Does trading require talent?

[temptrader]

all right Paul71, maybe I was a bit harsh.

Back on topic:

All this talk about "increasing" intelligence, we are not bounded and there are not bounds, and anyone can do it is silly.

So I'll try to offer, in a very limited way and forgive my shoddy exposition since I've better at writing instruction manuals than delivering discourse, what I think you are getting at.

To be honest if I were to start out again I would ignore what is being said here, since it does not matter anyway and set about to "do the work". All I will say is that it is my belief that most people can accomplish certain endeavours to a reasonable level of success if they kept themselves focused on the task at hand rather than be distracted by other matters in their lives (see what I mean by why I think IQ tests are awful). And to sustain this focus and drive is what you want to do and then you can say to yourself whether it is worth your while to go on and do it for the rest of your life.

I'll be blunt with you all: I could have been a very, very good programmer. It was going that way since most of my colleagues and even my employer were impressed with my abilities (and I'm not bragging here). My secret? I worked F*CKING hard at it, kept on asking dumb questions, learnt things until they were second nature, thought about it night and day almost, because that what it takes. My colleagues couldn't do that because they had families, wanted to play rugby on sundays, wanted to find ways of meeting hot babes etc. . . . In short they weren't as professionally committed as I was.

I mentioned about writing a game engine. There are loads of game engines out there so why would I want to write my own? As an exercise in sustained concentration, a masochistic intellectual challenge - that's why. It would probably take 3 years of my life to complete, and within that time I could be doing other things, and more than not the graphics cards would have changed. I probably want to take some time out in the future to do this because I want to "cross the line" as it were.

The problem with this thread is that it's vague and it's really for the individual to make up his/her own mind about what needs to be done, and not be bothered with the bleak views offered here.

For myself, if anyone asks, it took me 3 - 4 years to "cross the line" in trading, one hell of a nasty ride, and looking back, and I never tire of saying this, I really have Mr Marcus and Skimbleshanks to thank for where I am today. Sometimes a little nudge is all it takes to point you to the right direction.

 

[temptrader]

I would suggest any civilised adult learned in the art of human interaction, communication, etiquette and manners would see your responses, certainly in your last post directed at me, as being very rude.

This sums up what is so wrong with your attitude.

Sir, if you think I was being rude then I apologise. I was not trying to be rude, just trying to "point" to the "flaws" in your arguments.

You believe your knowledge is the only worthwhile knowledge on the subject. You believe anyone arguing a differing viewpoint and substantiating that viewpoint with differing knowledge to yours must be wrong. You even imply in the above paragraph that as their knowledge isn't the same as yours they must be uneducated on the subject.

No, I do not. It just that you do not understand what the implications that DNA has. Let me try to tell you an analogy: programming now is at a very high level of abstraction and we have new paradigms of programming. We have abstracted the tedious complexities to a higher level and gained more insight to how to write better programs (although to some that is debatable), and programming in now becoming more "intelligible" to even the average person, and we start having more and more complex systems that seem to be able to do amazing thing. It doesn't stop their basis of their workings at the fundamental level as string manipulations of 0s and 1s, the binary code.

We could get all our programmers write in assembler, but our productivity would go down senseless. We could troubleshoot our programs at the 0s and 1s level and that would take years, which is why we invented tools that work at higher levels of abstraction to allow for this.

The theory and experimentation in one area of science more often than not has profound impacts on other areas. You may know all there is to know on DNA and biology. You may get one of those Nobel Prizes you are so fond of. That does not mean your knowledge is the only valid knowledge or even the only relevant knowledge.

Maybe you need to do "alot of work" on some of the areas you are so obviously lacking in. Areas such as leading edge quantum physics. Once you have a little look outside your area of interest........at the great mass of knowledge commonly referred to as "that which you don't know you don't know" you might see where I am coming from.

It's great you have an understanding of DNA. It's great you have "done alot of work".

What is not so great is your attitude and demeanour towards others with a differing but equally valid viewpoint to you. You have been rude, you and I both know that. That is what I take exception to.

How can I put this to you so you understand: When someone calculates the centre of gravity of a lead object at room temperature do they automatically "fret and get gittery" over the fact that they have to allow for quantum mechanical effects as well? And when you do experiments at school with acids and metals to make salts do you factor into it string theoretic effects (sorry, I'm not a chemist, and string theory is unfalsifiable at the moment which adds to this controversy)? Do architects who design bridges and building give a damn about quantum effects or neutrinos going through their structures?

