Does trading require talent?

[tradermoe]

what I have found is that you need a certain personality, discipline, patience and a method. If you have those ...you will be good to go. Luckily I've recently come across a method, that a friend introduced me to and it looks pretty good so far. Good luck

 

[temptrader]

firewalker,

I think you misunderstand what I am saying. As far as I know you cannot increase the number of brain cells by studying, learning or any other mental activity.

- Nuerons are electrically excitable cells in the nervous system that process and transmit information.

-Neurons are the core components of the brain, spinal cord and peripheral nerves.

-Neurons communicate with one another via synapses

-The number of neurons in the brain varies dramatically from species to species.

-One estimate puts the human brain at about 100 billion (1011) neurons and 100 trillion (1014) synapses.

-It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 1016 synapses (10 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood.

-Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from 1015 to 5 x 1015 synapses (1 to 5 quadrillion)


Can you point me to an article which provides evidence to suggest that these biological limitations can be changed?

Do you think the weight of an adult brain increases to accomodate new knowledge or cognitive functions? Where do these extra brain cells come from?

Would the cranium eventually explode from the expanding brain if someone learns too much?

Here we have new_trader invoke something which I call a "digital bound". Why digital? Digital as in discrete, as in no "in betweeness". We've reached the fundamental unit of discourse with respect to the thing being discussed and it cannot be refined further leading us to the conclusion. If you read further I will elaborate on this since I want to clear a miss understanding that you all seem to be showing.

I'm glad you don't, new_trader on the other hand seems quite fixed on this idea.


Which is my point exactly! Perhaps we agree more than we think...

There are external factors that influence a person's abilities, his education, his elders but also his social/political/technological/cultural environment. All those are exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned social determinism.

Biological determinism on the other hand states that the genes define who you are.
I think a person can become much more, but some elements will always be out of his/her control. For example, a child needs parents, he can't choose them.

Some may belief that biology determines our abilities from birth, but free will determines what we do with our abilities. And if a person chooses to work intensively on enhancing his/her skills until he/she reaches mastery, than I see no evidence to suggest that there are limits to what he/she might achieve, giving the fact that starting off young age will greatly enhance the chances of becoming that which he/she ultimately wants to accomplish.

In many respects I agree with new_trader as regards intelligence, but not in the sense you think.

Let use get back to this "biological determinism" malarky. Genes are digital codes. We cannot go further that the basic digital sequences, there is no "in betweeness" with them. Here we have our digital bound. However the complications come in.

Let me state clearly that in the sense of what I am saying that will follow, I am a total and utter biological determinist and I do believe intelligence be fixed somehow.

First a few points:

1) genes can be really seen as blue prints for the biological machine being under construction
2) like a factory that churns out widgets according to blue prints we have quality control and other factors to worry about as regards the widgets being churned out. What this means is that you have all this crap with chemistry in the womb/protein folding/junk DNA etc. . . and all that crap that throws and spanner in the works effecting the quality of the biological machine being produced.
3) like a new car that you buy to use, biological machines also are subject to wear and tear. If you were totally car illiterate and you forget to break in the engine (that is take it easy for the first few hundred miles or so) you ruin the engine for life. And we have other such issues with biological machines. You deny certain animals a correct balanced diet in the juvenile phase you can stunt their growth etc. . .

What people get wrong is they think biological determinism is total determinism. To a certain extent that is so, like the genes for blue eyes gives you blue eyes (as long other things are in the process of formation), whereas discussing about a gene for "intelligence" might be a bit controversial.

When I say that I am a biological determinist all I'm really saying is that were are bounded by our genes. For example the plans for a Ferrari are totally different to a mini. Both are cars, but one is a hell of a lot faster than the other and require different ways to drive/maintain it.

We can get rid of the biological determinism argument when we all have clones and see what the results will be - but I don't think that would be happening anytime soon since you f*ck up evolution doing that.

New_trader believes intelligence is fixed at birth. I believe that the upper bound on intelligence is fixed by your genes, which in effect is saying that it is fixed at birth. But here we have other things coming in like stress can mess around with your genes, viruses and other nasties can get at them, and the environment can play a role. But the bound is there and that point I do agree with.

The fundamental Darwinist argument is natural selection works at the gene level. That is biological determinism, but not the sense that a lot of people see it as. What we are saying is that the change in the blue print does change the widget being produced, of that there is no doubt. And that bound is digital because DNA is a digital code. In the past we can revert to faith and mysticism and religious crap, but DNA has put a total end to all that mumbo jumbo and formalized the field.

Now as regards this talk about geniuses, firewalker, it naturally follows from "biological determinism" that there are very few of them, history has shown this to be so.

Where biological determinism is miss understood is when someone thinks that if we make an exact clone of a Newton he would end up the same way as the original Newton did. For those with this view I ask if they took the blue print of a Ferrari and asked the Ford motor company to make it will it be the same? So similarly this Newton will have to contend with his variation of development in the womb and other such "manufacturing" factors, then the social environment that he arrives in and certain "developmental" issues. The latter is worth mentioning since it has been said that Newton was a homosexual and certain people believe that homosexuality is a "developmental" phenomena. Also a lot of historians believed that Newton would not have accomplished what he did were it not for the painful rejection from his mother at an early age, because this was what made him have psychotic tendencies in later life. So these are other developmental factors to take into account.

It could well be that there were individuals just as potentially brilliant as a Newton but they never saw the light of day due to sociological factors.

