Does trading require talent?

[firewalker99]

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.

Far too easy new_trader. Most of us have been taught that in high school.
Besides, even if one manages to do so, it doesn't prove or disprove anything.

The problem in modern day teaching is students aren't allowed for much creativity. When they come at the point they go to university they've already been drilled by procedures, methods and systems. They just don't see it any other way.

I have a more challenging task though. You don't need to be a math wizz kid or anything, you only need to know the basics about addition, multiplication, subtraction and division. The problem is as follows:

You are given the numbers 1, 3, 4 and 6. You must use each number one time (but only once exactly, not more, not less) and try to equal 24. You cannot "add" 1 and 3 into 13. There are no tricks of any kind. You must have a pure logical mathematical equation. If some member finds the answer, please do not post it, let the others have a go at it too.

If you want to give yourself a challenge, don't google for the solution if you can't find it in the first 15 minutes. This question was once asked by a professor I know, in his aula for a couple of hundred civil engineer students. Only a couple anaged to solve it in time for the next lesson. While he then asked the same question to some kids from lower high school, who didn't know anything about powers, square roots, differentials, etc... some surprisingly came up with the solution much quicker.

My point being, this doesn't prove anything about being a genius or not.

 

[BSD]

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 ?

Absolutely !

Trading - like most things in life - is simple enough once you succeed in seperating the chaff from the wheat, the noise from the few, truly success relevant factors.

But because people enjoy their egos, they like to artificially inflate problems so as to derive greater pleasure at their perceived, superior problem solving skills, even if that doesn't work out results wise in reality.

The reason for that is that such a mind set unfortunately all too often results in undue complexity leading to net failure or mediocre results at best, as ego driven efforts make you want to be right over being successful.

I always run away very quickly when people aren't able to explain in a few words what constitutes the relevant essence of what they are on about, what the 20% of their effort that generates 80% of their results is.

Jack Welch) said it, and he "dun" it, Business is simple, undue complexity is almost always an attempt to camouflage lack of true understanding, or an attempt to hoodwink some gullible souls into believing that they're about to be granted the, ahem, privilege, of purchasing the Holy Grail. ;-)

Many people who have great intelligence but are unfortunately severely lacking in the wisdom department demonstrate great skills at in-depth analysis of individual trees while failing with great aplomb to even realise, let alone see, that there is an entire forest out there.

Think that's the definition of what an Idiote Savante is.

OK, slight hyperbole, but fundamentally true enough. ;-)

There is a rather well known complexity experiment that Harvard did where two groups of students had to come up with explanations to simple problems. The first group got the correct evaluation from the professors, ie if they had come up with a logical and rational explanation they received a "correct", if not they got a "wrong", while the second group got random evaluations, so that even if they were right they might have received a "wrong" and vice versa.

The first groups solutions were all admirably simple, while the second groups explanations became increasingly complex as they tried desperately to force the inexplicable facts to fit the theory.

In trading that''s pretty much the same, ie you can do the right thing and still up with a losing trade, I suspect that degree of uncertainty is what throws many highly intelligent but inadequately wise people off track to a degree that they never end up making it into net profitable territory in trading.

 

[temptrader]

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.

new_trader, tell that "person" (or porky boy as I like to call him) on holiday that I said "hello". The above example was given to the young Gauss by his primary school teacher. No one in the class could solve it apart from him.

Your example, if I might add, is total superficial BS. Here's why, and here's how it happens - in mathematics and other endeavours anyway:

1) you grind your time in your field, initial you start out crap, and even questions and problems like the above elude you. Oh, and in case you are interested, there have been a good many mathematical "geniuses" who didn't get the above problem, just like Gauss, Jacobi and Lagrange did not get "Galois" theory when they should, because that's the nature of this complex beast.
2) after many years you've reach your saturation point in which you've assimilated all that can be assimilated (although this is not true for everybody since people learn in different ways).
3) you still are "crap" in your field, and it takes some time to keep the momentum going.
4) you might accidentally trip on some good results here and there and publish it, and some might be rather important.
5) If you are very, very lucky, your time will come, you will reach a zenith of your abilities when all the things you have learn, together with your vast experience will let your "see" new things on the horizon that others cannot see and you will lead the field in doing this
6) if you are in the vast majority you'll be mediocre for the rest of your life, forever in the back water as it were. Doing OK, but nothing to boast about.

