Does trading require talent?

[firewalker99]

So long story short if you ask me are we bounded by our biology the answer is yes. And am I a biological determinist? The answer is also yes in the way I have alluded. Your genes determine your bounds, along with developmental/social factors that effects these bounds.

The problem we have here (not uncommon, this happens in a lot of discussions), is that we all have our own twist to a definition. You call yourself a biological determinist "in the way you have alluded". Which is different than what I am thinking when I hear someone say "I am a believer in biological determinism".

Looks to me like you are 50-50 on the biological vs social determinism chasm but you don't yet know it yourself

 

[new_trader]

Ok, I won't debunk your analogy because analogies only go as far as they go. No problem, I understand what you are saying.

But you didn't exactly respond to the part that I found most significant: which is that the research results show in fact that not crystallised intelligence was the factor that changed or increased, but in fact fluid was! Most of that is contained in the link I posted earlier on. So, are you know saying this research is invalid or that the means of measuring aren't suited for determine what it is we are trying to either confirm or deny?

What I should have said is that the Flynn effect should have never entered into this debate. This thread/debate is about whether an individual can increase their intelligence and not whether the intelligence of species increases over time. Naturally the intelligence of a species can increase over time but that is the result of mutations in genes which can produce new or altered traits ie/ evolution.

 

[Profitaker]

This thread/debate is about whether an individual can increase their intelligence and not whether the intelligence of species increases over time.

I thought it was about whether trading, at least successful trading, required talent ? Or are you saying / implying that intelligence is the so-called necessary talent ?

 

[yacarob1]

I would say the necessary attributes are concentration and focus but I am unsure whether these attributes should be labelled as talent.

I do not think that intelligence is the crucial determinant as to whether a person will be a successful trader or not.

 

[laptop1]

I been trading my own account since the 90s and I don't have any talent as such...Remember a 5 year old can tell you if the market is going up or down.

Trading is about understanding weakness & strength and to recognise when you are wrong!.....Sounds easy. It is, if you follow your rules!

 

[Profitaker]

I do not think that intelligence is the crucial determinant as to whether a person will be a successful trader or not.

Agree, except that there must be a minimum requirement. For example, I can't believe there are any successful traders with an IQ of 80. Conversely, an IQ that would make Mensa proud doesn't mean one will be successful.

Intelligence has to be an important ingredient here, but there must be many others too.

 

[firewalker99]

Agree, except that there must be a minimum requirement. For example, I can't believe there are any successful traders with an IQ of 80. Conversely, an IQ that would make Mensa proud doesn't mean one will be successful.

Intelligence has to be an important ingredient here, but there must be many others too.

People with a higher than average IQ have and with the will to improve, might get stuck in the markets. At some point, you must accept the fact that you cannot turn every trade into a winner. Whatever analysis you come up, how good or smart it might look on paper, the market can still surprise you. A higher than average IQ usually means people feel the need to be right. If they are wrong, they will try to find out why and improve. This can be a vicious circle however. At least it was one for me, until I finally managed to break free and accept the fact that you don't need to know what's going to happen next, in order to trade profitable.

 

[yacarob1]

Sounds easy. It is, if you follow your rules!

The biggest word in that sentence is " if ".

A massive word indeed.

 

[firewalker99]

The biggest word in that sentence is " if ".

A massive word indeed.

And thàt, might not have a lot to do with intelligence... what keeps us from following the rules we lay out for ourselves?

 

[yacarob1]

Someone once said to me that people with lower IQs make better traders than those with Mensa type IQs.

The reason was that people with the higher IQs question everything whereas the ones with lower IQs are more ready to accept things as they are.

So, for example, when a potential set-up arises the Mensa guy will ask a thousand questions and debate whether it's a great set-up while the low IQ guy will just jump in and go for it.

By the time the Mensa guy has resolved his issues the trade is over and the man with the low IQ has pocketed his cash and gone down the pub for a pint or three.

There is a lot in that I think.

 

[FXSCALPER2]

The beauty of trading is, it separates the winners from the losers pretty quickly and having opinions and sticking to them to win an argument is pretty costly, you will find. Who knows if intelligence is in the genes or not? The answer is 'nobody'. It is great to see people claiming intelligence is natural blah blah. The fact is, you don't know. You can hold an opinion about this, of course, but I will respect it as much as I respect your opinion on quantum physics. I bet the human mind is more complicated than quantum physics. That is just my opinion, naturally.

I believe you need some qualities to be sucessful at trading. That is what I mean by talent. It is about having a collection of persenality traits and characterstics which you bring into the game. It doesn't follow, of course, that these qualities are in your genes. It may be due to bringing up, some experiences in the past, the kind of environment you grew up in, etc. It may be natural or it may not be. I don't know and neither does anyone else. I have an opinion on this but I have better things to do than argue something I can't prove even to some degree.

I have read lots of stuff on this subject and I am aware of all the debates that has been raging on for ages. People who claim intelligence and talent to be natural always make unfounded claims based on flimsy statistics. Remember Broca and his ilk and the size of the human skull? They rig the data and generally end up being a nuisance. They always have some agenda and the whole debate has been chewed, spat out, picked up and chewed again. It is a hackneyed, cliched bloody bore. The reason it is such tedius bull is because no one knows anything about it but they carry on and on anyway.

Lets just trade and be merry, even if we lose, shall we?

 

[temptrader]

One more thing firewalker. I didn't say intelligence is rigid. I said that there is a biological limit that is determined by a person's genes. I hope this NOW clears up my position. I said repeatedly that there are flaws in IQ measurement and that these flaws can be exploited to give an 'apparent' increase in IQ level. But, even these 'tricks' have limits and once everyone knows the flaws and tests are re-standardised your IQ will revert to its proper relative level. IQ is not an absolute measure of brain processing power it is a relative score, a comparison between you and the rest or the population. If tests are properly standardised a person’s relative intelligence in comparison to everyone else should never change. THAT is what IQ is. I know, I sometimes use intelligence and IQ interchangeably, but I shouldn’t.

Why on earth can't firewalker and PFKW or whatever his name is just come out of the closet and be blunt: they want "HOPE". They want to believe that anything is possible, that nothing is beyond the human brain etc. . .

Thank you, new_trader, for proving to me that there is absolutely NO limit at all to people's stupidity. . . . and tell that "person" on holiday that I said hello.

 

[PKFFW]

No, sir, it's just that you are totally and utterly miss guided, that is all.

It's not that what you are talking is irrelevant, it is not that what you are talking is impossible. It's what that you are talking is unfalsifiable.

BZZZZZ Thankyou for playing but wrong answer, please try again.

Many scientists with far greater knowledge than yourself are currently working on the problem. Would they be doing so if the idea was inherently unfalsifiable?

Maybe it's just that you believe it to be unfalsifiable. That doesn't mean it is, it just means you can't come up with a way to falsify it or not. Your own shortcomings are not scientific proof of something I'm sorry to tell you.

1. For a theory to be a theory, it requires testing within a framework of reference. It requires consistent replicability in accordance with this theory. If that can not be, it is not a theory, and is of no practice use to anyone.

Testing is being done. The fact that you are ignorant of this testing in no way proves there is no testing being done. See above about your shortcomings

2. Explanations and proofs? From what I gather about you, you won't know an explanation and proof if it slapped red paint on your forehead.

I would recognise both. I have freely admitted the theories I have related are not proven yet. For me to realise this I must be capable of recognising explanation and proof.

3. Whether something is "relevant or possible" does no necessarily make it provable. Goldbach's conjecture appears to be relevant and provable but no mathematician on this earth can prove it with the means we have now. And until it is provable, we cannot call it a theorem, even though a lot of numerical evidence favours it, and no numerical evidence has yet falsified it. Physics is slightly lenient, because generally all you require is falsification.

I never said whether something is relevant or possible makes it provable. On the flip side of that coin, just because something isn't currently provable doesn't make it illrelvant or impossible either.

