How To Think Correctly

[CYOF]

More on The Five Fundamental Truths

 

[CYOF]

This one is for Socrates, who appears to get some stick now and again.

Let me know if you want the full book and I will arrange same.

 

[SOCRATES]

And now I am likely to get some more.....but notice that the really top expert members keep quiet......because silence gives consent.......and the adverse comment derives from the not so expert, the intermediates, the beginners, the absolute beginners and the serial pests who know even less but pounce on any opportunity to smother threads with their own brands of ill considered graffiti.

Right....(and this will infuriate a lot of people but it is true).....none of this is chaos. All of it is order. But it is a perverse strain of order that is presented as chaos.

All the outcomes (or very very nearly all the outcomes) are known in advance.

But the way the preambles to these outcomes are presented and disguised as chaos serve to baffle nearly everybody.

All of it is obvious.

I personally do not have any difficulty in slicing through this fog described as chaos and I am amazed at the inability of the great majority to do the same.

This leaves me to wonder if one is wired differently to everybody else because, I will have you know, that I am not alone. There are members on this site who are similarly wired but have given up in dismay at the responses they are apt to get in mainstream attitudes.

I continue to post because I am morbidly fascinated at how it is people are apt to misdirect both themselves and how it is they are also able to contaminate others with their own self induced misdirections.

This is why I am the only one left who posts a darkside view whereas the others have given up and just visit and occupy the gallery and remain silent in public but the buzz behind the scenes is quite something.

Now what happens is that in a world in which there is clarity the obscure is not understood. Additionally it is not helpful if people are caught between what they percieve to be order ( systems, indicators, moving averages, ratios etc.,) on the one hand, and chaos on the other ( disorder, guesswork, uncertainty, risk, peril, and the unknown).

This polarisation is very marked and is apt to cause dissent.

All the rudeness and disrespect thrown at my posting persona does not affect me one iota, I promise you.

I forgive all of it because I understand. I understand it is very easy for frustrated people to respond in accordance with their frustrations. But I am very satisfied and I am able to view all of it from a great height and not get rattled, because after all this is about being able to press buttons and make showers of points, on command, at will, repeatedly.

Therefore the site provides a welcome distraction from the tedious excercise of pushing buttons and is able to vividly illustrate the world of trading the great majority condemn themselves to inhabit by virtue of not thnking correctly, I respectfully submit.

 

[Legion]

All the outcomes (or very very nearly all the outcomes) are known in advance.

Was / Is it made purposely this way, or was it or is it now, anyway, just "seeing" that this is how it is now (however and whoever made it like this) hmmm maybe its self created by generalised, as is ,human nature with a big dollop of we'll (market minds) use that to enhance the art of rug whipping even further.

Thinking about it, it must be just exploiting the as is current human condition, like those monkey's who put their hand into a narrow necked jar to grab the bait ,they then cant release the food they hold in their hand in order to remove their hand from the jar.

Therefore Price at Level A = Bait Trader taking Bait = Monkey ?

Now how to get monkey to a position of seeing Bait in Jar and monkey eyeing the bait about to put his own hand in? lol good heavens.

Further ,is it because the Monkey just hasn't evolved enough to think , or transcend his present limitations ,are the monkey's meant to?

hmm, this adds big weight to the argument that traders indeed are born and in fact ,because of the fact that seems to be evident in todays markets still , they are not made, because of the monkey jar effect ?

 

[SOCRATES]

Was / Is it made purposely this way, or was it or is it now, anyway, just "seeing" that this is how it is now (however and whoever made it like this) hmmm maybe its self created by generalised, as is ,human nature with a big dollop of we'll (market minds) use that to enhance the art of rug whipping even further.

Thinking about it, it must be just exploiting the as is current human condition, like those monkey's who put their hand into a narrow necked jar to grab the bait ,they then cant release the food they hold in their hand in order to remove their hand from the jar.

Therefore Price at Level A = Bait Trader taking Bait = Monkey ?

Now how to get monkey to a position of seeing Bait in Jar and monkey eyeing the bait about to put his own hand in? lol good heavens.

Further ,is it because the Monkey just hasn't evolved enough to think , or transcend his present limitations ,are the monkey's meant to?

hmm, this adds big weight to the argument that traders indeed are born and in fact ,because of the fact that seems to be evident in todays markets still , they are not made, because of the monkey jar effect ?

I assure you it is the case. I am not teasing or leg pulling or otherwise, I promise.

That is why you can read a book like "Market Wizards" for example and come out none the wiser, because no one in his right mind who has "arrived" is going to share indiscriminately.

Therefore the effect can be written about or indeed even shown and even shown live but the mechanism that drives it is not shared. Then what you are likely to get is an idealised sort of explanation that will suffice to satisfy the readers....and full stop.

But if you put a handful of real experts in a room ( and I have said this before ) and give them a scenario....they will all unerringly give you the correct result in advance of the event....even though the routes they may use to arrive at the correct conclusion may be different...but the difference is that there is no requirement for justifications, or proofs, or explanations, or revelations of what or why...and just acceptance and mutual recognition which is a delight...and the opposite of what is to be found in mainstream.

