vehemently against any opposing view. To dismiss that opposing view out of hand. To deride any who would dare suggest another idea. It is only the ego that would then have us retreat into a facade of arrogance and disinterest when it is made apparent that our point of view may not be the only valid or correct one.

I think deep down Socrates already knows this. Ego is a strong influence though. Once we have made statements we often feel compelled to stick by those statements. To argue them even when their obvious shortcomings are pointed out. Our ego refuses to admit we could be in error. We may have overstated our position.

Not to worry, I'm sure if he applies himself as he advises all others to, he will get there in the end.

Cheers,
PKFFW

PKFFW,

Your well crafted retort demands that I explain myself further I suppose.

By hiding to nothing I meant that you've decided for yourself (by whatever means) what it is that you want, indeed what it is that you need and it's obvious at this point that Socrates isn't going to give it to you. So why waste the energy?

You're right in that you have never asked for any other route to success to be explained or even asked for him to explain his path. Actually, my comment was more of a general one rather than being explicitly directed at you. Nevertheless, I apologise for that. You are however asking that he acknowledge that there are other paths, that his may not be the only way, etc. Why? Is it important to you that he acknowledge the validity of your own path or just just other non-specific paths in general? Why do you need this acceptance? You quite rightly mention others on this planet who have achieved success in this game of trading. However, do you suppose that they need to be accepted, to have their achievements acknowledged (er, actually some of them do but that's a different story....).

Finally, I can't dispute the points you make are regarding ego. However, in my opinion, it's a fallacy to think that successful traders or, for that matter, successful professionals in any of a number of fields, are without ego. My experience with regards to traders is that they just somehow manage to shut it in a box when required.

Regards
 
sandpiper said:
PKFFW,

Your well crafted retort demands that I explain myself further I suppose.

By hiding to nothing I meant that you've decided for yourself (by whatever means) what it is that you want, indeed what it is that you need and it's obvious at this point that Socrates isn't going to give it to you. So why waste the energy?

You're right in that you have never asked for any other route to success to be explained or even asked for him to explain his path. Actually, my comment was more of a general one rather than being explicitly directed at you. Nevertheless, I apologise for that. You are however asking that he acknowledge that there are other paths, that his may not be the only way, etc. Why? Is it important to you that he acknowledge the validity of your own path or just just other non-specific paths in general? Why do you need this acceptance? You quite rightly mention others on this planet who have achieved success in this game of trading. However, do you suppose that they need to be accepted, to have their achievements acknowledged (er, actually some of them do but that's a different story....).

Finally, I can't dispute the points you make are regarding ego. However, in my opinion, it's a fallacy to think that successful traders or, for that matter, successful professionals in any of a number of fields, are without ego. My experience with regards to traders is that they just somehow manage to shut it in a box when required.

Regards
Didn't mean my reply to seem like a "retort" to you sandpiper. You asked questions, I replied. I did not take your post personally or have the idea that you were having a go at me. No malice was intended in my reply.

Why am I wasting the energy you ask. It is certainly not for socrates' approval or acceptance. In fact, as I freely admit to not yet being a successful trader I can't even begin to desire acceptance of my unachieved success.

I debate the matter with socrates because, for good or ill, I detest hypocracy. socrates exudes hypocracy. He admonishes others to give up ego and yet is clearly wrapped up in his own ego. For good or ill I detest arogance and socrates has this quality in abundance as well. When these two qualities combine and are directed at me it gets up my goat and I "waste energy" in pointing out the flaws in the others point of view. It especially gets up my goat when those qualities are combined with generalistic assumptions formed about me from something other than the writings of my post. At the very least on a forum board one should deal with what is written and not with ones own assumptions about the other person.

So yes, I agree, it is a waste of energy and a hiding no nothing as socrates will never admit his point of view is clearly and undeniably incorrect. However, the fact that once this is pointed out causes him to retreat and proclaim he can not argue his own point is enough for me.

Lastly, I do not expect anyone to be without ego. Ego is a part of being human. What I expect is that one should acknowledge ones own ego and gain some sort of control over it before advising others that they can not be as successful as oneself until they control their own ego. If one were to do that, then the arrogance problem would resolve itself as well. If that is too hard then at the very least one should not direct ones malice in my direction unless it is warrented by something I have specifically posted.

Cheers,
PKFFW
 
PKFFW said:
Didn't mean my reply to seem like a "retort" to you sandpiper. You asked questions, I replied. I did not take your post personally or have the idea that you were having a go at me. No malice was intended in my reply.

Why am I wasting the energy you ask. It is certainly not for socrates' approval or acceptance. In fact, as I freely admit to not yet being a successful trader I can't even begin to desire acceptance of my unachieved success.

I debate the matter with socrates because, for good or ill, I detest hypocracy. socrates exudes hypocracy. He admonishes others to give up ego and yet is clearly wrapped up in his own ego. For good or ill I detest arogance and socrates has this quality in abundance as well. When these two qualities combine and are directed at me it gets up my goat and I "waste energy" in pointing out the flaws in the others point of view. It especially gets up my goat when those qualities are combined with generalistic assumptions formed about me from something other than the writings of my post. At the very least on a forum board one should deal with what is written and not with ones own assumptions about the other person.

So yes, I agree, it is a waste of energy and a hiding no nothing as socrates will never admit his point of view is clearly and undeniably incorrect. However, the fact that once this is pointed out causes him to retreat and proclaim he can not argue his own point is enough for me.

Lastly, I do not expect anyone to be without ego. Ego is a part of being human. What I expect is that one should acknowledge ones own ego and gain some sort of control over it before advising others that they can not be as successful as oneself until they control their own ego. If one were to do that, then the arrogance problem would resolve itself as well. If that is too hard then at the very least one should not direct ones malice in my direction unless it is warrented by something I have specifically posted.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Having just read this whole thread, I find it interesting, how Socrates pontificates ad nauseum about the inabilities of newbies, but when challenged on his own pronouncements, he clams up. Well done PKFFW for the exposure of the egotistical elite.

Eddie
 
Top