If you were Mr Newton living in the 17th century, how would you like it if someone who only read bits of your work propose that light is the same speed within all inertial frames, or that one day it is possible to split the atom and harness that energy, and offer no proof or background to go about this and instead talk a load of total BS about "willing" and "positive thinking"? Notwithstanding that the person is right, of what f*cking practical use would it be in the 17th century when all the groundwork has not even been laid yet?

I wouldn't be so caught up in my own self congratulatory wealth of knowledge as to suggest what the person was talking about was illrelevent, impossible and "total BS".

Then again, I like to come from a point of view of investigating an idea before I discard it because it doesn't fit with what I think is so.

Science deals with the falsifiable, it deals with the testable, it deals with the practical. It is basically harnessing practical repeatable patterns that we can use to our advantage. It gives us a common language and procedure to test our theories within a practical framework. And from that theorizing and testing we can start to advance and produce ever important technologies. Nothing more, really.

As I have said over and over, the testing is being done. Simply because you are ignorant of these tests and experiments does not mean they are not taking place. Just because you personally can not see how an idea may be falsifiable or not does not mean the idea can't be falsified.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[yacarob1]

That's what I like about T2W.

Nice friendly debate.

 

[PKFFW]

Why on earth can't firewalker and PFKW or whatever his name is just come out of the closet and be blunt: they want "HOPE". They want to believe that anything is possible, that nothing is beyond the human brain etc. . .

Thank you, new_trader, for proving to me that there is absolutely NO limit at all to people's stupidity. . . . and tell that "person" on holiday that I said hello.

And again you resort to ridicule and insults. So very scientific of you.

If you are so wise and knowledgable and have all the answers why can you not debate your point of view without insults?

Cheers,
PKFFW
P.S: My nick has less letters than your own, it should be easy enough even for someone of your capabilities to get right.

 

[Paul71]

Why on earth can't firewalker and PFKW or whatever his name is just come out of the closet and be blunt: they want "HOPE". They want to believe that anything is possible, that nothing is beyond the human brain etc. . .

Thank you, new_trader, for proving to me that there is absolutely NO limit at all to people's stupidity. . . . and tell that "person" on holiday that I said hello.

"they want "HOPE"."

I knew it temptrader! YOU...are a, NO HOPER!

The last dinner party old Livermore threw, you were there, going on and on about NO HOPE!

So thats why he put the gun in his mouth!

 

[firewalker99]

Why on earth can't firewalker and PFKW or whatever his name is just come out of the closet and be blunt: they want "HOPE". They want to believe that anything is possible, that nothing is beyond the human brain etc. . .

Thank you, new_trader, for proving to me that there is absolutely NO limit at all to people's stupidity. . . . and tell that "person" on holiday that I said hello.

I don't want or need hope, I'm perfectly happy with the person that I am. After all, I am able to mold myself into anything your imagination can conceive

No seriously, I have backup up every post I've made with scientific research. Not opinions, but facts. Results. Statistics. Numbers. Hypotheses been tested and validated. Regardless whether we agree or disagree, this post doesn't exactly show much respect to the other party. As far as I can tell, I've shown respect for new_trader and at this point I better understand his view on the matter. Which is important, if you want to discuss rationally.

 

[TickCOM]

Sure talent is needed, but think the kind of talent depends of your trading style and the timeframe you trade.

- Pit traders, good at yelling

- Daytraders using manual execution, good patience and ice in the stomach

- Daytraders using automated execution, talent in developing algorithms

- Swingtraders, to overview a range of informations, and draw a conclusion

- Investors, a good nose of what will be hot in the future

Picking the right trading style and the timeframe to trade matching your personality, is critical to any trader - since no one masters all ( Adizes ).

 

[Profitaker]

That's what I like about T2W.

Nice friendly debate.

There are many things to like about T2W, not least freedom of speech, of which you've done particularly well Sir.

 

[yacarob1]

I like the Sir bit.