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.

 

[RichieE]

I never got to making 2K a week. I was on a relatively good wage. But I saw where I was going with my career. I could slug it out for another 5 years, BS my way through it, make the people who I work for a lot of money, get more merits on my CV, then become a contractor. The stuff I was learning did not interest me, and the stuff that could interest me required too much dedication that you hardly could do anything else in life.

I too have been in the position where I was on a relatively good full timer wage (compared to the rest of the country that is, not The City). However, I was bored s&*tless and I really didn't see where my life was going.

The thing I hate about being in the work place is that they never really want you to "grow",

I concur in the case where you are good at your job... it's always a pain to replace someone who is skilled with someone who might not be

you always get the raise grudgingly,

When that happens you should leave your job. It's been [alledgedly] proven that the best way to increase your salary is to constantly change employers every few years

they only put you on to learn new skills if someone/contract is going to pay for it or if it is essential to the business.

That's how business works. Why should they pay for you to gain skills that would lower your 'barrier to exit' the company.

You have to be nice to people who you rather not know. And there's the office politics etc,

That's what I hated about full-time work too... I could never stand the bulls*(t.

and also not knowing if the person who you work for is putting up a front liking you or not.

In the end I gave up caring about all of that.

Computers are interesting, but computer programming jobs are generally NOT.

What level are your programming skills. If you are of an adequate level with a good financial knowledge there are some interesting roles out there. If you're at all quantitative contact Dominic Connor from the Wilmot forum and see if he can help you.

All the sexy/red hot stuff requires a lot of work for very little money. That's games programming and they work you to death. Most of the programming jobs that people get paid loads of money for can be done by teenagers - and I kid you not. It's just tedious assimilation of conventions/protocols/logic etc . . . .

I would disagree, but maybe I'm unusual in liking some of this stuff

And that brings me to my point: Computers are actual simple compared to biological phenomena.

Very true.

We can have debates about their performance characteristics/speed of FPU etc . . . and we can reach consistent conclusions, because everything about them is deterministic. They need to be logically formalized since then when any issues comes up we have a deterministic answer, otherwise they would be of no use to carry out tedious computations, whether it be spitting out a web page, or finding a root of a polynomial using Newton-Ralphson.

My answer to that is that computers are great because they take out the emotion out from the equation. A computer doesn't chase that extra two ticks to make 50 for the day.. and it doesn't chase losses either.

 

[PKFFW]

I've been following the tangent this thread has gone off on with some interest.

Thought I'd give my two cents worth here.

Here we have new_trader invoke something which I call a "digital bound". Why digital? Digital as in discrete, as in no "in betweeness". We've reached the fundamental unit of discourse with respect to the thing being discussed and it cannot be refined further leading us to the conclusion. If you read further I will elaborate on this since I want to clear a miss understanding that you all seem to be showing.

In many respects I agree with new_trader as regards intelligence, but not in the sense you think.

Let use get back to this "biological determinism" malarky. Genes are digital codes. We cannot go further that the basic digital sequences, there is no "in betweeness" with them. Here we have our digital bound. However the complications come in.

Let me state clearly that in the sense of what I am saying that will follow, I am a total and utter biological determinist and I do believe intelligence be fixed somehow.

First a few points:

1) genes can be really seen as blue prints for the biological machine being under construction
2) like a factory that churns out widgets according to blue prints we have quality control and other factors to worry about as regards the widgets being churned out. What this means is that you have all this crap with chemistry in the womb/protein folding/junk DNA etc. . . and all that crap that throws and spanner in the works effecting the quality of the biological machine being produced.
3) like a new car that you buy to use, biological machines also are subject to wear and tear. If you were totally car illiterate and you forget to break in the engine (that is take it easy for the first few hundred miles or so) you ruin the engine for life. And we have other such issues with biological machines. You deny certain animals a correct balanced diet in the juvenile phase you can stunt their growth etc. . .

As science currently stands we can not go further than the basic sequence of DNA.

Years ago it was thought we couldn't go futher than the cells that make up the body. That was definitely the smallest building block wasn't it? Well no it wasn't, DNA is smaller.

So what's lower than DNA?? One day science will work it out and then the idea that our genes determine our limits will be put to bed as a good theory at the time but no longer fits the evidence.

What people get wrong is they think biological determinism is total determinism. To a certain extent that is so, like the genes for blue eyes gives you blue eyes (as long other things are in the process of formation), whereas discussing about a gene for "intelligence" might be a bit controversial.

Split personality is an interesting thing. Two identities in the one body. No suggestion that the DNA is different for each identity.......I mean it's the same body right?

So why is it that there have been documented cases of peoples eye colour changing from blue to brown when the identity changes? Why have there been documented cases of one identity being fine health wise and the other have type 1(insulin dependent) diabetes? Why are there even cases where the persons blood type has changed when the identity has changed? Nothing in the DNA has changed.

The idea that our genes are in control is starting to fray at the edges isn't it?

When I say that I am a biological determinist all I'm really saying is that were are bounded by our genes. For example the plans for a Ferrari are totally different to a mini. Both are cars, but one is a hell of a lot faster than the other and require different ways to drive/maintain it.

We can get rid of the biological determinism argument when we all have clones and see what the results will be - but I don't think that would be happening anytime soon since you f*ck up evolution doing that.

Actually we can get rid of the biological determinism argument right now.

