Does trading require talent?

[FXSCALPER2]

does trading require talent? I don't know, but understanding this thread does. And it rules me out

UTB

And me! I have a first in philosphy and this is all lost on me. Hey, I even understand Fermat's Last theorem. Am I a genius or what? It even means I understand the human mind and whether intelligence is in the genes and all, although no one else does. Someone give me a PHD on this please. I am a bit drunk now so maybe I should sober up before I write my thesis. Hey, how does the fact that one needs talent leads to the conclusion intelligence is fixed in the some combination of protiens. Can someone help us with that impressive logical leap?

You gotta love ego trips. They produce some funny behaviour. I even asked a mathematician friend of mine (teaches at Cambridge, so must be a bloody genius ) whether intelligence is in the genes. He says, 'how the heck do I know?' He had some beers in him so I had to let it go. What the hell am I talking about at 1am, anyway?

 

[firewalker99]

You gotta love ego trips. They produce some funny behaviour. I even asked a mathematician friend of mine (teaches at Cambridge, so must be a bloody genius ) whether intelligence is in the genes. He says, 'how the f'uck do I know?' He had some beers in him so I had to let it go. What the hell am I talking about at 1am, anyway?

Why would being a "bloody genius" imply one knows anything about a subject one never studied? You seem to make the same mistake a lot of people do: mistake intelligence for knowledge and vice versa.

Ego might have something to do with it. Especially since the majority here take a stand which they are convinced of is right, without haven done the trouble or the time necessary to look into possibly evidence of the contrary.

Some things will remain theories and hard to prove. Some theories will be very likely are near certain models of how the reality works. Does this mean they are conclusive? No, not 100%. But if we didn't have some fundamental theories to start from, we wouldn't need bother studying nature, physics, psychology, or anything for that matter.

Nevertheless, we all accept what is known as "common knowledge", without having had the "personal experience" (as new_trader puts it) to either prove or disprove what we've read or heard or studied. Read my post #232 and answer for yourself what is more likely and what would you think is more plausible?

About intelligence. Whether one has it in abundance or not, has little to do with how successful one will be in life. It's not a predictor for when - or if - a person will develop extraordinary abilities. Neither is it a prerequisite. Assuming there is a 0,5% segment that's really "gifted". If that were the case, the planet would be filled with geniuses. It's only those who strive to perfection, those we are "dedicated" (thanks tune) that will ultimately accomplish what others thought not possible. So here we are again, it's all down to... hard work.

 

[FXSCALPER2]

I was being sarcastic, FW.

 

[firewalker99]

I was being sarcastic, FW.

These days, you don't know anymore who is and who isn't

Nonetheless, my post stands as it was more a general comment than something directed at you.

 

[tune]

It's only those who strive to perfection, those we are "dedicated" (thanks tune) that will ultimately accomplish what others thought not possible. So here we are again, it's all down to... hard work.

I couldnt agree more.

by the late great Roy Castle.

Dedication, dedication, dedication
that's what you need
if you want to be the best
and if you want to beat the rest
ooh, dedication's what you need

Dedication, dedication, dedication
that's what you need
you'd better be well rehearsed
if you want to win a first
ooh, dedication's what you need

If you know the tune, you know what to do.

 

[temptrader]

And me! I have a first in philosphy and this is all lost on me. Hey, I even understand Fermat's Last theorem. Am I a genius or what? It even means I understand the human mind and whether intelligence is in the genes and all, although no one else does. Someone give me a PHD on this please. I am a bit drunk now so maybe I should sober up before I write my thesis. Hey, how does the fact that one needs talent leads to the conclusion intelligence is fixed in the some combination of protiens. Can someone help us with that impressive logical leap?

You gotta love ego trips. They produce some funny behaviour. I even asked a mathematician friend of mine (teaches at Cambridge, so must be a bloody genius ) whether intelligence is in the genes. He says, 'how the f'uck do I know?' He had some beers in him so I had to let it go. What the hell am I talking about at 1am, anyway?

Yes, sir, I agree with you. But understanding Fermat's Last Theorem is trivial. Understand its proof is NOT.

My main objection to this thread is that people believe what they want to believe. Science can only go so far, no more. If you and I were to be honest, and explicit, we would come up with philosophical objections to the point raised on both sides - and eventually get nowhere.

We all agree, implicitly, with science every time we drives our cars, turn on the lights, go to the doctor to get treated etc. . . What I object to is when people see things into results that have no real conclusion yet. Remember, falsification can imply anything, how quaint that it must imply all this mumbo-jumbo about no limits and positive thinking.

 

[temptrader]

Firstly, as you have pointed out the "axioms" are undefined and not agreed upon. So it is not your right to advise someone they are "breaking the rules". The mere fact that you believe you do have the right speaks volumes.