The sheer delight of acknowledgement of each others' faculties is sufficient.

No envy, no head drilling, no vitiriol, no back stabbing, no begging, no questions, no explanations requested or needed, no attempts to extract ideas, information, tactics, no ulterior motives, no nothing, just mutual admiration and tacit recognition and that is enough.

Now, it happens that very few fit that mould.

Why it is that everyone is not like it is a mystery, since we all are born ignorant and we all have to learn and we all have to progress, so we come back to the chestnut of ability, innate ability.

For this reason, the more I observe and hear and read and see and experience, the more I am convinced that traders are born, and not made....must be....got to be.

 

[superfly]

Press buttons and make showers of points, on command, at will, repeatedly.

When Im that succesfull, I will try to do other things with my sparetime then to post to unbelievers.

 

[CYOF]

Socrtaes, to be honest, which I find very easy to do as I am not bothered by what others think of my opinions, I don't see anything wrong with the posts that I have read from yourself.

If anyone thinks that successful trading is not dependant on your attitude to life, how your brain interprets information (process input) , and how you brain reacts to that information (process output), then they are only fooling themselves - I was going to say stupid, but that is not nice, and I try and refrain from using negative comments. After all, there is no such thing as stupidity, all it means is that one person is processing the same information differently than another person.

One can argue as much as one likes, but the fact is that everyone has a brain in their head. The brain is there for two main reasons, to maintain the bodily functions by subconscious activity, and to allow the being to develop (some will call this spiritual, but I prefer to stay neutral on that terminology) and experience life to its fullest potential.

In the animal world, it is sometimes called survival of the fittest.

Us humans, the very intelligent creatures that we are, give it fancy terms like good, evil, right, wrong, successful, unsuccessful, etc, etc.

The main question, that we must ask ourselves in relation to trading, is do we really believe that we can make consistent returns in the market (which ever market we have chosen to trade) based on our level of experience in the market.

If we really believe that we can do it, then, and only then, will the possibility be there to make it a reality. If deep down inside we doubt ourselves, then the possibility of making it is very slim, or may eventually happen, after some very bad experiences.

IMHO, there is no easy answer. One post that is stuck in my mind, and it think it was Charlton that made it, was to Just Do It.

This one post has made me think very seriously about what I had planned to do - namely return to full time daytrading in 2007 - but when I took Charlton's advice and started to Just Do It instead of Just Thinking About Doing It, I am now discovering different aspects of the market that I never really fully understood before. The funny part is, and wait for it, is that I already knew about these aspects - such as major / minor / micro trend direction, major S&R levels, Rallies, Retracements & Reversals.

Without rambling on - as we all know that these are the basic fundamentals of Technical Analysis, BUT just knowing about these aspects is not good enough. As equally important, if not more so, is understanding that there is no guarantee of any trade turning out to be a winner - fact.

In fact, according to all the successful traders who are making money, you must actually think the opposite and expect every trade to be a loser!

Now, here is where Mark Douglas shines. If we are expecting to make money by putting on a trade, based on our TA, - which I think most of us will agree is the way we think most of the time - and the fact is that we really will never know for sure what way the trade will go, then we have a major dilemma. What happens next, well, lets see. Say the trade goes against us and we are stopped out - now we start thinking about why did this happen, was my bullish engulfing pattern not right, was the ma crossover too soon or too late, was the volume spikes not the same as the spikes 30 min ago, etc,etc.

It really doesn't matter what happened, as we tend to forget that the market can do anything at any time, so we are just wasting our time even thinking about it.

What we should be doing - which I am in the process of trying to set up - is developing an approach that allows us to 1) place a trade with perceived low risk based on previous chart formations 2) allows us to take some profits when the market gives same, but still allows us to stay in a winning trade for more potential profit , and 3) have a means to evaluate our results so that we can quickly tell if we are going to be consistent with this approach - otherwise known as the Expectancy of your sample trading results.

As we say here in Ireland:

sin é díreach atá ag teastáil! = that's just the job!

 

[the blades]

I assure you it is the case. I am not teasing or leg pulling or otherwise, I promise.

That is why you can read a book like "Market Wizards" for example and come out none the wiser, because no one in his right mind who has "arrived" is going to share indiscriminately.

Therefore the effect can be written about or indeed even shown and even shown live but the mechanism that drives it is not shared. Then what you are likely to get is an idealised sort of explanation that will suffice to satisfy the readers....and full stop.

But if you put a handful of real experts in a room ( and I have said this before ) and give them a scenario....they will all unerringly give you the correct result in advance of the event....even though the routes they may use to arrive at the correct conclusion may be different...but the difference is that there is no requirement for justifications, or proofs, or explanations, or revelations of what or why...and just acceptance and mutual recognition which is a delight...and the opposite of what is to be found in mainstream.

The sheer delight of acknowledgement of each others' faculties is sufficient.