No one is arguing that there are probably forces that we are not aware of that could enlighten us at the higher level, but they are not at the moment applicable at the energy level that we are talking about unless for exceptional circumstances. Get my point? In the same vein doctors don't give a damn about DNA interactions when they examine problems with someone's bladder.

Again, if you think I'm being rude then I'm sorry, but you don't seem to see what I'm getting at. And to be fair to you there are philosophical flaws to it, but that requires a subtle debate which I am not prepared to get into.

 

[PKFFW]

Sir, if you think I was being rude then I apologise. I was not trying to be rude, just trying to "point" to the "flaws" in your arguments.

Apology accepted.

No, I do not. It just that you do not understand what the implications that DNA has. Let me try to tell you an analogy: programming now is at a very high level of abstraction and we have new paradigms of programming. We have abstracted the tedious complexities to a higher level and gained more insight to how to write better programs (although to some that is debatable), and programming in now becoming more "intelligible" to even the average person, and we start having more and more complex systems that seem to be able to do amazing thing. It doesn't stop their basis of their workings at the fundamental level as string manipulations of 0s and 1s, the binary code.

We could get all our programmers write in assembler, but our productivity would go down senseless. We could troubleshoot our programs at the 0s and 1s level and that would take years, which is why we invented tools that work at higher levels of abstraction to allow for this.

I have absolutely no understanding of programming. I admit that right up front.

However, where I think your anaology falls down is this. You are talking about the representations of digits that dictate how the programs work. The 0's and 1's. In computers that is fine.

Now, what if there was a way to change how those 0's and 1's were actually made. Imagine that those 0's and 1's were three dimensional(as DNA is). What if we could manipulate those three dimensional 0's and 1's. Would that not change how the programs work?

This is what I'm getting at. Latest research seems to indicate that physical matter is energy. This research and experimentation seems to suggest that this energy can be manipulated. This manipulation would, logically, affect the physical matter itself.

It seems just a little outdated to suggest that this is certainly not possible and can't be done when the latest research seems to suggest it can. In time it may turn out that you are correct and the latest research is wrong, I admit that. My point though, is that for you to suggest, as you seem to be doing, that it simply isn't possible, isn't supported by the latest research.

How can I put this to you so you understand: When someone calculates the centre of gravity of a lead object at room temperature do they automatically "fret and get gittery" over the fact that they have to allow for quantum mechanical effects as well? And when you do experiments at school with acids and metals to make salts do you factor into it string theoretic effects (sorry, I'm not a chemist, and string theory is unfalsifiable at the moment which adds to this controversy)? Do architects who design bridges and building give a damn about quantum effects or neutrinos going through their structures?

No one is arguing that there are probably forces that we are not aware of that could enlighten us at the higher level, but they are not at the moment applicable at the energy level that we are talking about unless for exceptional circumstances. Get my point? In the same vein doctors don't give a damn about DNA interactions when they examine problems with someone's bladder.

No I don't think they "fret and get gittery" over these other forces. I don't think a doctor gives a damn about DNA interactions when examining a patient's bladder.

This does not mean those forces are not there and it does not mean they are not relevant. Again I will use the example of the "doctors" of old not giving a damn about "those little invisible germ thingy's" causing illness. At the time the thinking was those little things either didn't exist or didn't matter. Over time the thinking changed as we learnt more.

I recently read an article about a man suffering from cancer. He was given 6 months to live maximum. He had tried chemo, radiation, surgery and every other method known to "science" to fix the problem. Nothing worked. He is still alive today(8 years later) and apparrently cancer free. He claims he meditated the cancer away. There are many other such stories. Now, I am NOT suggesting this is scientific proof positive that one can "will" or "meditate" cancer out of the body. However, something happened that science can not explain. The mutating cells and warped DNA apparently just decided to stop behaving badly. The latest research in fields other than medicine and biology seems, at this early stage, to suggest that the will and thought can possibly be used to "meditate cancer away". Just because biologists and doctor's have not caught up with it does not mean it is not relevant.

