It's quite possible that my experiences have been colored by the fact I've never experienced a forgiving market or a benign trading environment. I started out trading commodities in one of the harshest, jaggediest environments of all time, near the tail end of the bear cycle where everything was either half dead or psycho when it was awake. While YAHOO and AMZN were in the stratosphere, I was getting my chops busted learning how to duck and weave around stuff like mad cow disease and government crop reports and nutjob cocoa farmers and Japanese currency interventions and crazy OPEC threats. Meanwhile the late great naz bull completely passed me by- and by the time I came around to stocks it was dodge city there too. Made for one sick puppy of a training course, no doubt about that. Faster re intelligence vs common sense, simply visit any high profile academic community of your choice and you will find ample numbers of high powered idiots walking around.
To elaborate on the common sense question, I think there is a difference between the information intake process and the decision making process. I think that the ability to make logical decisions, especially to make them in short order or under duress, is a skill that is developed via application and experience and is perhaps separate from the raw intelligence level itself. There also seems to be a common link between high intelligence and low emotional maturity, i.e. smart people (or people who think they are smart) can lean towards sloppy analysis because they are used to being right and can have a higher 'consistency bias' than normal individuals do because their ego is more wrapped up in their personal image than Joe Blow's would be. Though in smart people's favor, big egoes and low emotional maturity levels are pretty common in average folks as well as sharp ones. Smart people who screw up just tend to stand out more. I also suspect that high levels of raw intelligence are less common than the numbers of professors, phd graduates et al would seem to imply. Getting a doctorate really isn't that hard; it requires a greater degree of sitzfleisch than brilliance- the ability to slog through hundreds of hours of paperwork and monotonous research. In assigning values to the force of accomplishment in this world, most of the time determination and gruntwork have a higher value than brilliance. So when you add the fact that there are fewer highly intelligent people out there than it would seem, combined with the typical enhanced ego element of successful/ smart individuals and the fact that decison making is a tangible skill that is typically overlooked in the academic world and can be improved with dedicated work, it helps add up to the reasoning behind Voltaire's observation that 'common sense isn't so common.' this site offers some interesting reading related to the subject: http://www.odci.gov/csi/books/19104/index.html
"For them the contest consists in the archer aiming at himself - and yet not himself, and thus becoming simultaneously the aimer and the aim, the hitter and the hit. Or, to use some expressions which are nearest the heart of the Masters, it is necessary for the archer to become, in spite of himself, an unmoved center. Then comes the supreme and ultimate miracle: art becomes "artless", shooting becomes not-shooting, a shooting without bow and arrow; the teacher becomes a pupil again, the Master a beginner, the end a beginning, and the beginning perfection." -Zen in the Art of Archery Eugen Herrigel
wait a minute dude... although i think it's pretty clear that the "things" you draw your insights from ARE philosophies and religions, i can understand that your "angle" involves neither.. an "experience" as you say.. i most certainly do not feel "insecure" about things my mind can't "grasp" ...in fact, i have found few things i haven't been able to "grasp"... yes, point taken about "attacking"...but, like i've said, i hope that you don't think these "philosophies" (for want of a better term) are not beyond reproach... i too wish to take what's useful from them and in the process, if possible, improve upon them.. if something is working for you, believe me, i would not sit there and tell you are "wrong"...like pointing at Orville Wright and screaming, 'i'm telling you man, it won't fly!!"...that's just stupid. if you look back, one of main objections was positing the "ego" as though it something that actually exists. i say this is a potential problem, because there are better ways to describe the mental process you sum and call ego. better because, with the 'ego' divided into its constituents, we can address and alter parts of our "mental makeup" so that we can perform better (at trading and in general life).. that way the 'ego' does not become an impediment to progress, it accelerates it. Ok? i hope that's acceptable to you...
This is important and true. If you have a profitable method and you trade it according to the rules(play well) you KNOW that you will succeed, which brings peace of mind and satisfaction. If you screw around(play shitty), get lucky, and make 10k, you are relying purely on luck which is random, and over the long run you'll end up losing.