1: There is no solid scientific evidence that DNA is the fundamental(smallest) building block of life. There is only evidence that it is the most fundamental we can currently observe.
2: There is much evidence to show that DNA can be changed. Like you say, bad diet during formative years is one such way that DNA can be subject to "fair wear and tear" so to speak. Radiation does cause DNA damage. Pollutants, toxins etc all change DNA.
3: As DNA can clearly be changed(in the above examples for the worse) there is nothing to suggest that it can't be changed for the better.
4: So, for the sake of argument, IF we are bound by our DNA, and DNA is clearly not a fixed and unchangeable thing, then it follows that our "limits" can be changed by changing our DNA.
5: Therefore, since our limits can logically be changed(if they are determined by our DNA that is) then they are not limits at all really.

New_trader believes intelligence is fixed at birth. I believe that the upper bound on intelligence is fixed by your genes, which in effect is saying that it is fixed at birth. But here we have other things coming in like stress can mess around with your genes, viruses and other nasties can get at them, and the environment can play a role. But the bound is there and that point I do agree with.

The fundamental Darwinist argument is natural selection works at the gene level. That is biological determinism, but not the sense that a lot of people see it as. What we are saying is that the change in the blue print does change the widget being produced, of that there is no doubt. And that bound is digital because DNA is a digital code. In the past we can revert to faith and mysticism and religious crap, but DNA has put a total end to all that mumbo jumbo and formalized the field.

No, DNA has given us a further understanding of our "digital code". Or to put it another way.........imagine the "blue print for the widget" was drawn with invisible ink. DNA has allowed us to reveal that ink. Now, as some of it was drawn with invisible ink how are we to know that other parts of the blueprint haven't been drawn with other types of invisible ink that we have not yet revealed?

That being the case, what we believe the widget to be, it may not really be at all. The widget may just be a part of a bigger whole. Without any further frame of reference we can not know.

Science is already beginning to show that everything in the universe is simply energy at the most fundamental level. What we see as "matter" and "solid" is really nothing more than energy interacting and vibrating at certain frequencies. This includes DNA.

Change the interaction/frequency/whatever it is that makes that DNA what it is then you change the DNA itself.

Now as regards this talk about geniuses, firewalker, it naturally follows from "biological determinism" that there are very few of them, history has shown this to be so.

Where biological determinism is miss understood is when someone thinks that if we make an exact clone of a Newton he would end up the same way as the original Newton did. For those with this view I ask if they took the blue print of a Ferrari and asked the Ford motor company to make it will it be the same? So similarly this Newton will have to contend with his variation of development in the womb and other such "manufacturing" factors, then the social environment that he arrives in and certain "developmental" issues. The latter is worth mentioning since it has been said that Newton was a homosexual and certain people believe that homosexuality is a "developmental" phenomena. Also a lot of historians believed that Newton would not have accomplished what he did were it not for the painful rejection from his mother at an early age, because this was what made him have psychotic tendencies in later life. So these are other developmental factors to take into account.

It could well be that there were individuals just as potentially brilliant as a Newton but they never saw the light of day due to sociological factors.

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.

Totally agree about the social/developmental factors.

Utterly disagree with the suggestion that genes determine our limits or bounds. There simply isn't any solid scientific evidence to back that argument up.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[nine]

<<< snip >>>
Utterly disagree with the suggestion that genes determine our limits or bounds. There simply isn't any solid scientific evidence to back that argument up.

PK,

In your post you put up no evidence to support a view that "genetics does not determine our limits of bounds."

It doesn't matter that I agree that generally it doesn't absolutely determine them but your genetics does create a framework for many of ones capabilities. Really your post is a pseudo-scientific ramble. A nice ramble but its neither Science nor Evidence.

Let me give you one example where genetics does determine ones limits - if you have 3 copies of the 21st chromosome you'll have difficulty trading and you can't fix it (Downs).

If you want more evidence based work look at Dr Martin Seligman's popularization "What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Successful Self-Improvement" which gives a good look at the extent to which genetics impact on various personal characteristics that might impact on trading. Its quite a nice study on genetic, social, and developmental aspects of people's capabilities. The books a couple of years old now but the statistics on which it is based haven't changed.

 

[dick_dastardly]

3: As DNA can clearly be changed(in the above examples for the worse) there is nothing to suggest that it can't be changed for the better.

Hi PKFFW

Don't want to take your tangent off on a tangent or anything but your above remark reminded me of a documentary I saw recently about people who lived in close proximity to the Chernobyl disaster.

The documentary investigated the emerging statistical evidence that suggests people who were exposed to a certain low level of radiation have gone on to develop improved immunity to cancer.

dd

 

[PKFFW]

PK,

In your post you put up no evidence to support a view that "genetics does not determine our limits of bounds."

It doesn't matter that I agree that generally it doesn't absolutely determine them but your genetics does create a framework for many of ones capabilities. Really your post is a pseudo-scientific ramble. A nice ramble but its neither Science nor Evidence.

I am not stating a position. I am stating that I disagree with new_trader and temptrader in their stated position that our gene's determine our limits. I am disagreeing with them for the reason that there is no firm scientific evididence that proves their position.

In fact, if one wants to get technical there can be no evidence that "genetics does not determine our limits of bounds." This is because it is logically and scientifically impossible to prove a negative. Therefore it would be impossible for me to put any scientific evidence forward to prove that statement.