I've not allowed for the fact that sometimes you get known for certain results and rid on that fame and do nothing else for the rest of your life apart from act as a "consultant" on it. Also I've not allowed for the f*cking exceptional individuals, they literally make their own luck (and sometimes gets things completely wrong), but unfortunately there aren't many of those.

It takes all sorts, in all manner of way, and I suppose that's what makes life interesting. Taking pathetic shoddy examples and measures is no way to go about deciding who is a "genius" and who isn't.

 

[new_trader]

I was not attempting to prove anything!! It was a simple example to show how there can be two ways of solving the same problem. One is by using brute force attack and the other is coming up with an algorithm. That's all. You can can define and measure intelligence and genius any way you want and it makes no difference. If you all want a harder problem there is a puzzle thread devoted to them.

 

[firewalker99]

I was not attempting to prove anything!! It was a simple example to show how there can be two ways of solving the same problem. One is by using brute force attack and the other is coming up with an algorithm. That's all. You can can define and measure intelligence and genius any way you want and it makes no difference. If you all want a harder problem there is a puzzle thread devoted to them.

I would say one is brute force and the other one is a more creative approach.
Creativity is a factor of intelligence.

Have you tried the one I posted?

 

[temptrader]

I was not attempting to prove anything!! It was a simple example to show how there can be two ways of solving the same problem. One is by using brute force attack and the other is coming up with an algorithm. That's all. You can can define and measure intelligence and genius any way you want and it makes no difference. If you all want a harder problem there is a puzzle thread devoted to them.

nah, you weren't. because otherwise why say:

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.

because it's clear from "less than 1 minute" that a brute force attack is not possible. "probably have what it takes", erm, what was that? Is that a "partial" judgment there or not?

I'm getting tired of this, and tired of you playing us, new_trader, for your entertainment at the other side. Why don't you admit that?

This thread was not about what you wanted and stated it was about. It was about your analogy to "everything is known in advance", to your "lets see if the monkeys can exhibit their monkeyness behaviour" and take a delight in it. It provides comfort for you, and your porky boy friend, to see how things will degenerate and go the way you expected.

 

[firewalker99]

I'm getting tired of this, and tired of you playing us, new_trader, for your entertainment at the other side. Why don't you admit that?

This thread was not about what you wanted and stated it was about. It was about your analogy to "everything is known in advance", to your "lets see if the monkeys can exhibit their monkeyness behaviour" and take a delight in it. It provides comfort for you, and your porky boy friend, to see how things will degenerate and go the way you expected.

We all get out of it what we deserve. For some it's entertainment, for some it's food for discussion, for some it's a joke, for others it's serious business,... Let's not mention those from the other side, because by doing so you are acknowledging the fact that they exist and let's face it: those who haven't contributed to this thread don't matter at all.

Btw, temptrader, have you had time to think about the question I raised in post #232?

 

[new_trader]

nah, you weren't. because otherwise why say:

because it's clear from "less than 1 minute" that a brute force attack is not possible. "probably have what it takes", erm, what was that? Is that a "partial" judgment there or not?

I'm getting tired of this, and tired of you playing us, new_trader, for your entertainment at the other side. Why don't you admit that?

This thread was not about what you wanted and stated it was about. It was about your analogy to "everything is known in advance", to your "lets see if the monkeys can exhibit their monkeyness behaviour" and take a delight in it. It provides comfort for you, and your porky boy friend, to see how things will degenerate and go the way you expected.

Why don't you wind your neck in and stop making baseless accusations you try hard. How do you know what my intentions are? What have you been made privy to?

Annoying you are, nothing else.

 

[temptrader]

Why don't you wind your neck in and stop making baseless accusations you try hard. How do you know what my intentions are? What have you been made privy to?

Annoying you are, nothing else.

Good God, you are beginning to sound like him.:cheesy: There's hope for you, yet!

So tell us your intentions, sir, if you care to. I'm all ears.

 

[new_trader]

So tell us your intentions, sir, if you care to. I'm all ears.

You work it out, "genius"

 

[temptrader]

You work it out, "genius"

erm, I never said I was a "genius". If you like I can post a long discussion about the "sides" of the argument from firewalker and PFKWW and from our "intelligence is fixed" side. Both are valid in the context of discussion, and from there we might get to philosophical matters which I cannot engage in.