Two ways to look at this (as far as the results). If for example, you stick to your disciplines and lose, well that can't be helped. Part of trading. If you do NOT stick to your your disciplines (ie: hold a loser for no other reason than being stubborn) and then end up making money (lucky), then indeed it is poor trading. Especially in that it may lead to you doing it again because you remembered the time it worked. And this will end up costing you big time over the longer run. But, it is my contention that the market is an extremely fluid thing, and that a really good trader will feel changes in the currents, and adjust to them. So what may have been "good trading" yesterday, may now be wrong for today. Same on the other side of the coin. It is a matter of adaptation. I do not by any means want to imply that abandoning your strategy, plan, whatever you want to call it, is the proper thing if what you wanted to do doesn't work. In general when this happens, it is time to step away, and be patient. Wait for what it is you do to start working agian. But subtle changes, for some traders, is a good thing. They can sense a change in the dynamic of the market as it is happening, adjust to it, and profit from it. What seperates the very best traders from the rest is this ability to make these adjustments on a real time basis. It is tricky, it is not for everyone, and it certainly is not the right thing to do while still developing a plan. But after enough time, you can begin to sense when the "plan" needs to be modified. Even if for just a day or so. This can be the result of many factors. Political events, economic, company specific, market sentiment, whatever. These things just are a fact of trading, and they make the "game" tricky. It isn't baseball. The "rules" change, and the calls sometimes go the way you would least expect. Recognizing this and adapting is part of good trading. just my somewhat disjointed thoughts. Peace, and all that, RS7
Posted by Publias: Now as you can see I am not affirming or denying any external truths here, nor did I ever on this entire thread. This is what arrogant close minded people cannot quite grasp about Taoism and Zen... It is not philosophy nor religion, because they are not arrogant enough to believe they know or have the ability to comprehend the ultimate/absolute truth... This is my truth! Because as Einstein said you can never open up the watch, but I assure you that you can open your SELF! Posted by Publias: BTW; Dark I am already profitable consistently for over 4 years(ft sole source income), for me it is not a matter of seeking external methods to make money(not to say I don't adapt and cultivate new methods), for me it is only a matter of aiming inward and making sure that I properly exploit those methods... Maybe this is where some of the confusion lies around here... _____________________________________________ I can assume you've opened this thread then because you are a successful trader and you are relating your findings, part of which is the inclusion ( if I interpret correctly) of your "inner self " in your trading equation, and that is your Truth. Well good for you, but the things I find most interesting in this thread are the responses, not your "findings". Don't misunderstand me. I do find your writing extremely readable and it's an interesting topic, but the conclusion I come to is.. So What? If I am to understand the next step is to discuss Your Truth, then good Publias, I missed something. Some of Your truth is: Publias: "At the end of the day if I play well and end up losing 5k I feel alot better than I do when I make 10k and play shitty...." _____________________________________________ Don't you see that kind of statement will create a whole range of responses from those interested enough to read it? Here's one.. Posted by Rigel This is important and true. If you have a profitable method and you trade it according to the rules(play well) you KNOW that you will succeed, which brings peace of mind and satisfaction. If you screw around(play shitty), get lucky, and make 10k, you are relying purely on luck which is random, and over the long run you'll end up losing. _____________________________________________ That seems to support your Truth to some extent but the question comes to me ...why the hell are you "screwing around " enough to make 10k by luck and lose 5k from running your system. Surely systems / methods are developed in an attempt to stop that fundmental kind of error. A system should be systematic. If the "wrong" outcome occurs enough to frig up the account, then it should be clear enough to say it's the system that's shitty. If the system relies on whether your inner self is in sympathy with the universe, then you consider yourself too important. And that's the problem for me as far as I know. In an attempt to search for the solution, all sorts of weird and wonderful side tracks appear, from superstition to inner peace, when you really know damn well if you just stop trying to short cut, that the system is not good enough yet (though maybe not worthless) and it's in the trying to fix it, where all the pain, work, time and expense lies. Whether you feel good while doing that or when you think it's done, may be useful to the individual, but it's nothing to do with the challenge itself. If you choose to "trade out of your head" from feelings, a certain sense a knowledge, something inate, intuitive which has built up over time, then you have been consistently adjusting adapting to stay in the game. Can you write that method down on paper or explain it so that others can have all their queries and questions met. I don't think so. Ask the best soccer player why he can do what others apparently can't, he just does it. But what the hell use is that to others who want to learn. That's the important word LEARN . Too many trade BEFORE they learn. You want to learn zen, learn zen. You want to learn to trade learn to trade.Is there some zen in trading? If there is write it down ,show it. In this context like the soccer player, you've said squat so far in very eloquent language, but the drift now appears to be accusing others of indescretion as far as I can see. You've listed in your Truth the things that are the problem, that's half the battle. _____________________________________________ posted by Adonis Mastery "For them the contest consists in the archer aiming at himself - and yet not himself, and thus becoming simultaneously the aimer and the aim, the hitter and the hit. Or, to use some expressions which are nearest the heart of the Masters, it is necessary for the archer to become, in spite of himself, an unmoved center. Then comes the supreme and ultimate miracle: art becomes "artless", shooting becomes not-shooting, a shooting without bow and arrow; the teacher becomes a pupil again, the Master a beginner, the end a beginning, and the beginning perfection." -Zen in the Art of Archery Eugen Herrigel Just what the hell is that really? To me this is La La Land, to some others it makes some kind of sense. If the sense of it can't be explained (unless I will only be enlightened if I unreservedly accept it ) it's a digression interesting maybe but so what...... shall I take up archery? It's hippy stuff people had fun with in the 60's. It would have worked by now, much more than it has, as a part of everyones' trading. It hasn't. Some words are pretty, occasionally inspiring, but they're transient in effect. Surely your gonna fell happier with a robust trading system which is not affected by whether your metabolic system is performing in a certain way, or your friggin arrow feathers aren't ruffled. I am arrogant ? I have a closed mind because you can make your way work and I don't see how ? I make mine work, and it's been for a lot longer than 4 years and I do a lot better than a source of income. It doesn't make mine right or workable for everyone, I am certain from what I read on these boards lots would not like or agree with my method. Is it 'cause I call it hippy?.'Cause I don't agree with you.'Cause I miss your point. I am interested in all stuff but there must be some substance directly connected to trading and as the market doesn't give one sweet freakin feck how you are feeling, then in my opinion, it should be from there you approach "her" as you put it, not from zenworld. _____________________________________________ posted by rs7 I do not by any means want to imply that abandoning your strategy, plan, whatever you want to call it, is the proper thing if what you wanted to do doesn't work. In general when this happens, it is time to step away, and be patient. Wait for what it is you do to start working agian. Now that's a good idea. That's part of a proper approach you can measure. You can also step away and fix. That may be too hard but if the best get it wrong you got one hell of a challenge in front of you anyways. I don't think you want to start covering that up with mindsets and the art of flower arranging. Peace?
Stu why you are still even on this thread throwing around your opinions is beyond me? I have not addressed one post to you since my first reply... It may be time for to just move on... Dan I apologize to you... You came across aggressive with your initial questions, I found them as an attack rather than queries... BUT after all that, you seem to have had a genuine desire to know where I was coming from... So if through my admitted immaturity I wrongly threw insults toward you I apologize... Just a little tip though from an outsider; next time try and be a little less aggressive, it may be easier to get what you are looking for As for the rest, after reading over this thread this morning I simply do not like how it has turned out This will be my last post here on it... PEACE and good trading to all, Publias
i am beggining to lean a bit toward publias on the matter of trading and emotion (sorry dark). are fear, anger, delight, and yes even "drive", are they necessary for success in trading or are they hinderences to trading performance. after reading the arguments (and examples of great reasoning they certainly are on both sides of the argument) btw, i just LOVE a good argument, ie argument in the sense of correct and incisive reasoning. it's a beautiful thing in and of itself and on this note our resident sage dark is a "master reasoner"! dark i just love reading your stuff, your stuff has depth, insight and force! dark, you have a beautiful mind but i digress ....ok back to the trading and emotion. i think emotion is actually a hinderence (with the execption perhaps of desire because one must "desire' to trade to trade at all, right?) take "spock" of star trek, he's make a great trader wouldn't he? A TRADING MACHINE SPOCK WOULD BE DEVOID OF ANY PERFORMANCE HINDERING EMOTIONS. No fear, no anger, no rationalization ...just machine like precision in trading his methodology. his methods have a positive expectancy, and he knows that all he has to do is work it over time. he also knows that emotion such as anger and fear have consequence on the facts at hand. not only need for fear, greed, anger, delight etc. for "nirvanic" trading but a REQUIREMENT! emotions are a hinderence. eg. fear is a hinderence. i have yet to grasp the way fear would help a trader left brain make better trading decisions. emotion colors and distorts the facts, and renders them fuzzy and less useful. pain does the same. actually, if you think about it, lack of discipline in trading has its origin in emotion. when you become "emotional" you lose your edge, you begin to second guess your logical brain that is dealing with "just the facts and only the facts maam." now i know that dark makes the argument that emotion unchecked is not good but that emotion that is under control is the worthy state to strive for. to this i still say ... even a little fear or ander or any emotion is unnecssary and unproductive. the only thing that matters in trading is objective assessment of the system you are presently dealing with. would anger have assisted einstein in elucidating the fabric of reality? of course not.
just a little tip then Publias next time put your 'watch me do this' comments in Chit Chat instead if you don't expect other members to respond with what they think.