What I could do, is put forward studies and evidence that shows the points I put forward are valid. I chose not to do so as I do not see it as my responsibility to do so. I am simply putting forward my opinion as many have before on this thread. Few have been asked to supply evidence of their claims. If what I have to say is of interest to anyone, they are free to find the information for themselves.

Let me give you one example where genetics does determine ones limits - if you have 3 copies of the 21st chromosome you'll have difficulty trading and you can't fix it (Downs).

Yes, if you have 3 copies of the 21st chromosome you have downs syndrome. At present we do not know of any way to fix(which would entail getting rid of one the 3) this condition. Does this mean it can't be fixed? No, it means we do not know how to at present.

Presently someone suffering this condition would have certain "limits" as to what they were able to accomplish. A few things need to be addressed though.

1: What are those limits? How do you define them? Are the limits the same for everyone with downs? If not, why not?
2: Are those limits a reality or simply a construct of what we believe to be possible? What happens if the person surpasses one of these "limits"?(many documented cases of this happening, of people with downs doing things thought to be impossible for them) Does that mean it wasn't really a limit afterall or has the person done something impossible?
3: Is a limit really a limit if it is changeable? eg: many "medical miracles" have occurred with people recovering from illness.(none of downs syndrome that I know of I admit but I'm illustrating a point only) Now these limits are thought to be there because of the illness but if the illness can change are they really limits? Or is it more like saying "well right now I can't run 100 metres in 10 seconds therefore it is impossible for me to do so".

It was only a few years ago that all the best minds in the world thought it was physically impossible for the human body run 1 mile in under 4 minutes. At the time anyone would have thought you crazy for suggesting it was possible. Then someone did it. Not only that, but now that it was known to be possible, within 12 months something like another 16 people did this thing that was thought to be impossible only a short while before.

If you want more evidence based work look at Dr Martin Seligman's popularization "What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Successful Self-Improvement" which gives a good look at the extent to which genetics impact on various personal characteristics that might impact on trading. Its quite a nice study on genetic, social, and developmental aspects of people's capabilities. The books a couple of years old now but the statistics on which it is based haven't changed.

Sounds like an interesting book.

I am not arguing that our genetic code doesn't play a part in what we can achieve. I'm simply saying there is no hard scientific evidence that our genes determine the limit to what we can achieve. Humanity as a whole and individuals specifically have been surpassing the "limits" over and over again.

We have no way of determining if what we can currently achieve is the limit for us(personally) or simply a point we haven't tried hard enough to surpass. Therefore the very idea of a limit is a bit silly as there is no scientific way to define it on an individual basis.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[PKFFW]

Hi PKFFW

Don't want to take your tangent off on a tangent or anything but your above remark reminded me of a documentary I saw recently about people who lived in close proximity to the Chernobyl disaster.

The documentary investigated the emerging statistical evidence that suggests people who were exposed to a certain low level of radiation have gone on to develope improved immunity to cancer.

dd

Well there you go!

Who knows what else may come to light in the future?

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[nine]

PK,

Read Seligman's book and feel free to reengage in this conversation. Elements of what you say I agree with but I feel I'd have to write for hours to explain the ways in which what you say is wrong. Seligman's done the writing already.

 

[PKFFW]

PK,

Read Seligman's book and feel free to reengage in this conversation. Elements of what you say I agree with but I feel I'd have to write for hours to explain the ways in which what you say is wrong. Seligman's done the writing already.

It must be a very well written book. I mean, no matter how you put it, science does not difinitively know if DNA is the smallest building block of human life. It does not definitively know just how "set in stone" our genes really are. Personal limits can not be scientifically set based on genes, only rough guides as to what we think is possible or not. All these things are undeniable facts no matter how you look at it.

To argue that genes determine the bounds of our "limits" in the face of the above really can't be scientifically sustained. That is really my only point.

However, the book is now officially on my to read list. It is currently sitting at number 42 so will take some time to get to but get to it I will.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[nine]

Do you believe that science has shown that smoking will cause (increase your risk of) cancer?

Do you believe that science has shown that inhaling asbestos fibres/particles will cause (increase your risk of) cancer?

If yes, then, sooner or later you will accept that genetics affects your ability to perform in a variety of ways. The downs syndrome example is a simple one. My receding hairline and increasing need for glasses while trading are other ones.


Scientific process and medical advances in the ability to manipulate genes are not likely to advance the area sufficiently to alter your current genetically inherited trading traits during your trading lifetime. You may have to rely on aids like glasses or surgery, training and other psychological devices to make the best of what you have.

 

[PKFFW]

Do you believe that science has shown that smoking will cause (increase your risk of) cancer?

Do you believe that science has shown that inhaling asbestos fibres/particles will cause (increase your risk of) cancer?

If yes, then, sooner or later you will accept that genetics affects your ability to perform in a variety of ways. The downs syndrome example is a simple one. My receding hairline and increasing need for glasses while trading are other ones.


Scientific process and medical advances in the ability to manipulate genes are not likely to advance the area sufficiently to alter your current genetically inherited trading traits during your trading lifetime. You may have to rely on aids like glasses or surgery, training and other psychological devices to make the best of what you have.

I already stated I do believe genetics plays a part in what one is capable of doing.

I simply find there to be no hard scientific evidence to show that genetics determines the "limits" of what we are capable of doing.

It is not like saying we have a ten litre bucket and so we can only fill it with 10 litres of water. That is a clearly defined set of parameters that can be quantified and measured. Once the bucket is full one can not put any more into it. "Ability" and the part gene's play in its role is not like that.