Can you, just for once please understand what I am trying to say. If I play chess with someone and they move the rook like a knight, they are "wrong". Not because I tell them they are wrong (which is what I might do of course), but because the rules of chess does not allow it (independent of me, who may have pointed out the error to my opponent). That is what I'm getting at. Chess is fixed, the axioms are the set before the game even began. Do you understand that?

In this discussion, we probably don't agree with what "axioms" we are using or what they mean, and it will drift into the philosophy of science, and what science means. Hence I cannot engage in it, because we will end up discussion relativism and existential matters.

I even asked a mathematician friend of mine (teaches at Cambridge, so must be a bloody genius ) whether intelligence is in the genes. He says, 'how the f'uck do I know?' He had some beers in him so I had to let it go

I haven't been back for a long time. His job is not really to question the issue, since it would be absurd. His job is to lecture/teach mathematics. His axioms of his professional life are already set in stone. However, if you were to turn the question to how many of the pupils he teaches will ever make it to brilliant careers he'll tell you very few. Whether it was laziness, not having enough "brains", etc . . . is none of his business basically, he's only there to teach. He knows that most of them are "ordinary" undergraduates anyway, with a few per year making it to doing PhDs.

 

[new_trader]

OK. A practical.

You ARE allowed to use a calculator to answer the following questions. (Don’t post you answer here)

1) Add up all the numbers from 1 to 10 (ie/ 1+2+3 etc)
2) Now add up all the numbers from 1 to 100
3) Now add up all the numbers from 1 to 1000

If it takes you less than 1 minute to answer all 3 questions then you probably have what it takes to be considered a genius and potential to be a good trader.

 

[FXSCALPER2]

OK. A practical.

You ARE allowed to use a calculator to answer the following questions. (Don’t post you answer here)

1) Add up all the numbers from 1 to 10 (ie/ 1+2+3 etc)
2) Now add up all the numbers from 1 to 100
3) Now add up all the numbers from 1 to 1000

If it takes you less than 1 minute to answer all 3 questions then you probably have what it takes to be considered a genius and potential to be a good trader.

You have got to be kidding!!

 

[new_trader]

You have got to be kidding!!

No, can you do it?

 

[nine]

Easily (but the clue is I didn't use addition) ... but it doesn't make me a genius or a good trader.

 

[FXSCALPER2]

No, can you do it?

Yes, I can, lol. It is just funny you think solving that problem makes one a genius or a good trader.

 

[new_trader]

Easily (but the clue is I didn't use addition) ... but it doesn't make me a genius or a good trader.

I know you didn't. But it would be interesting to know how many people looked at the problem and thought it was impossible. Other people, looking at exactly the same problem, found it easy. This kind of problem solving cannot be taught.

 

[new_trader]

Yes, I can, lol. It is just funny you think solving that problem makes one a genius or a good trader.

I didn't say 'makes'.

 

[Profitaker]

OK. A practical.

You ARE allowed to use a calculator to answer the following questions. (Don’t post you answer here)

1) Add up all the numbers from 1 to 10 (ie/ 1+2+3 etc)
2) Now add up all the numbers from 1 to 100
3) Now add up all the numbers from 1 to 1000

If it takes you less than 1 minute to answer all 3 questions then you probably have what it takes to be considered a genius and potential to be a good trader.

1) 55
2) 5050
3) 500500

Is the final paragraph some sort of a joke, or are we actually being serious ?

 

[Profitaker]

Oh, forgot to add about 40 seconds.

 

[new_trader]

1) 55
2) 5050
3) 500500

Is the final paragraph some sort of a joke, or are we actually being serious ?

Is your post a joke? Did you read what I wrote? I'm not interested in knowing who can do it, really, I'm not.

 

[FXSCALPER2]

I know you didn't. But it would be interesting to know how many people looked at the problem and thought it was impossible. Other people, looking at exactly the same problem, found it easy. This kind of problem solving cannot be taught.

Of course it can. In most cases, it is taught. What you mean, I assume, is the ability to solve that kind of problem without being taught is rare. That is certainly true, but I am not sure what that proves. Having that sort of ability is demonstrably not required to be a good trader. The revrse is also true. The guys at universities who can do that sort of thing in their sleep probabaly cannot trade to save their lives.

 

[new_trader]

Of course it can. In most cases, it is taught. What you mean, I assume, is the ability to solve that kind of problem without being taught is rare. That is certainly true, but I am not sure what that proves. Having that sort of ability is demonstrably not required to be a good trader. The revrse is also true. The guys at universities who can do that sort of thing in their sleep probabaly cannot trade to save their lives.

You can teach/show someone the solution and not give them any extra problem solving ability. This is an innate ability.

The guys at universities who can do that sort of thing in their sleep probabaly cannot trade to save their lives.

You might probably be right, but it also means you are probably wrong too.

 

[Profitaker]

You can teach/show someone the solution and not give them any extra problem solving ability. This is an innate ability.

Yes, and the innate problem solving ability is called intelligence. While the debate about whether intelligence can be improved has been done to death, I think most would agree that successful trading is not correlated to IQ.

Or would they ?