SOCRATES
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,966
- Likes
- 136
Additionally, since you mention it, when I used to teach newbies from scratch, on the very first day on the very first morning they would receive an "introductory bollicking" in which for 20 to 25 minutes they got read the riot act of how dangerous all of this is if you do not do it correctly, and how difficult it is for ordinary people to come to terms with what it is they have to do, and how everything is against you, and how hard you have to work on it and yourself to overcome all the traps, all the temptations, all the dangers, how much work is entailed, all about discipline, focus, self governance of he highest order required, and how you would only succeed if you were capable of dealing with all these menaces, in fact I described the most daunting obstacle course you can imagine enough to put anybody off.stevespray said:
I would then leave the door open for exactly 2 minutes and encouraged anyone who wanted to leave to do so. An immediate refund was offered to anyone who wished to leave and an assurance that it would not be regarded negatively. And, in addition, an extra £50 in cash would be given so that the departee could home by taxi or whatever First Class as I did not want anyone to feel coerced or unhappy. Result ? No one ever left, with the exception of two. One had given me a cheque that was wrongly filled out three times and the other was an old boy who simply was not up to it. I took him aside and sent him home, making the class bellieve he was not feeling well. His taxi fare was £80 as I remember.
Once the door was shut, we would get down to the topic, taught in ascending rafts of complexity but explained from many different aspects in order to give it more than one flat dimension. A topic would be explained in detail, step by step. The class would listen,
then they could ask questions, then they were allowed to challenge and try to present an alternative that could prove that markets do not work according to supply and demand but some other reason, whether astrology, politics, or whatever, in an attempt to find a flaw.
No flaw could be found because there wasn't any. Then they would take notes of what they had been taught , in detail. Then they were invited to ask any further questions. Then they would be asked if they understood it . If there was the slightest doubt or hint of a doubt it would be explained again until it was understood. Then the class would, one by one explain what they had learnt back to me and to each other rigorously one by one. Any individual errors were corrected on the spot.
I made sure that everyone had understood, challenged, noted, asked questions, was able to explain, had not further questions to ask to my satisfaction and theirs. I had the attitude no one was allowed to leave the class until all this had been completed painstakingly. Then a tea break, then back again for another session, step by step.
Once a module had been completed we would revise it and the one before that.
You would think people would understand after all this would you not ? After all, it is more, much more, that can be expected from anyone.
Well, not exactly.
Because what they wanted was not to get to grips with all of this to master it and make it their own individual intellectual property so that they could deal with the market effectively as a result of having acquired and mastered the concepts, no, what they wanted was to have the bits they liked and for them to ignore the bits that they did not like.
And at the end of the course for them to go away and suddenly make millions in a very short period of time. And no question of individual effort. Effort is a nasty word that involves work, another nasty word. No, there must be some shortcut somewhere.
Therefore what transpires is a tragic comedy. The idea of having to paper trade for a minimum of six months and submit their results, with questions etc., oh no none of that ! They wanted to get fastened onto it straight away, as they did not consider the idea of paper trading to give themselves the chance to see and experience, everything they had been taught unfolding necessary or even desireable.
The question of using stops was another matter that people are reluctant to accept.
So here we have a typical example of an individual who thinks he knows better and who argues. he argues that a stop ought to be wide in order to take account of volatility.
Can you think of anything more ridiculous ? He would not accept to abstain during these periods and wanted to have a go all the time.
In addition this individual goes and does everything he ought not to have done, not because I say it, but because it is the experience recorded of all who have gone before us whose experiences and whose legacy in this respect is foolish to ignore.
But this individual of course knows better. He disregards all the evidence laid in front of him in these respects and then goes and chooses a fast instrument which he does not understand let alone become familiar with and starts to trade them in multiples, sometimes with a 20 point stop instead of a 2 or a 3 and sometimes without one at all, against all admonishment, repeated warnings, and against the advice of his broker, who explained at the time a client could not be forced to use a stop.
Of course he makes a complete mess of it all, whose fault is it now ? Is the driving instructor responsible for the new driver to disregard all he has learnt and crash the car through speeding and dangerous driving on unfamiliar roads ?
And then he is unfairly criticised and blamed for everything. So there is no more tuition. That is the result. In fact, I have a file, and it is two inches thick on the subject, and I honestly do not have the stamina to replicate everything ~ enough is to say that the facts speak for themselves.