A more apt example might be that we have a bucket made of an elastic material. The amount we can put in it is determined by how hard we try to fill it. At some point it will seem full but if we find a way to compress the liquid inside or expand the material more for example, then the "limit" we perceived it to have reached will be surpassed.

I recently met a rather "famous" though relatively unknown man. He is famous in medical circles but pretty much unknown out of them. He underwent a kidney transplant about 20 years ago. He has been on immune suppressing drugs ever since so as to ensure his body doesn't reject the kidney. 4 years ago he weaned himself off the drugs. He is the first person in history to do so. 4 years later he has still not shown any signs of rejecting his donated kidney. Until he did it, no doctor on Earth believed it to be possible. He chose to do this because all the medical experts assured him that after his transplant he had about 20-25 years maximum before the ummune suppressing drugs would kill him. He could see the downward slide happening with sickness and side effects increasing all the time about 4 years ago. When you are staring death in the face and all the science is telling you to just face it and accept it you have two choices. Accept it or believe in the impossible. He chose to believe in the impossible and he achieved it. All the science said the human body should not be able to do what he did. Since he did it another 10 people have done so.

I could give other examples. My point is that "limits" don't tend to stand up in the face of determination regardless of what the science says should be so.

Cheers,
PKFFW
P.S: That story is for teaching purposes only. It is not an endorsement of nor recommendation to attempt to wean oneself off any drug, immune suppressing or otherwise, without proper medical advice pertaining to ones own medical condition.

 

[nine]

Regarding the evidence, let me know what you think after you've read the book

Regarding the rejection medication. It wasn't science that said "don't do it" it was current medical practice presumably based on tests where people went off their meds soon after the transplants and fared badly. Science says "put up a theory thats testable; test it; and let other people test it." It seems to me that the science was in the tests ... and thats the good thing about science.

Of course, if the people had all died (or do so soon) then the conclusions of that test will be different. What is the current hypothesis? That there is enough adaptation over a period of time that the anti-rejection meds are no longer necessary?

 

[PKFFW]

Regarding the evidence, let me know what you think after you've read the book

Regarding the rejection medication. It wasn't science that said "don't do it" it was current medical practice presumably based on tests where people went off their meds soon after the transplants and fared badly. Science says "put up a theory thats testable; test it; and let other people test it." It seems to me that the science was in the tests ... and thats the good thing about science.

Of course, if the people had all died (or do so soon) then the conclusions of that test will be different. What is the current hypothesis? That there is enough adaptation over a period of time that the anti-rejection meds are no longer necessary?

The scientific theory at the time was "go off the meds and your immune system attacks the transplanted organ and you die".

The tests were when people attempted to do so.

The results were they began rejecting the transplanted organ and died if they did not go back on the drugs.

Theory, test, results. Results repeated themselves enough times to make every doctor and medical researcher at the time conclude the "evidence" was undeniable. You go off the meds and you die.

It only takes one example to disqualify a theory and conclusion.

Just as it only takes one limit to be broken to show that it wasn't a limit at all.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[firewalker99]

If you want more evidence based work look at Dr Martin Seligman's popularization "What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Successful Self-Improvement" which gives a good look at the extent to which genetics impact on various personal characteristics that might impact on trading. Its quite a nice study on genetic, social, and developmental aspects of people's capabilities. The books a couple of years old now but the statistics on which it is based haven't changed.

Thanks, always love a good book for x-mas
This thread is moving along rapidly, and I need to catch up on the last couple of posts. But while I'm at it, these are my personal recommendations:

The Mismeasure of Man - Stephen Jay Gould (1981, but still a classic)

The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (2006, this book is near 1000 pages and there's much statistics and research in it, but a very challenging read for anyone - and especially new_trader - this book might open their eyes

 

[firewalker99]

Totally agree about the social/developmental factors.

Utterly disagree with the suggestion that genes determine our limits or bounds. There simply isn't any solid scientific evidence to back that argument up.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Exactly. In an earlier post I was challenged to come up with evidence that suggest the opposite, but information is abound on that. Perhaps it'd be easier that those who support the hypothesis that genes determine who we are from birth, show us some solid scientific proof of that.

In the meantime, allow me to provide these interesting articles about the malleable brain (love the word neuroplasticity, thx nine):

Magnets 'help regrow brain cells'

New Discoveries About Neuron Plasticity Linked To Learning And Memory

 

[temptrader]

partial reply part 1

I've been following the tangent this thread has gone off on with some interest.

Thought I'd give my two cents worth here.

As science currently stands we can not go further than the basic sequence of DNA.

Years ago it was thought we couldn't go futher than the cells that make up the body. That was definitely the smallest building block wasn't it? Well no it wasn't, DNA is smaller.

So what's lower than DNA?? One day science will work it out and then the idea that our genes determine our limits will be put to bed as a good theory at the time but no longer fits the evidence.

DNA is to biological machines what binary code is to computers. They provide a discrete digital basis to the context of discussion. If you cannot understand that then you have NOT understood what I'm getting at.

Take windows operating system, take games, take animation. How strange that all that can be demoted to a digital code of 0s and 1s? But that's exactly how computers work and to realize that is amazing. That's why Crick and Watson got the Nobel Prize, because it was fully deserved, it was an astounding discovery, because it put the field of biology on a firm formal footing.

