... like a Hershey for Dummies? Yes - but not quite

Writing this up is fairly complete. I squashed it down to 5 multimedia segments. I found that getting 50 years input from others was the most exciting thing of all.

Elsewhere there is a dialogue among users and non users and its focus may be coming around to the design and development of models. Figuring the model out for the trader was the most interesting.

As always man's progress often comes from the tools he creates to extend his reach in problem solving. A written document rarely becomes a useful tool. Over 50 years of being a published author has taught me that. The cookbook is probably the most useful format. The dummy orientation to a cookbook is very practical.

Bergman, with respect to statistical mechanics and all his other courses would not accept papers from individuals. He insisted on a more human process which he specified. He got results in transference which, in turn, laid the foundations for moving forward.

The markets represent the neatest construct of all since they are so enabling by the utility of their output, the market's continuing offer.

So the tool had to be extraction and its user had to have two things: effectiveness (from his "equipment') and efficiency (from his extractive "plug in" to the market). So that is two of the five books and multi media films.

Designing the symbols for communicating to the "audience" became a terrific experience. I especially liked how we were told to determine the "audience". The university disciplines and the traffic through them are intersting to consider. My alma mater started a discipline with guinea pigs when I was there (I did it) and now it is the second major of 62% of attendees. When I went to school having two majors or minors was unusal.

We are able to have 4 out of 5 reject our model out of hand. I believe this is because of their choices regarding pool extraction which is foreign and that learning is a process. Process means there is an order of considerations that optimize getting equipped. Getting equipped is not a priority for most. What is a priiority is trading to make money (being "efficient" as I put it). There is a P&L thread that is devoted to what "efficiency" means to the public.

Elsewhere there is a piece of observation that some aspects of this may not be public. The observer has an ordinary perception of the process of creation and he can only see so far along this path. Because he is unfamiliar with what happened after where he sits now, he has a simplist partial picture.

It is hard to imagine the change in the general setting of the financial industry over the last half century. If a person examines "pool extraction" in the setting of participating in the structure of the financial business, it has always been way outside of what is deemed possible.

Say you want to write something up and it happens it has been going on for four generations in the same way. Plain English would be your tool of choice. The cast of characters has always been the same; different people step in to play the roles as aging occurs.

No one in the financial industry has focused on taking the market's offer. This can't be true, because there were so many people and the spectrum has always been so wide. But, as you can see, no one did it. You spoke of 1500% a year from a black box. Small box, apparently.

Why didn't people tool up to take the market's offer. It goe to the consideration of university disciplines and how an "audience" comes into being for "tooling". People have not focussed on "extracting the offer" because it did not occur to them.

What is it like to do this for 50 plus years in the various settings of the decades? Unusual. Like you are limited to 200 posts a year for some personal reasons. Maybe you do not write runon copy as I do. I guess pool extraction turned out like driving a car. Just going down the trading road taking the market's offer regardless of the way in which you connected to the market and the people involved.

I would never appear in anyone's offices for years and years. I would only phone and use the mail. Piles and piles of mail. My most recent appearances were through the research door and by almost sneaking through a couple of corridors to sit in my broker's cubical. Chicken dinners were not my thing either.

The flavor of ET as you see it is foreign to me. The breadth of ET is what it is and a lot of orientations are espoused. If one examines people from their "equipment" and their "plug in's", there is a big puddle most people sit in. If the place were divided into regions, the dividers would be one way glass/mirrors where most people near the center would look out at mirrors.

Why can't people see the users, spyder or me? Simply because they do not have the pool extraction "equipment" or "plug in's". You are gong to quote up a plain English version of what these people (non users) can't see when you spend the time doing a work around process that substitutes for learning to get "equipped" and to have a trading "plug in" become operational.

Read the Prentice Hall edited Preface of the expanded edition of "Trend Following". Prentic Hall publishes books for people in the financial industry. Covel spend eight years on a hazardous journey. He filled a void, he says. The filled void was to put in place "the best strategy to consistently make money". The editors at Prentice Hall sent this camara ready copy to the presses at some point and it was shipped to books stores, etc.. People picked up the book took it to a cashier and paid money for the book.

This guy walked around in the puddle for quite a while seeing his and their faces in the mirrors making up the compartments. Hite wrote the Foreword; he averages less that your 1500 percent a year (20% is quoted). The foreword starts with the plain English quote of Genral George S. Patton, Jr.: "No good decision was ever made sitting in a swivel chair".

Pool extraction fills no voids nor does PVT, SCT or SSR; all they do is take the market's offer effectively and efficiently (via the differentiated trader) in any market on any fractal given sufficient market liquidity.

The self selecting nature of the "audience" is and was a nice occurence.

I attached a seminal logic diagram that explains how "perception" occurs and the role being differentiated plays. Many people have translated the information available. As you see it does not lead, in any way to attaining the inference portion of perception. These people still continue to use their original inference to cut and paste their translation.

We do recommend swivel chairs and, further we recommend an array of screens in a specific arc and relationship. Some people will interpret this as adding spin to our approach; it is.

 

eto,

Catch you breath for a second and consider, as you suggest, you have little or no inference with regards to market operation.

Please review how you think about specific things. Over time you have made decisions to believe this or that (usually in some context). As a consequence your memory gives you a "first recourse". Consider, if possible, reviewing the conversation and how you are contributing to it.

All the questions you are going to ask have been answered repeatedly. The reason they have been answered is that, they were asked and answered.

You deem your space as the plain English space. This sort of first recourse is one that is not differentiated with respect to how markets operate.

A lot of people are helping you out; go with the flow a little and skip the conclusion stuff for a while.

 

Are you so bored out of your skull that it takes you a 1,000 word essay to say nothing of value? Get a life, and either get audited or get lost.

You need to shed this burning desire to be appreciated by newbies. You are not an ET guru, but an ET distraction.

Seriously, you appear to be dazzled by your own heiroglyphics

 

A very serious case of the pot calling the kettle black. You should see a doctor about that.

 

So true

 

Thank you.

re: “You deem your space as the plain English space. This sort of first recourse is one that is not differentiated with respect to how markets operate.”
Actually, I “deem” my space as ‘the no language at all’ space. I once again remind you to be careful of these ‘alliterations without the rhymers’ such as “plain English”. They are intentional symbolics used for the sake of a personal economy of content posted… with the (only slightly higher) risks acknowledged(on this end at least) of possible ridiculous misinterpretation and spinning by the reader …

It should also be noted that the 1500% black box ‘exception’ example was originally used in defense of / in ‘resistance to closure’ to the paradigm in response to naysayers and flamers... all still before I ‘know’ anything about the paradigm.

Glanced at your BPA illustration. Good stuff. What jumped out at me? The huge diversity in the levels and balances of the functions / detectors individual traders bring to the markets. In a ‘strengths based’ approach, if one’s detector proclivities dull the potential for readily processing the match of those functions needed to apply your paradigm, then they should move on to an approach more tuned to the strengths of their own detectors. Same goes for all the other ‘greyware’ processes in the oval on the illustration. A friend just reminded me the other day same thing “Definately play with your strengths!!! Let the weaknesses slowly become strengths.” Maybe this is related to your content in your post about the ‘pool’.

 

Ask your friend to have a conversation with you about the context of a person coming into trading. It will eliminate the context of strengths. There are no strengths at the beginning.

There is just the state the person is in and how he will make decisions to forward himself.

The critical path is to build the mind. Alternatives are very expensive in time.

As you relate, you and your friend do not "get" the aspect of drills as yet. Drills build a barrier to what is in the mind before the process of building the mind begins.

The size of the barrier required is an issue. I refer to the issue as one where, at some point, some people have done so much damage, they are at a point where building the barrier extensively enough is impossible.

So far your preference is doing three jobs instead of one job. The example of construction workers not following a blueprint is applicable. Most can see that not following blueprints takes the profit out of a project.

Not having a profitable experience learning to trade is the vogue. A person assessing trading can go about it anyway he wishes. You have more assessing to do because of the status of your mind. You can also check out your status with regard to deciding to do drills to build the required barrier.

Some people consider interlacing the old with the new to build a composite. In construction, this is not done because of expense and because of the end product quality and functionality. Blading a site in an old part of town to create new custom infill is not possible with the mind and its contents.

There is not much value in exploring vacant property either.
I made a general post elswhere. You can see that it was not in plain English either by the Q's it drew. Languaging any idea or concept to another person is difficult. They measure it by what comes consciously to mind as a consequence of past decisions that created their belief system.

 

Jack does that all by himself

 

I really don’t have to have that conversation with my friend because there ARE strengths at the beginning! Some will be ‘stronger’ at seeing the spaces, shapes, and motions that need to be seen. They were born stronger at it. That doesn’t mean others can’t make it to the same level of mastery or anything like that. Instead the point remains that proclivities are important.

Let’s hypothetically switch Roethlisberger and Polamalu (as kids or right now – your choice) and drill and drill and drill them in their new positions. Both of them would be ‘good’, but the likihood of either of them keeping a starting job in their new positions is extremely low. Why? Not because of the quality or quantity of their drilling… but because of individual differences in how each processes both facts and ‘faiths’.

Yes, "We are what we repeatedly do." (Aristotle) yada yada…
And to master this, the way to do it is do it many times.. well duh!
Perfect practice makes... more yada yada
Give a thousand ‘traders’ the drills to do. A few would GET IT top down naturally and could thus apply themselves precisely. A few would persist and build a 'get it' because the drills are just what they are doing period. But, for most of them, the drills would be meaningless and would degrade and be dropped - not because of inferiority of or in their ‘minds’ or 'belief systems', but because of inclinations different from the 'hershey' way of seeing and processing spaces, shapes, and motions, etc of market representations.

Speaking of blueprints. The ‘blueprints’ for this ‘project’ are imo not done to very high standards… that’s the reason behind me starting the thread to begin with.
Also, blueprints are a representation that does not specifically outline developmental sequence. Proper sequencing is usually represented differently. The sequencing punch list for this ‘project’ is also sketchy at best… with arbitrary barriers to clarifications re-phrasing, etc.
Example - What is the progression of the ‘drills’? etc.?
Basically, the call is going out for a digest of the material to be lifted from the post tripe and flames. I’ll do it - but you’re likely not going to enjoy the results and the consequences of having an ‘outsider’ lay it out inaccurately…

With each post you can continue to point out the woeful inadequacies of my mind and all the other minds or you could add alternate descriptions and explanations to the rigid pre –existing material. It’s up to you. You are not the first really smart guy whose obstinacy is the prime obstruction to the advancement of his own amazing innovations…

 

Generally, I go to where the person is and bring him in a direction that improves his knowledge and skills.

So I envision people of all kinds who are assessing what they see. Their views of what they see allow the person mentoring them to pick up on the next steps.

In the front ends of the journals we put in place the references and we scoped and bounded the journal and its purposes.

The wrapup of SCT was done in a syllabus that lasted 12 months and which was announced at the beginning. Following that "Iterative Refinement" focused on the title of the forum.

Several ancillary threads were created. If a moderator created the thread it was a spinoff from another topic. If a person started the thread then it was supported for that OP's interests. I do not start threads.

This is a chit chat thread because its purpose was counter to the forum you said it began in. Putting my name on a thread title is an idea that most moderators would not like to see. The trading forum is a tough forum because of the judgmental nature of its moderation.

This thread did have one wave of discussion on one substantive topic. Its conclusion was a natural one.

In the past a discussion of drills and differentiation was done and the main illustration was a helix that rotated through 10 sectors as it rose through six or seven levels. It is on one page. Sort of seminal in many ways. A transcript of the discussion was completed and it was illustrated and archived.

I have been tasked by a film person. It seemed kind of orderly and productive and positive. Fun, in other words. One aspect was having some resourses. We settled on story boards and the 5 books in process on the subject.

I like the theme you are using: getting practitioners' input on the package you are putting together. Practitioners really have a cohesive view of how they went though to process of differentiation and just what the challenges were that they had to overcome. This feedback over the years allowed for a better pathway to be built.

The proclivity for mostly everyone before they begin is to walk around and view what they see and then figure out how to use their strengths to do things that will get the approach under their belts. Waiting out this period is necessary but it does come to an end.

My focus in psychiatry was "learning". The assessor phase is most interesting. To move out of it, requires that the first step of learning has to be made only up to a maximum level for the person to climb the first step. What makes learning a thing attractive is how the person views the subject from the outside. He fails always to see the suject's magnitude. This is good, because it minimizes the risk he is facing as he assesses. The person then chooses where to take his first step if at all.

What he encounters determines the height of the first step. Later the path is viewed as a series of plateaux. The talis in going from one plateau to another is a challenge since coming from a comfortable place and going upward to the unseen is represents growth.

The SCT bootcamp intended to take a month wound up taking many months. It prints out at 1839 pages. One group worked Saturday mornings for 8 or 9 weeks and then did 30% a month (on capital of 100k) in PVT. The monthly 3 rings were about 2" thick. Different levels of the first step and subsequent plateaux. Working with millionaires is different; they like to spend a lot of time really bearing down. They like the contrast to business and real estate. Pilots are a lot of fun too. They like equipment and making phone calls when their FP's are filed; they like to do two jobs at once.

i liked theuniqueness of the learning aspect oflearning to trade. It is different than anything else in the world. I never met anyone who immediately caught on to the potential of skills application.

It is a terrific moment when their intention shifts its causal basis. LOL....

The distaff side is always possible. Humorously its called deciding to be right rather than rich. It is not the my way or the highway decision. Deciding to be right has nothing to do with externalities.

The blueprint scenario here between you and I is an example. I'm sure there are a lot of people here who read your comments who are also familiar with the "language" of construction or the language of engineering, engineering drawings. Its the same as the language of music. All are universally followed on a systematic basis.

Logic drawings prevail for representing the system of PEP, and its applications PVT, SCT, and SSR. Information processing is shown on the logic structure. Results pump out in the form of money which is controlled by the information outputs.

The mind building is done as a process to install the logic drawings. It has been called transference and we figured out "translation" was a dead end by observing the consequences of translation.

4 out of 5 people measured by simplistic polls reject what the practitioners learned to do.

I see the 1:20 news has arrived. (bar 71). Non dominance to dominance strikes again