It is an undeniable fact that people with a "positive attitude" will, generally speaking, survive longer with terminal illnesses. Why is that if the thought or will has no bearing on the DNA/genes/physical matter or whatever? Going back to my other example, why, in people with multiple personality disorder, can eye colour, health and blood type all change depending on nothing more than which personality is in charge at the time? This should make no difference if the DNA is the sole determining factor in such matters.

That is the point I'm trying to make.

Again, if you think I'm being rude then I'm sorry, but you don't seem to see what I'm getting at. And to be fair to you there are philosophical flaws to it, but that requires a subtle debate which I am not prepared to get into.

This time I do not think you have been rude at all. You have rationally and politely put forward your point of view. I have done the same.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[nine]

I recently read an article about a man suffering from cancer. He was given 6 months to live maximum. He had tried chemo, radiation, surgery and every other method known to "science" to fix the problem. Nothing worked. He is still alive today(8 years later) and apparrently cancer free. He claims he meditated the cancer away. There are many other such stories. Now, I am NOT suggesting this is scientific proof positive that one can "will" or "meditate" cancer out of the body. However, something happened that science can not explain. The mutating cells and warped DNA apparently just decided to stop behaving badly. The latest research in fields other than medicine and biology seems, at this early stage, to suggest that the will and thought can possibly be used to "meditate cancer away". Just because biologists and doctor's have not caught up with it does not mean it is not relevant.

This is what I meant about pseudo-scientific and I was referring to your reasoning and not your quotes.

You quote something that happened.

Then you say "However, something happened that science can not explain."

And thats the point at which you went horribly astray. Cancer is a complex dis-ease. Science has no problem with Cancer going into remission or in fact a cancer shrinking and disappearing. "Science" (this mystical person) also feels no need to explain exactly why any particular remission occurs although a large number of theories exist, one or more of which may explain any particular remission. So science may be able to explain this particular one (but the test would involve a dissection that would eliminate the example in a horrible way).


And then you even go a step to far with your quotes:

"The latest research in fields other than medicine and biology seems, at this early stage, to suggest that the will and thought can possibly be used to "meditate cancer away"

You lack references to justify this statement. You add "possibly" ... and lets be frank possibly generally implies a probability less than 50% so you could almost say "probably not" instead. There was much support for this view in the 80s and 90s and some folk (symintons?) wrote a best seller about it but follow-up research has not supported their assertions.

 

[firewalker99]

Anyway, don’t take my word for it, now that you mention IQ, try this practical test yourself. Take an IQ test now, without any preparation and note your score. Then, buy/read/study all the books you can lay your hands on that show you how to boost your IQ. Go through all the practice questions and tests, noting your IQ score as you go. I will almost guarantee that by the 3rd IQ test your score will have peaked and you will not be able to increase it further. This will be your ‘true’ IQ.

I'm going to try and reply to your rather large post, piece by piece. I clearly want to comment (& contradict) the statements you make, because they are - as far as I can tell - nothing more than based on personal opinions and beliefs. As in my previous post, I will yet again back this up with research and evidence.

Your above statement is correct. I am pretty sure anybody can train for the classic IQ tests and try and maximize their score to a certain extent. At some point they will have peaked and will not be able to increase it further. This is the point where most will stop trying harder, and the few will succeed in going one step further. There have been cases where individuals gained as much as 20 points in tests, much much more than any normal standard deviation or 3x stdev would tell you. Yet again, research shows that to make any significant improvement, a lot (and I mean a whole lot) of time and work is needed. The number 10.000 (hours of deliberate practice) again shows up in the following article where the change of IQ is being discussed, as it's been frequently mentioned as the amount of time required to acquire mastery in a certain field.

I hope you find it an interesting read:

"As it happens, the assertion that IQ is largely unchangeable is firmly contradicted by empirical findings from a number of sources. These findings provide copious and apparently convincing evidence of large IQ increases taking place."

Can IQ Change?

 

[firewalker99]

I recently read an article about a man suffering from cancer. He was given 6 months to live maximum. He had tried chemo, radiation, surgery and every other method known to "science" to fix the problem. Nothing worked. He is still alive today(8 years later) and apparrently cancer free. He claims he meditated the cancer away. There are many other such stories. Now, I am NOT suggesting this is scientific proof positive that one can "will" or "meditate" cancer out of the body. However, something happened that science can not explain. The mutating cells and warped DNA apparently just decided to stop behaving badly. The latest research in fields other than medicine and biology seems, at this early stage, to suggest that the will and thought can possibly be used to "meditate cancer away". Just because biologists and doctor's have not caught up with it does not mean it is not relevant.