Split personality is an interesting thing. Two identities in the one body. No suggestion that the DNA is different for each identity.......I mean it's the same body right?

So why is it that there have been documented cases of peoples eye colour changing from blue to brown when the identity changes? Why have there been documented cases of one identity being fine health wise and the other have type 1(insulin dependent) diabetes? Why are there even cases where the persons blood type has changed when the identity has changed? Nothing in the DNA has changed.

The idea that our genes are in control is starting to fray at the edges isn't it?

No it isn't. Genes are in "control". They define you. You are your genes along with the environment that created you. Just as much as a physicists can say that you are made up of discrete atoms, and that view does not change even if we were to refine it further and talk about superstrings constituting these atoms. A mini with a big engine is still a mini, it's not a Ferrari.

Actually we can get rid of the biological determinism argument right now.

1: There is no solid scientific evidence that DNA is the fundamental(smallest) building block of life. There is only evidence that it is the most fundamental we can currently observe.
2: There is much evidence to show that DNA can be changed. Like you say, bad diet during formative years is one such way that DNA can be subject to "fair wear and tear" so to speak. Radiation does cause DNA damage. Pollutants, toxins etc all change DNA.
3: As DNA can clearly be changed(in the above examples for the worse) there is nothing to suggest that it can't be changed for the better.
4: So, for the sake of argument, IF we are bound by our DNA, and DNA is clearly not a fixed and unchangeable thing, then it follows that our "limits" can be changed by changing our DNA.
5: Therefore, since our limits can logically be changed(if they are determined by our DNA that is) then they are not limits at all really.

If you think that "there is no solid scientific evidence that DNA is the fundamental(smallest) building block of life" then you have absolutely no understanding of what DNA is at all.

DNA can be changed, but that change unfortunately is usually has a very adverse effect - i.e. it mostly causes cancer. That's why people who are exposed to radiation usually get cancer, the radiation is knocking off strands of DNA and altering them to something else, this in turn can f*ck up the instructions and makes the cells go funny, like copy yourself endlessly and consume all resources. Certain chemicals can also do this as well. Stress does this because it makes your body release certain chemicals, which in turn can do things to your DNA etc. . . . . Viruses can also change DNA, because that how the little *******s work, and from that you can conclude that some viruses can cause cancers. All of this from understanding the digital bound that DNA imposes. If that's not worth a Nobel Prize I don't know what is. Before DNA we could talk sh*tty mumbo jumbo and get nowhere.

At no point is there a hint in the evidence that DNA can be altered in a "good" direction, unless you genetically engineer a virus that does it, but to work out the consequences would be an astoundingly complex thing to do.

Also the determinism is not invalid since it has to change from something in the first place and that was the DNA you were born with. It gives a start to your destination. You also cannot will this destination. That's the reason in the flawed logic of all the motivational speakers and people who write self help books and believe in positive thinking, and all the mumbo jumbo religious crap that use to pervade this world - and which still does to a certain extent.

No, DNA has given us a further understanding of our "digital code". Or to put it another way.........imagine the "blue print for the widget" was drawn with invisible ink. DNA has allowed us to reveal that ink. Now, as some of it was drawn with invisible ink how are we to know that other parts of the blueprint haven't been drawn with other types of invisible ink that we have not yet revealed?

That being the case, what we believe the widget to be, it may not really be at all. The widget may just be a part of a bigger whole. Without any further frame of reference we can not know.

Science is already beginning to show that everything in the universe is simply energy at the most fundamental level. What we see as "matter" and "solid" is really nothing more than energy interacting and vibrating at certain frequencies. This includes DNA.

Change the interaction/frequency/whatever it is that makes that DNA what it is then you change the DNA itself.

I could hazard a guess at what crap you were reading to come up with this.

DNA does not give us further understanding to our "digital code". DNA is our digital code. That's why the Nobel Prize was given.

The talk about changing the interaction/frequency/whatever it is that makes that DNA is akin to all this mumbo jumbo talk that pervades the sensationalist book business, and they are written by idiots with no understanding with the problem at hand. So let's go back.

DNA are just chemical molecules. They are subject to the laws of chemistry. Remember in class when you played with certain chemicals. They are subject to those laws. Your analogy about the digital invisible ink is pointless because it does not apply at that level we are talking about.

Let me explain the previous point. Newtonian mechanics suits us fine. It got us to the industrial age. It's only when we built faster machines and made measuring devices that were much more precise that previous that we started to see some anomalies, and hence it had to be rectified. But this in no way effects it applicability to modern applications, like calculating the trajectories of comets/orbiting satellites etc. . . We could of course use general relativity to calculate these trajectories, but the gain in precision would only be an order of probably 1 mm which does not make it worth while unless your application depends on it.

Now DNA are just chemical molecules, hence they are subject to the laws of chemistry. You can talk all the you like about "energy interacting and vibrating at certain frequencies", and even if string theory came out to give us a deeper understanding of how atoms work, it is just not applicable at the level of energy for what we are discussing. That's the reason why a chemical explosion is always much, much less impressive than a nuclear explosion, and there are no biological phenomena yet classified that can produce nuclear explosions, and there never will be because DNA is does not permit it (example of biological determinism there).

What makes an electron so interesting is that it is so uninteresting, to quote Stephen Weinberg. When you've seen one electron you've seen them all. From that we can start to do science since we can repeat experiments since we know how ALL electrons behave by studying how one electron behaves. It could be that as times progresses we find out that electrons are energy waves and find out how they are formed etc. . . but at the level of understanding for certain applications the first point of view is sufficient, going further into detail does not invalidate what was previously discovered, it only refined it.