No envy, no head drilling, no vitiriol, no back stabbing, no begging, no questions, no explanations requested or needed, no attempts to extract ideas, information, tactics, no ulterior motives, no nothing, just mutual admiration and tacit recognition and that is enough.

Now, it happens that very few fit that mould.

Why it is that everyone is not like it is a mystery, since we all are born ignorant and we all have to learn and we all have to progress, so we come back to the chestnut of ability, innate ability.

For this reason, the more I observe and hear and read and see and experience, the more I am convinced that traders are born, and not made....must be....got to be.

outcomes that are known with certainty before the trade (despite the need for very tight stops :?: ), oooodles of cash and selfless friends who light up each others lives. Square that with 3,500 lengthy and repetative posts on an internet bulletin board, stating a refusal to help or learn.

You'd think life would have more to offer, but each to his own.

UTB

 

[SOCRATES]

outcomes that are known with certainty before the trade (despite the need for very tight stops :?: ), oooodles of cash and selfless friends who light up each others lives. Square that with 3,500 lengthy and repetative posts on an internet bulletin board, stating a refusal to help or learn.

You'd think life would have more to offer, but each to his own.

UTB

Exactly, precisely, very well put.

However, you are under two misconceptions that have to be put right straight away.

The first is correct. The question of help as you put it does not arise, all of you have taught me that.

The second is not correct. I am not here to learn. I am here to observe and to have fun, I have done all the learning I needed a long time ago, thank you all the same.

 

[SOCRATES]

When Im that succesfull, I will try to do other things with my sparetime then to post to unbelievers.

Yes, exactly ...look how many have difficulty in descerning the difference between a squashed bottle top and a valuable coin....you are right.

 

[the blades]

Exactly, precisely, very well put.

However, you are under two misconceptions that have to be put right straight away.

The first is correct. The question of help as you put it does not arise, all of you have taught me that.

The second is not correct. I am not here to learn. I am here to observe and to have fun, I have done all the learning I needed a long time ago, thank you all the same.

thanks for the reply, but that's another 5 minutes of your fruitful life that you'll never get back - non the less.

UTB

 

[SOCRATES]

thanks for the reply, but that's another 5 minutes of your fruitful life that you'll never get back - non the less.

UTB

How many times do I have to repeat this....this is not about sharing ...it is about competing...and competing ferociously...like gladiatorial combat...and not tiddlywinks....

 

[the blades]

I have just noticed the blindingly obvious - your responses are all too often to questions that aren't even asked. I paraphrased your stated intentions, and asked no questions or held no preconceptions.

So, to anwer your question

How many times do I have to repeat this....

about 3,500 times it seems. And you still haven't convinced yourself

UTB

 

[Mr A Smith]

Pssst. ere' I bet that socrates puts his thumb down ,all the time, even if the charismatic underdog of the people , or common peoples champ, warrants a let off ) when watchin all those gladiator movies.. kill em go on... to the death... I hope he hasnt got a dog on the couch next to him when he's watchin, just in case like...

Maximus or Biggus Dickus, err I be both of an evening at times, humbly of course.

 

[Mr A Smith]

He is right though.

 

[the blades]

Maximus or Biggus Dickus, err I be both of an evening at times, humbly of course.

"Centurwian, why do you titter so? Is there anybody else who finds it funny when I mention the name of my fwend...........BIGGUSS......DICKUSS?"




Happy days,
UTB

 

[henry766]

When people lose , an often heared phrase is , you have to be philosophical about it , you never hear this said to winners . As for Socrates , we see more and more these days care in the community wasn't such a good idea , or have you been using Matrons phone card again?Why is it you don't hear builders or shopkeepers asking why thier subconcouse makes them lose , those businesses aren't zero sum games , businesses where it's accepted that the best tend to do well, the not so good , not so well , but not psychologically impaired , mind you reading some of socrates diaohrea i now give in , some of you guys are psychological losers .( present company ( blades included ) accepted!

 

[starspacer]

I sort of agree with you market wizard ( couldn't be bothered reading kiwi stuff) in that one should keep looking directly at the nuts and bolts , keep looking at the markets for the answer , not abstract mumbo jumbo , one needs to be focused on making winning trades , this isn't easy , but blaming your psychology when you lose instead of your trade is plain daft, people get philosophical when they lose ,and trading is ( more or less a zero sum game , where a few wily old dogs of the game make nearly all the money and nearly everyone else doesn't,which is why there are so many who don't make money , breeding grounds for this psychological rubbish ( and idiots like socrates ), but don't think losing traders want to lose, or suffer from insecurity ,traumatic childhoods etc , they just arn't good enough, though just a few will be oneday.

Henry 766, tum podem extulit horridulum. Quod minimum specimen in te ingenii?

Socrates, non illigitamus carborundum!

 

[SOCRATES]

Henry 766, tum podem extulit horridulum. Quod minimum specimen in te ingenii?

Socrates, non illigitamus carborundum!

. :arrowu:

 

[darkwanderer]

Would it be fair to say that you can only think about what you know? Would it not be better to learn about the markets before you trade?