I think we all have read similar articles or heard from people with similar stories. Most of the time it's easier to attribute the healing process to an unknown mysterious factor than to actually try and pinpoint the exact process that caused the healing to occur. Because the subject in question has already gone through the process, he/she can no longer be used as a scientific test to prove or verify a certain hypothesis.

As we know, for a scientific experiment to hold any validity, we must be able to show that it can be reproduced under the same circumstances with equal internal & external influences. In these cases, this obviously isn't possible, which is why these "events" often get the attention of the media and the public as they can neither be proven nor disproven. For each of these stories there are hundreds, if not thousands, where persons have meditated or prayed without any result. Obviously, these will not be the articles you read or hear about... :|

 

[PKFFW]

This is what I meant about pseudo-scientific and I was referring to your reasoning and not your quotes.

You quote something that happened.

Then you say "However, something happened that science can not explain."

And thats the point at which you went horribly astray. Cancer is a complex dis-ease. Science has no problem with Cancer going into remission or in fact a cancer shrinking and disappearing. "Science" (this mystical person) also feels no need to explain exactly why any particular remission occurs although a large number of theories exist, one or more of which may explain any particular remission. So science may be able to explain this particular one (but the test would involve a dissection that would eliminate the example in a horrible way).

You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make.

Yes, at this stage I admit science can not explain why this cancer went into remission. However, there is much research and evidence to suggest that it may very well have been exactly what the man claimed, that he meditated it away.

To claim I "went horribly astray" simply because I postulated something for which there is much evidence to suggest is true but has not yet been verifiably proven is overstating it just a little. If I was postulating something for which absolutely no evidence existed then maybe you could rightly say my reasoning is "horribly wrong". Just because you are unaware of the research and its implications does not mean it doesn't exist. Nor does it mean that the postulation and reasoning behind that postulation is "horribly wrong". I am putting forward an idea that some of the best scientific minds in the world have suggested may very well be the case and for which much of the latest research backs up.

You seem to suggest that it is somehow "horribly wrong" to suggest something could be possible if science has not emperically proven it yet. Well guess what....science has not emperically proven your point of view either. Science hasn't even quantified and qualified the parameters of the question yet. For example what are the limits you claim are there? If one can't even define the limit you claim is there how can you reasonably argue that the science backs up your position? Therefore it would seem just as right to say you have gone "horribly wrong" by asserting your viewpoint.

And then you even go a step to far with your quotes:

"The latest research in fields other than medicine and biology seems, at this early stage, to suggest that the will and thought can possibly be used to "meditate cancer away"

You lack references to justify this statement. You add "possibly" ... and lets be frank possibly generally implies a probability less than 50% so you could almost say "probably not" instead. There was much support for this view in the 80s and 90s and some folk (symintons?) wrote a best seller about it but follow-up research has not supported their assertions.

Firstly, the meaning of the word possibly does not in any way take into account the % probability of something. You claiming that it does is illrelevent to the discussion. Your assertion that you could say "probably not instead" is, frankly, a childish attempt to sidestep the actual point of my post.

The reason I added the word possibly is simply and solely because this has not yet be proven. What I meant was that many scientists now believe that this latest research will lead to the proving that it is possible to do so. IE: It is possible that this research will lead to this understanding. I did not mean to say it can possibly be done. I guess gramatically I erred because I put the word possible in the wrong spot. It should have read........

"The latest research in fields other than medicine and biology seems, at this early stage, to suggest that it is possible to use the will and thought to "meditate cancer away"

As for references, I've said it before, I'm not here to educate everyone, just to put forward my point of view and discuss an issue. If people find what I say of interest then they can go find the research themselves as I did.

Previously you accused me of "clearly having a view that won't change". Your obvious lack of any desire to research into the ideas I put forward shows your view is just as set in stone. So why is it that you seem to think it is a waste of time discussing the issue with me because I will not change my view to agree with you?

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[PKFFW]

I think we all have read similar articles or heard from people with similar stories. Most of the time it's easier to attribute the healing process to an unknown mysterious factor than to actually try and pinpoint the exact process that caused the healing to occur. Because the subject in question has already gone through the process, he/she can no longer be used as a scientific test to prove or verify a certain hypothesis.

As we know, for a scientific experiment to hold any validity, we must be able to show that it can be reproduced under the same circumstances with equal internal & external influences. In these cases, this obviously isn't possible, which is why these "events" often get the attention of the media and the public as they can neither be proven nor disproven. For each of these stories there are hundreds, if not thousands, where persons have meditated or prayed without any result. Obviously, these will not be the articles you read or hear about... :|

Absolutely, couldn't agree more.

However there are ways to determine if thought can have an effect on the physical environment. Much research has been done and is still going on into whether this is possible. Many reputable scientists now claim that we should stop researching if this is possible as it has been proven beyond scientific doubt that it is possible. Rather, they claim we should be researching to what extent it is possible.

Now(and forgive my "horribly wrong reasoning") but if it is possible for thought to have an effect on the physical environment(as many far better qualified minds than any that have taken part in this discussion so far claim) is it such a stretch to postulate that perhaps thought can have an effect on the human body? I mean afterall, the human body is a part of the physical environment. As temptrader has pointed out, we are nothing special at all.

For someone who has read a book on DNA or genes to suggest it is totally impossible and someone who claims it may be possible is "horribly wrong" is frankly laughable.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[nine]

I just thought it would be interesting to point out the flaws in your argument and see if you got it.

You didn't so I'm back to my earlier view that its a waste of my time. Enjoy yourself.

 

[PKFFW]

I just thought it would be interesting to point out the flaws in your argument and see if you got it.

You didn't so I'm back to my earlier view that its a waste of my time. Enjoy yourself.

See there it is again. The attitude of "I am right and you do not agree with me, therefore you must be wrong." Do you not understand that we are discussing somethig that science has not conclusively proven one way or the other? It is not the same as discussing which direction the sun comes up in each morning or what 1 + 1 equals.

I see where you think I am mistaken. I really do. That is all it is though, where you think I'm mistaken. You offer no proof that I am. What you do seem to offer is current scientific understanding(that which has been "proven") versus current scientific theory(that which seems to be correct but hasn't been proven yet) believing that the understanding is correct and the theory is wrong. That is a very valid viewpoint. I'm not debating that. A viewpoint is all it is though without conclusive proof one way or the other.

I freely admit that I may be wrong. The research may turn out to be a dead end. DNA and genes may very well be fixed and immutable. Latest research seems to suggest that is not the case but it may well be.

I do not know your background in the sciences. I do not care to know either. It is clear you are not involved in some of the latest research into the area we have been discussing. So you can either believe me or not when I say that there is research going on. There are scientists with alot more knowledge on the subject than you or I that have hypothesised what I have put forward here. They are attempting to prove one way or another if the theory is correct. Early research and experimentation seems to suggest the theory is right.

So if your only desire was to "see if I got it" then rest assured you did not waste your time. I do see where you think I am mistaken. It's a pity you approach a discussion solely with the intent of pointing out where you think others are wrong and believe the discussion to be a waste of time if the other party does not agree with you. For someone who seems to put alot of store in science that seems like a vey unscientific standpoint to be operating from. Still, if it suits you then go with it.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[nine]

It suits me. There is no point arguing with you because you seem incapable of getting it. Such is life.

Take Care.

 

[Paul71]

Paul71,

your questions are an examples of why Jesse Livermore would avoid most of his dinner guests, because they brain drilled him senseless with questions and he just couldn't be bothered anymore. . . .

Is that right! Well, the idiot shot himself in the end, good for him.

I know you've apologised, it's accepted.

You can get back to speeling off pages of the 'New Scientist'.

Regards.

 

[PKFFW]

It suits me. There is no point arguing with you because you seem incapable of getting it. Such is life.

Take Care.

You too.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[new_trader]

I promise you a more in-depth reply later on. For now, I just like to state the above is plain wrong. Whatever you have been taught or think is correct, I'd like to see some evidence of it. It's good that you have a strong opinion about something, but it should be based on facts instead of beliefs. Research has shown that average IQ increases by three points every ten years. The increase of IQ from generation to generation is known as the Flynn-effect. This is why IQ tests are continuously being re-standardized (otherwise we might have people with IQ's of +300).

Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 29-51.
Flynn, J. R. (1985). Wechsler intelligence tests: Do we really have a criterion of mental retardation? American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 90, 236-244.
Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101,171-191.
Flynn, J. R. (1991). Asian Americans: Achievement beyond IQ. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flynn, J. R. (1994). IQ gains over time. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence (pp. 617-623). New York: Macmillan.
Flynn, J. R. (1999). Searching for justice: The discovery of IQ gains over time. American Psychologist, 54, 5-20.

I'll get back to you later. For now, I suggest you have a look at Flynn's research (cfr. supra) and either show me some evidence to the contrary or admit you are wrong in your beliefs.

firewalker,

I know all about the Flynn effect, in fact there is NOTHING you can tell me about IQ that I don't already know. I spent over a year of my own time putting my own brain on trial, have you done that? Has anyone else here done that? I find these types of debates very irritating because most people simply google for pretty websites and post links to articles of 'research' or quote some scientific journal they have read. I have put the theories to the test and I am satisfied with the results. I don't need to read any more Wikipedia articles.

The brain does not instruct cells how to act. Cells have their information 'hard coded' within them. The brain is nothing more than a conglomeration of specialised nerve cells. Somehow they work together to form a functional 'thinking' organ. Each neuron however is brain agnostic for lack of a better description. They individually don't 'know' what their function is. They brain is simply the result of billions of years of evolution. There was no planning, no design, no purpose, just cells doing what they do.

Anyway, if you are unsatisfied with your level of intelligence that's fine by me. Do whatever you need to do to increase it, and this applies to everyone else in this thread. As for me, I am very satisfied with my level of intelligence and I have absolutely no interest in increasing it.

What I am unhappy with is my vision. I am not satisfied with my inability to see in the dark or that I cannot see the entire electromagnetic spectrum. The biological constraints of wavelengths between 400 to 800 nm imposed upon me from birth is not good enough! I want to see them all, gamma rays, X-rays, microwaves, infra-red, ultraviolet, the lot!

Firstly, I will practice reading with the lights off. I will keep doing this, over and over in absolute pitch black conditions until my eyes realise they need to create more light sensitive rods. Once I have the ability to see in the dark cracked I will develop my sensitivity to other frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum. I will practice by looking into my microwave oven as it cooks food. I will keep exposing my eyes to the microwaves until they realise they need to develop microwave sensitive cones. I will keep doing this with all the frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum and eventually I will have what I want!

 

[firewalker99]

Your claim that average IQ increases with each generation is simply wrong. Biological changes occur slowly over geological time scales (not counting some micro-organisms that undergo rapid evolution). Ideas evolve rapidly but not our intelligence. If you took an average brain from a human who lived 1000 years ago and compared it to the average brain of someone today they would be identical.

I know all about the Flynn effect, in fact there is NOTHING you can tell me about IQ that I don't already know. I spent over a year of my own time putting my own brain on trial, have you done that? Has anyone else here done that? I find these types of debates very irritating because most people simply google for pretty websites and post links to articles of 'research' or quote some scientific journal they have read. I have put the theories to the test and I am satisfied with the results. I don't need to read any more Wikipedia articles.

Firstly, I think it's very bold to declare you know everything there is to know about IQ. Secondly, you might know more about the subject that most of us here do - or think you do - but still you deny everything that is staring you in the eye? The conclusive evidence based on Flynn's research have made the Flynn effect common use, we don't refer to it as Flynn's hypothesis.

I do not understand how you can state my claim that average IQ increases with each generation "is simply wrong" AND at the same time say you know all about the Flynn effect. Either you disagree with the research of Flynn or you just like to contradict yourself. In the first case, show me a peer-reviewed journal that clearly debunks the Flynn-effect.

I am not just "googling" to come up with the first website. I'm obviously using a search engine to find articles and results back up my claims where - so far - you've only said that your conclusions are based on personal experience. This is the same fallacy people fall over and over again. How many times have we read on this forum that this or that can't be done. You can't make 5% a day by daytrading. You can't trade for a living if you start with less then 5k. You can't this, you can't that. All because he/she who's declaring all the cannots, hasn't been able to realize it themselves.