If you don't agree with the biological determinism that I've expounded then maybe you could tell all those universities and corporations not to waste billions on their research into DNA because from your point of view it's going to be superseded.

 

[nine]

Just as it only takes one limit to be broken to show that it wasn't a limit at all.

OK. Waste of time. We are destined to disagree.

 

[PKFFW]

Not sure it's worth replying. You seem to believe that we have all the information already at hand. That we know everything there is to know. That science has proven it all.

You obviously believe only in what science has proven thus far and seem to think that anything science hasn't clearly and definitively proven yet simply either doesn't exist or isn't true. I would argue that stance is illogical but it's up to you.

Here's my reply if you're interested anyway.

DNA is to biological machines what binary code is to computers. They provide a discrete digital basis to the context of discussion. If you cannot understand that then you have NOT understood what I'm getting at.

I understand exactly what you are getting at. I simply believe the conclusions you are drawing are incorrect and not supported by current scientific theory and research.

Take windows operating system, take games, take animation. How strange that all that can be demoted to a digital code of 0s and 1s? But that's exactly how computers work and to realize that is amazing. That's why Crick and Watson got the Nobel Prize, because it was fully deserved, it was an astounding discovery, because it put the field of biology on a firm formal footing.

Yes it is amazing and well worth a Nobel Prize. It put biology on the firm formal footing as you say.

In no way does the discovery of DNA prove that DNA is the smallest, most fundamental building block of life. Claiming that this discovery does do so is akin to saying when we discovered atoms we discovered the smallest building block of matter. That is not so as atoms themselves are made up of smaller things.

No it isn't. Genes are in "control". They define you. You are your genes along with the environment that created you. Just as much as a physicists can say that you are made up of discrete atoms, and that view does not change even if we were to refine it further and talk about superstrings constituting these atoms. A mini with a big engine is still a mini, it's not a Ferrari.

Your example was of genes dictating the colour of ones eyes. So I referenced the fact that there have been documented cases of a persons genes not changing yet their eye colour changing depending on which "personality" was in charge of the body at the time. Further cases have shown illnesses to appear and disappear and even blood type to change.

If DNA shows unequivocally that the genes define who you are then how is it that these physical properties can change based on nothing more than the "personality" changing?

Could it possibly be that the science doesn't actually know everything just yet? Maybe there are other interactions going on that science is yet to define.

If you think that "there is no solid scientific evidence that DNA is the fundamental(smallest) building block of life" then you have absolutely no understanding of what DNA is at all.

I admit I am no expert on DNA. I do however have some understanding of it.

You seem to be asserting that simply because we can't at present determine if there is any simpler/smaller "building block of life" or "digital code" then there simply musn't be any. That is illogical and not very scientific.

DNA can be changed, but that change unfortunately is usually has a very adverse effect - i.e. it mostly causes cancer. That's why people who are exposed to radiation usually get cancer, the radiation is knocking off strands of DNA and altering them to something else, this in turn can f*ck up the instructions and makes the cells go funny, like copy yourself endlessly and consume all resources. Certain chemicals can also do this as well. Stress does this because it makes your body release certain chemicals, which in turn can do things to your DNA etc. . . . . Viruses can also change DNA, because that how the little *******s work, and from that you can conclude that some viruses can cause cancers. All of this from understanding the digital bound that DNA imposes. If that's not worth a Nobel Prize I don't know what is. Before DNA we could talk sh*tty mumbo jumbo and get nowhere.

At no point is there a hint in the evidence that DNA can be altered in a "good" direction, unless you genetically engineer a virus that does it, but to work out the consequences would be an astoundingly complex thing to do.

Interesting word that.......usually. Basically it means "not always".

Yes usually a change to DNA causes an adverse affect. As dick_dastardly pointed out, recent research points to the possibility that people exposed to low levels of radiation seem to gain some resistance to cancer. Would not reistance to cancer be seen as a good effect?

Whether it usually causes an adverse reaction or not the simple fact of the matter is that DNA can be changed. If it can be changed at all then it can be changed for the better. That is simple logic. There is already talk of finding genes that control aggression, alcoholism, mental illnesses etc and manipulating them to erradicate these things. Good scientific minds are working on these possibilites.

Are you going to claim it simply isn't possible because science hasn't done it yet? That seems to be the basis of the rest of your argument.

Also the determinism is not invalid since it has to change from something in the first place and that was the DNA you were born with. It gives a start to your destination. You also cannot will this destination. That's the reason in the flawed logic of all the motivational speakers and people who write self help books and believe in positive thinking, and all the mumbo jumbo religious crap that use to pervade this world - and which still does to a certain extent.

Actually you have no proof whatsoever that one can not will this change.

Again, simply because science hasn't proven something yet doesn't mean it is not possible.

An interesting experiment was run by some Japanese scientists. They took water samples and froze them. Whilst they were being frozen a label was put on each sample. Such things as love, hate, peace, chaos, beauty, anger etc etc etc. Further, people were asked to think about the label and what it meant while the ice was freezing. It was a totally controlled experiment, followed all the rules etc, and the differences in the crystaline structure when each was frozen were quite dramatic. I'm not suggesting in any way that it is conclusive proof that the thoughts made the difference but it is certainly enough for anyone with an open mind to want to investigate further.