I ask again, and politely, what is the point of this thread for you?

 

[new_trader]

erm, I never said I was a "genius". If you like I can post a long discussion about the "sides" of the argument from firewalker and PFKWW and from our "intelligence is fixed" side. Both are valid in the context of discussion, and from there we might get to philosophical matters which I cannot engage in.

I ask again, and politely, what is the point of this thread for you?

Why should I oblige you? Let me remind you what you said:

I'm getting tired of this, and tired of you playing us, new_trader, for your entertainment at the other side. Why don't you admit that?

This thread was not about what you wanted and stated it was about. It was about your analogy to "everything is known in advance", to your "lets see if the monkeys can exhibit their monkeyness behaviour" and take a delight in it. It provides comfort for you, and your porky boy friend, to see how things will degenerate and go the way you expected.

You have already made your mind up about my intentions and asserted them with confidence. Now you are 'politely' asking what they are! Do you think that this is logical and reasonable behaviour? (This is a rhetorical question)

 

[new_trader]

Far too easy new_trader. Most of us have been taught that in high school.
Besides, even if one manages to do so, it doesn't prove or disprove anything.

The problem in modern day teaching is students aren't allowed for much creativity. When they come at the point they go to university they've already been drilled by procedures, methods and systems. They just don't see it any other way.

I have a more challenging task though. You don't need to be a math wizz kid or anything, you only need to know the basics about addition, multiplication, subtraction and division. The problem is as follows:

You are given the numbers 1, 3, 4 and 6. You must use each number one time (but only once exactly, not more, not less) and try to equal 24. You cannot "add" 1 and 3 into 13. There are no tricks of any kind. You must have a pure logical mathematical equation. If some member finds the answer, please do not post it, let the others have a go at it too.

If you want to give yourself a challenge, don't google for the solution if you can't find it in the first 15 minutes. This question was once asked by a professor I know, in his aula for a couple of hundred civil engineer students. Only a couple anaged to solve it in time for the next lesson. While he then asked the same question to some kids from lower high school, who didn't know anything about powers, square roots, differentials, etc... some surprisingly came up with the solution much quicker.

My point being, this doesn't prove anything about being a genius or not.

Nice one. Got the answer in less than 15 minutes. I must almost be a genius

 

[new_trader]

I would say one is brute force and the other one is a more creative approach.
Creativity is a factor of intelligence.

Have you tried the one I posted?

However you define it, if people couldn't see the 'creative' approach and you tried to explain it to them without actually telling them they wouldn't understand or wouldn't accept that one even existed. I am applying this to much more complicated problems than the one given, but you see what I mean. Some would argue brute force is the only approach.

 

[temptrader]

Why should I oblige you? Let me remind you what you said:

You have already made your mind up about my intentions and asserted them with confidence. Now you are 'politely' asking what they are! Do you think that this is logical and reasonable behaviour? (This is a rhetorical question)

No, I have not made up my mind about your intentions, you failed to read between the lines. I am confused because I wonder for what purpose does the answer to this thread serve you - or anyone else for that matter? Can I be more clear than that? And I'm also wondering if there is an "answer".

Let's have a look at both sides (leave the definition/discussion of "talent" out for the time being):

1) if trading doesn't require talent, does this mean that you can succeed in it through just sheer hard work and graft? And would it mean that those who hold this view are "proof" of it and can be safely trusted to know what it is that they are talking about?
2) if it does require talent that few possess, then are the ones who can make it in this game worth listening to anyway by the ones who cannot make it?

 

[temptrader]

However you define it, if people couldn't see the 'creative' approach and you tried to explain it to them without actually telling them they wouldn't understand or wouldn't accept that one even existed. I am applying this to much more complicated problems than the one given, but you see what I mean. Some would argue brute force is the only approach.

A lovely hint to darksiding there.:cheesy:

Come to think of it the 4 colour theorem only has a brute force approach to it, although a complicated one. And the non brute force approach is still being questioned.

 

[temptrader]

I would say one is brute force and the other one is a more creative approach.
Creativity is a factor of intelligence.

Have you tried the one I posted?

The problem with creativity is that sometimes others can, what's the word, miss understand it. Let me tell you what I mean, because it has happened in history and it will continue to happen, again, and again, and again, and again . . . .