You say you've put your own brain on trial for a year. I believe you. However, I'm sure anybody - if not everybody - will come to a different conclusions based on their own experiences. However, the point of scientific research is to prove - with consistency - that the same results come up over a prolonged period of time & subjects. There needs to be iteration to prove one's hypothesis/theory. I don't need to put my own brain to the test, because I'm not the kind of person that thinks that I can debunk the research of hundreds of much more scientifically educated people with one singular example, which ultimately is nothing more than an anecdote. This does not proof or disprove anything. If anything it's a fallacy called hasty generalization that a lot of people fall into.

We could go on about the scientific method though, but I don't want to stray off topic too far. But you were getting irritated about the fact that people post URL's. Why is that? Why should we not make use of the information that's abundantly available? You might want to read some more "wikipedia articles" before you make claims as the ones you made above. I've known about the Flynn effect too for a long time, it's not just something I came up yesterday. The reason why I post links, articles, and references to scientific journals or research, is to back up my case with something more solid than a view that's limited to personal experience.

Btw, is nobody sleeping here over the weekend anymore? This thread keeps growing overnight

 

[temptrader]

Is that right! Well, the idiot shot himself in the end, good for him.

I know you've apologised, it's accepted.

You can get back to speeling off pages of the 'New Scientist'.

Regards.

I don't read New Scientist. And your prodding is rather impertinent.

new_trader,

Well maybe you and I got it all wrong. You see, we should take total advantage of people's gullibility and start writing books to tell people the wonderful unfalsifiable things that is possible if only they "believe". Oh, and the market does need cannon fodder doesn't it?:cheesy: I mean, for crying out loud, why strain ourselves taking money out of the markets when we can start courses and seminars and charge people £500 - £2000 a time for a day's work, all we have to do is talk piffle?

 

[temptrader]

This is what I meant about pseudo-scientific and I was referring to your reasoning and not your quotes.

You quote something that happened.

Then you say "However, something happened that science can not explain."

And thats the point at which you went horribly astray. Cancer is a complex dis-ease. Science has no problem with Cancer going into remission or in fact a cancer shrinking and disappearing. "Science" (this mystical person) also feels no need to explain exactly why any particular remission occurs although a large number of theories exist, one or more of which may explain any particular remission. So science may be able to explain this particular one (but the test would involve a dissection that would eliminate the example in a horrible way).


And then you even go a step to far with your quotes:

"The latest research in fields other than medicine and biology seems, at this early stage, to suggest that the will and thought can possibly be used to "meditate cancer away"

You lack references to justify this statement. You add "possibly" ... and lets be frank possibly generally implies a probability less than 50% so you could almost say "probably not" instead. There was much support for this view in the 80s and 90s and some folk (symintons?) wrote a best seller about it but follow-up research has not supported their assertions.

What can I say, nine? Just another "incident" that people like to see things into. Why don't I recall the incident when Richard Feynman was at his beloved's bedside and at the moment when she died the clock on the table stopped? Being a rational man that he was he just realised it was a coincidence, even though at that moment he must have been filled with extreme grief.

Like I said, give people some hope and they can project whatever the f*ck they want into it. My view is that people are lazy and they don't want to think, and ask dumb questions and resolve those dumb questions independently, because it takes sooooo much work.

And about this man getting rid of his cancer without treatment, there are a number of possibilities which include, excuse the crude exposition:

1) his other cells were "smart" enough to get rid of the cancer cells.
2) the DNA of the cancer cells are also f*cked in the sense they self destruct after a certain time, in another words their senescence was rather short. Certain species of animals have this, after they've breed the animal just self destructs. It could well be that the DNA of the cancer cells had defective code in them that made them "weak" and vulnerable to attack from other cells.
and so on . . . .

who ever said DNA was perfect? and to perform a diagnostic at the DNA level to see what went on is not within mankind's means at the moment. I'm just trying to point out that there are other possibilities not mentioned which renders this case inconclusive. To talk about "willing" something to happen would be like me saying, in logical terms: this is a cat, therefore my wife likes me?!!!

 

[Paul71]

I don't read New Scientist. And your prodding is rather impertinent.

new_trader,

Well maybe you and I got it all wrong. You see, we should take total advantage of people's gullibility and start writing books to tell people the wonderful unfalsifiable things that is possible if only they "believe". Oh, and the market does need cannon fodder doesn't it?:cheesy: I mean, for crying out loud, why strain ourselves taking money out of the markets when we can start courses and seminars and charge people £500 - £2000 a time for a day's work, all we have to do is talk piffle?

I was having a little go. It's Sunday, i'm not going to get into any petty arguements.

To be honest, i was hoping that the comment about Livermore, may promt someone.

Cheerio.

 

[counter_violent]

I was having a little go. It's Sunday, i'm not going to get into any petty arguements.

To be honest, i was hoping that the comment about Livermore, may promt someone.

Cheerio.

OK....There's a very thin line between "genius" and " insanity"...I would say they cross over quite frequently for some !

cv

 

[temptrader]

I have absolutely no understanding of programming. I admit that right up front.

However, where I think your anaology falls down is this. You are talking about the representations of digits that dictate how the programs work. The 0's and 1's. In computers that is fine.

Now, what if there was a way to change how those 0's and 1's were actually made. Imagine that those 0's and 1's were three dimensional(as DNA is). What if we could manipulate those three dimensional 0's and 1's. Would that not change how the programs work?

The latter is why nine and I are not going to bother with you: If you must know all of mathematics can be demoted to 1s and 0s, and that includes 3 dimensional representations, so the answer to your question is that "three dimensional 0's and 1's" can be equivalently represented as normal 0s and 1s. The latter comment by the way is an entire field of mathematics known as logic, and a bit of model theory thrown in (something I will not be studying for some time).

This is what I'm getting at. Latest research seems to indicate that physical matter is energy. This research and experimentation seems to suggest that this energy can be manipulated. This manipulation would, logically, affect the physical matter itself.

It seems just a little outdated to suggest that this is certainly not possible and can't be done when the latest research seems to suggest it can. In time it may turn out that you are correct and the latest research is wrong, I admit that. My point though, is that for you to suggest, as you seem to be doing, that it simply isn't possible, isn't supported by the latest research.

No I don't think they "fret and get gittery" over these other forces. I don't think a doctor gives a damn about DNA interactions when examining a patient's bladder.

This does not mean those forces are not there and it does not mean they are not relevant. Again I will use the example of the "doctors" of old not giving a damn about "those little invisible germ thingy's" causing illness. At the time the thinking was those little things either didn't exist or didn't matter. Over time the thinking changed as we learnt more.

germs would work at a level that would matter, and doctors take them into account. The fact that the forces are there does not alter the argument, because by your assumption we should all allow for them, which would make diagnosis impossible because it complicates things, and the energy level they work at (for the good of argument) does not happen so they can be safely "abstracted" out of the way? Do you get my point? DNA can be safely abstracted out of the way when talking about bounds, in the same sense that atoms can be safely abstracted away when we discuss how the Archimedes screw works.

It is an undeniable fact that people with a "positive attitude" will, generally speaking, survive longer with terminal illnesses. Why is that if the thought or will has no bearing on the DNA/genes/physical matter or whatever? Going back to my other example, why, in people with multiple personality disorder, can eye colour, health and blood type all change depending on nothing more than which personality is in charge at the time? This should make no difference if the DNA is the sole determining factor in such matters.

Again, you totally fail to understand what nine and I are telling you about what it is that you are "thinking". You totally got the wrong end of the stick.

Latest research seems to indicate that physical matter is energy. This research and experimentation seems to suggest that this energy can be manipulated. This manipulation would, logically, affect the physical matter itself.

And, of course, this means that it's possible for us to change it to our wills? I have no problem with the fact that the manipulation would effect physical matter itself, I have a problem with you using it to imply about how the human mind can "will" things to happen for it's own ends. There is no logic to that, only pathetic egotistic wishy-washy thinking.

And as regards this "manipulation", how pray do you think we go about it? These forces of energy and waves that you talk about requires horrendous energy to study because what we need to do is to see them in isolation. This requires building particle accelerators, because only those can get us to seeing them (even if only for a millionth of a second). So we have to spend 100s of billions of pounds building these damn particle accelerators to analyse/manipulate something that so unimaginably tiny and exists in unheard of dimensions etc. . . Are you saying to me that the human mind is capable of this amazing feat? That it's capable of this energy level without doing untold damage to all the surrounding living cells that makes it up for the purpose of "willing" an outcome beneficial to the body that it resides in?

I think nine will agree with me when I say that I am glad there are no people like you on scientific advisory committees, nor on the boards of governing bodies who dispense funds for scientific research.