I could hazard a guess at what crap you were reading to come up with this.

Again, you disagree so it must automatically be crap. Very scientific reasoning there.

You actually have no idea what I have read so you can only assume. Again, not a very scientific method.

DNA does not give us further understanding to our "digital code". DNA is our digital code. That's why the Nobel Prize was given.

You seem pretty stuck on that Nobel Prize.

If you equate DNA with the binary code of computers then you are correct it is our digital code. Maybe a better way of saying what I mean would be the following.

Having an understanding of binary code does not mean one knows how a computer works in totality. Changing the specifications of the computer will change the way it works. More or less RAM, bigger HD, better mobo, faster cpu etc. Further to that a top end spec'd computer will run like ****e with bad binary code. Does that mean that is the absolute limit as to what that computer is capable of? No, change the binary code and the computer will perform better. It is the same with DNA, having an understanding of DNA doesn't mean we know entirely and totally how the human body works, what its limits are, what it is capable of, whether the DNA controls everything or if there are other factors at play. In fact we don't even yet know exactly what we can and can't do with DNA.

The talk about changing the interaction/frequency/whatever it is that makes that DNA is akin to all this mumbo jumbo talk that pervades the sensationalist book business, and they are written by idiots with no understanding with the problem at hand. So let's go back.

Actually I was talking specifically about scientific research into the idea that all matter(including genes/DNA) is simply energy at its most fundamental. There is plenty of very scientific research going on in this field right now. The obvious fact that you are either unaware of this research or do not agree with the initial conclusions does not mean that it is "mumbo jumbo" written by "idiots with no understanding".

I then extrapolated from the above idea, that this being the case, then it logically follows that if one was to change the interaction of the energy then one would change the physcial matter itself.

DNA are just chemical molecules. They are subject to the laws of chemistry. Remember in class when you played with certain chemicals. They are subject to those laws. Your analogy about the digital invisible ink is pointless because it does not apply at that level we are talking about.

Firstly you have no idea and certainly no scientific evidence to show that the anaology does not apply at the level we are talking about. You simply do not think it applies.

Let me explain the previous point. Newtonian mechanics suits us fine. It got us to the industrial age. It's only when we built faster machines and made measuring devices that were much more precise that previous that we started to see some anomalies, and hence it had to be rectified. But this in no way effects it applicability to modern applications, like calculating the trajectories of comets/orbiting satellites etc. . . We could of course use general relativity to calculate these trajectories, but the gain in precision would only be an order of probably 1 mm which does not make it worth while unless your application depends on it.

Totally agree. Newtonian mechanics works just fine in most instances. That is different to it being the most precise way of doing things.

Just because something works fine as is doesn't mean it is the best way of doing it. There may be no need to do anything differently but that is different to there actually being no way to do it differently/better.

Now DNA are just chemical molecules, hence they are subject to the laws of chemistry. You can talk all the you like about "energy interacting and vibrating at certain frequencies", and even if string theory came out to give us a deeper understanding of how atoms work, it is just not applicable at the level of energy for what we are discussing. That's the reason why a chemical explosion is always much, much less impressive than a nuclear explosion, and there are no biological phenomena yet classified that can produce nuclear explosions, and there never will be because DNA is does not permit it (example of biological determinism there).

You may not think it is relevent to what we are discussing. This does not actually make it so. It is just your opinion. I am fast seeing that anything you disagree with you consider irrelevant. I hope you can see how that is not a very scientific mind set.

What makes an electron so interesting is that it is so uninteresting, to quote Stephen Weinberg. When you've seen one electron you've seen them all. From that we can start to do science since we can repeat experiments since we know how ALL electrons behave by studying how one electron behaves. It could be that as times progresses we find out that electrons are energy waves and find out how they are formed etc. . . but at the level of understanding for certain applications the first point of view is sufficient, going further into detail does not invalidate what was previously discovered, it only refined it.

I agree a deeper level of understanding does not necessarily invalidate what was previously discovered. In many cases it does though. Until that deeper understanding is developed we have no way of knowing whether it will or not.

Now, if we see that electrons are energy waves etc, then we can begin to learn to what extent those energy waves can be manipulated.

Right now you seem to be saying that electrons are not energy waves. You seem to be basing that on the fact that science has not proven they are, therefore they must not be. This being the case then as you do not believe they are energy waves you will naturally not even attempt to discover if those energy waves can be manipulated. In fact you will remain there claiming they can not be manipulated because you do not believe they are energy waves to begin with.

Should this deeper understanding come along, it will naturally invalidate your current viewpoint rather than refining it.

If you don't agree with the biological determinism that I've expounded then maybe you could tell all those universities and corporations not to waste billions on their research into DNA because from your point of view it's going to be superseded.

Ah sarcasm, always a nice way to end.

Just because something may be superceded doesn't mean that new and interesting and valuable technologies can't be exploited until it is.

Take petrol engines for example. They have served a useful function for many years. They will eventually be superceded I'm sure. Does that mean the petrol engine was pointless or that it should never have been investigated and used?

All knowledge is good. All learning is good. It all may eventually lead to what was learned being superceded. You seem to be suggesting with your last paragraph that we should not endeavour to learn anything if there is a chance it will be superceded. That seems illogical to me.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[PKFFW]

OK. Waste of time. We are destined to disagree.

Sorry you feel discussion is a waste of time if the participants disagree.

Cheers,
PKFFW