In order to complete the principia Newton need to calculate the so called attraction force that a uniform sphere exerts on a body outside it. It held him up for 19 years!!! Nowadays, gifted boys can dispose of it in 10 minutes or less, and some even as "pillow" problems that you do while you try to get some sleep.

A lot of technological breakthroughs are results of "accidental" or "sustained" creativity. Sometimes progress on certain problems stay dormant for years because we don't have a new way of looking at it, or we are asking the wrong questions, or just simply because the machinery to solve it hasn't been "invented" yet.

My personal opinion (and I have not proof of it mind), is that creativity cannot be taught. If you've got it in you, it will come out over time under the correct guidance and conditions.

 

[firewalker99]

Nice one. Got the answer in less than 15 minutes. I must almost be a genius

I'm very happy you managed to get that in under 15 minutes.
If anything, it shows that solving a puzzle has no correlation at all to being a genius :cheesy:

 

[firewalker99]

However you define it, if people couldn't see the 'creative' approach and you tried to explain it to them without actually telling them they wouldn't understand or wouldn't accept that one even existed. I am applying this to much more complicated problems than the one given, but you see what I mean. Some would argue brute force is the only approach.

I agree that creativity should come naturally. You can't "force" people to suddenly think out of the box in the next 15 minutes. Creativity should come as something fresh, unexpected, and may result in a totally new concept or idea.

My personal opinion (and I have not proof of it mind), is that creativity cannot be taught. If you've got it in you, it will come out over time under the correct guidance and conditions.

On the other hand, I disagree that some people are born as creative geniuses whilst others don't have a bit of original ideas in them. Once you get to understand the processes that forego a creative outburst, it becomes easier to stimulate the right creative environment. Learning to make assocations is a good exercise in creativity. You point out correctly that "correct guidance and conditions" are important factors of increasing the odds.

"A large part of Creativity is the creative individual's ability to think by connections, many times by analogies and metaphors: Something is like or suggests something else. And this connection provides the spark for creativity ideas."
said James Marra in his book Advertising Creativity.

What exactly causes creativity to be seemingly abundantly available in some and not in others is an interesting field of study. Even Freud had his say in it. Most of us would agree that there is a correlation between creativity and intelligence. But that has not been proven conclusively. Which means we have found ourselves new food for discussion

 

[temptrader]

I agree that creativity should come naturally. You can't "force" people to suddenly think out of the box in the next 15 minutes. Creativity should come as something fresh, unexpected, and may result in a totally new concept or idea.



On the other hand, I disagree that some people are born as creative geniuses whilst others don't have a bit of original ideas in them. Once you get to understand the processes that forego a creative outburst, it becomes easier to stimulate the right creative environment. Learning to make assocations is a good exercise in creativity. You point out correctly that "correct guidance and conditions" are important factors of increasing the odds.

"A large part of Creativity is the creative individual's ability to think by connections, many times by analogies and metaphors: Something is like or suggests something else. And this connection provides the spark for creativity ideas."
said James Marra in his book Advertising Creativity.

What exactly causes creativity to be seemingly abundantly available in some and not in others is an interesting field of study. Even Freud had his say in it. Most of us would agree that there is a correlation between creativity and intelligence. But that has not been proven conclusively. Which means we have found ourselves new food for discussion

The problem with accidentally tripping on new concepts and ideas is that you can sometimes spend a lifetime working out the consequences that it gives to other fields. Depends on that you trip over, of course.:cheesy:

I would very much like to engage in the creativity debate, but alas, I don't think we can really "define" it and I don't think we can really "teach" it. If you look at history you just see men who get their peak, and then slowly burn out or follow the wrong path in later life. Sometimes they just get exhausted and retire and sit on the sidelines. The very exceptional few burn brightly throughout, but again there are very, very few of those. No doubt I believe sociological circumstances have a role to play. Many good notable scientific discoveries were by men who had a lot of time on their hands (because they were filthy stinking rich) and were simply bored and wanted something to do. One wonders at how many potential "talents" we have lost to poor circumstances, in which the person is too hungry to engage in anything but finding his next meal, or living the life of luxury and indulges his carnal desires instead, I mean why bother learning Algebraic Geometry when you can spend time in mansions and the company of sexy women?:cheesy: