Only on a sunday

[chump]

Request to moderator to close the thread

Tony,
"Hey Chump, a thread to be proud of..."..as I have said objectivity is hard to find,you didn't believe it first time so I doubt you will on this occasion. For clarity, this is not personal ,it's not friendly, it;'s not unfriendly. It's supposed rational adults attempting to discuss matters of mutual interest without giving or taking offence. Why am I not surprised that this is so difficult to do? People have so little acceptance of themselves and assume others are the same and before you know it bunfights ensue. The lack of control is what you see above.

The thread was to stimulate some thought and debate on issues of interest and to do so in a rational manner.In fact the latter "rational" ,or the ability to reason impersonally was at the heart of the thread. Some of these issues are being discussed elsewhere and from the reactions to date it's better that they are left there.

With only a couple of exceptions people came along ,scooped up the data they were already looking for, shaped it into a nice square block and as usual fitted same into a nice round hole. Hence , the journey from this particular basement ends in the adjoining cellar with the elevator operator unmotivated to want to convert lateral movement into vertical movement.

Moderator as the person starting the thread do I have the ability to request it's closure? If so,please do. Thank you.

 

[TheBramble]

Chump, I hope you read this before (if) the mods decide to delete the thread. I personally hope they don't as a thread sort of becomes the intellectual (sic) property of all who make the effort to contribute. Of course t2w admin and mods own the responsibility.

Back to this thread.

When you have one intent and everybody else appears to have very precisely and very specifically another - I don't think you can blame everyone else. This thread was a perfect opportunity to turn out exactly the way is has.

There is a phrase from a branch of psychology that you may be familiar with:-

"The meaning of the communication is the response you get".

Which means we are all 100% responsible for what people think we mean.

To claim you've been caught in the currents of another stream is specious - you have directly routed those currents here. Check your (unattributed and direct) quotes lifted from other threads and your attempted ridicule by mimicry.

You're only fooling yourself if you believe your purpose is other than has turned out.

I don't believe I have anything further to usefully add to this particular thread.

 

[chump]

Tony,
Got your message,but it appears we simply have different viewpoints. All I see are other people and you putting theirown interpretation on these posts. In point ,this has to be the case because you know nothing factual about me that would give you any objective measuring stick by which to guage my intent. No, the intent is simply what you think it is. I take the view that this is your responsibility and not mind. I might have said "This is your fault ,not mine" ,but you take this type of statement to be "mimicry" with presumably disrespectful connotations.

Why all these assumptions ? We can ask questions of each other to determine facts before we make judgements can't we.

Why do you think I do not address people by name and often take just a viewpoint for discussion.,because it isn't personal. The viewpoint will be something I found interesting and wish to discuss and often that will be the case if I have a differing view of my own. Implicitly this has to be the case because there is no rational for discussion when viewpoints are in agreement.

A forum, 'a place for discussion'. That's it ,if I wish to get personal I save it for people who I know very well then at least I know I am reacting to what is and not what might be.
I can't make it any clearer.

As a footnote I did get personal once on this forum and I apologised to that individual as it was inappropriate behaviour on my part.

 

[pkfryer]

Bramble... you come across as a remarkably intelligent person by the posts I have read by you. Very aware and with creative thought. It is good that what I consider as two of the most interesting members of this board have posted on the same thread... chump being the other.

It is interesting that discussions of socrates has come into this thread... as Bramble you are mistaken I believe, chump made only a passing comment to Socrates guru thread in response to Salty Gibbon. Chumps view points and discussions are very existential but far more accessible than Socrates style and it is interesting that Skimbleshanks inappropriately threatens James88 because he dares to question Socrates. I find it incredible that people so blindly follow a self-proclaimed guru... to such an extent that they rediculously say things like: if you dont believe in the guru's teachings it shows that you are not evolved enough to understand them (a paraphrase)... this is typical brainwashing, and its way way beyond time that the human race puts an end to this pathetic thinking! Lets evolve at long last!

Anyway, I dont like the fact that your excellent thread has been hijacked Chump. But it does show that there is very strong feelings and reactions and a kind of guru worshiping going on which is very interesting in its own right. I've never been religious or been effected by gurus or crowd madness as I am very much an introvert and loner by attitude even if not by action. I like some people and have many friends but dont like crowds or being with people constantly. So I have immunity and my natural sceptal, cynical and questioning mind prevents me from accepting a belief or viewpoint without first seriously analysing it, the motivations of the person who produced the ideas and whether it cross references with my own experiences.

But Bramble has a point... A thread is only seeded by the creator, it then has its own evolution through the actions of thought and ideas of different minds. It has its own life and each poster shares a part of its creation. It is a shame that it was hijacked though... just start another!

As to your statement: What do you think I mean by: "Its a bull market". I presumed you were referring to the Reminiscences of a Stock Operator, where the old man replied to everything: "Its a bull market after all!" Most didn't understand the comment and ignored it, but it was a deep unmoving fact... Its a bull market, with implicit reasoning... that you buy and hold. So I presumed this was your reference and that you were talking about deep unmoving facts with implicit knowledge contained there in, that many people would not understand by merely looking at the surface connotations of the ideas presented. Therefore, by me stating that 'you are not saying it is a "Bull Market"' I was saying that I have 1) read the reminiscences of a stock operator, 2) understand your references and why you use it so frequently 3) stating in a creative way that I understand you chump!

 

[chump]

LOL,still open for business hey..

Reasoning...let's look at the last story above and compare this to the ideas as to how this thread developed .

In the story above what facts do we actually know..
1.Our 'bully' was in a specific place
2. He was in that place at a specific time
3.He was at that point alone / or at least isolated from anyone he was with.
4.He obviously looks the way he does
5. He was "minding his own business". It would be incorrect to infer anything from those words alone,but once we know his action in 'turning away' it would be correct to say that he was not there actively looking to find someone to fight. That is this was not his intent in being at that place.

Our guy in the story and his 4 'friends' were likewise all of the above, but in addition from their activity we know that they were intending to find someone to fight if someone met whatever criteria they had laid down for themselves.

What does this mean in terms of responsibility ,accountability and opportunity?

Well our 'bully' is responsible for his actions as described by the facts above. He chose to be in a place at a time etc. We can then say this is what he was in control of,because after all he could have made different choices. In this sense then this is his accountability zone.

The other participants similarly were responsible for their actions as described by the facts.

Does our 'bully' have any responsibilty for the action of the 'guy' in this story ? IMO ,no.
Does our 'bully' contribute by virtue of creating an opportunity for the 'guy' to initiate his intent. IMO ,yes.
Does creating an opportunity equate to accepting responsibility for the 'guys' intent. IMO, no.

The latter needs explanation. For explanation we need to look at control of choice/action.

Can our 'bully' control , or make choices for our 'guy' ? Yes, but only in the sense that if he was not there to be fought then the fight would not involve him. (Likewise it would be grossly unfair if you were long at a time when some large player went short wouldn't it ! )
However, this would not have any effect on the 'guys' intent. That intent was already in his mind and is totally independent of our 'bully'. In other words our 'bully' cannot choose the intent that the 'guy' selected. The ensuing 'fight' would have occurred ,but would simply have involved another person had one been present who met the 'guys' criteria. However, if our 'bully' cannot control the intent and choices made by our 'guy' can we then actually say that our 'bully' is still responsible for the same. That is accountable ,but without any ability to control? As I have said IMO ,no.
Interestingly, this very conclusion is at the heart of much of peoples frustration in life/work. That is they are held to be accountable for matters that they cannot control..ask many managers for their view on that issue.

The points drawn from our story when compared to the development of the thread are clear. When people read posts they have control of their choices. They can choose not to post a reply. If they do reply they have a choice as to how they formulate that post and the way they do so will depend on their intent. This is their responsibility and it is they that are accountable , because they control this activity. What you think you might infer from posts is irrelevant to the aforementioned action. Perhaps it need saying again ,we are each responsible for our own actions,because only we can control them in the fullest sense of that expression.

It might be inferred that a discussion on matters relating to psychology might just be for that purpose,because looking above I note that this is a "Trading Psychology" section.

 

[pkfryer]

Yes chump. That does make sense, and you even explained it without resorting to guru talk and putting people down. Incredible

I picture... or story, speaks volumes via a subtle conveying of experience through metaphore. It works only when it is well done, and doesn't work when the story tellers motivation is other than instilling wisdom.

I think I'm building a frame of reference to interpret your little metaphores. Get any others?

 

[Buddhist]

I agree James88, I cant see anything wrong with these. If there are problems on this BB, then it isnt with your posts.

D

James

Never mind your intentions. Your posts are OK The only one who has been rude is Two Bars.

Skim will eventually lighten up when she gets over her infatuation with Socrates

Hang in there ........................

 

[chump]

PK,
No, I won't be posting anymore of these, it's unproductive.The amount of excercise it gives to the muscle between my ears is somewhat less than the byproduct created.

As for creating terms of reference for me or anyone else I would be wary if I was you. This is a very difficult medium in which to get reliable data for this process.

You've engaged the posts so before I stop it I will tell you very clearly what I have been leading up to and how I have been using various terms.

Empathetic reasoning.You will find a very good example of this on post 679 in No indicators and it is in plain English and related directly to trading. In post 1 of this thread I attempted to debate some issues on empathetic reasoning and self development. Again you will find this clearly explained on the same post 679. In essence it is interogation that seeks to separate fact from inference.

Empathetic reasoning is hard work. To do it all the time is even harder. If you do it long enough it will reward you personally in many ways.A lot of people don't do it and this BB is testimony to that fact. I will explain that. Empathetic reasoning when applied to your own experiences eventually leaves you no place to hide. As a process it does not accomodate inappropriate emotion. You will have to face the facts and the facts all too often are that you will have to take a course of action which on the face of it emotionally you would rather not have to do, but nonetheless in pursuit of your self interest you know you must.
So when people on this board start defending or attacking others this process identifies that this is only due to the fact that their personal level of acceptance of self has been displaced and become dependant on how other people view them or indeed sometimes they are defending another party for the same reason . That person therefore is implicitly not in control of himself/herself. If you have reasoned thus then it is but a small step to understand that the only thing that you can control is yourself ,but to do this you have to throw away all the usual comfort blankets that people typically employ. What you cannot control to that degree is what other people bring to the party and similarly you cannot control market activity you can only question it until it tells you what the facts are underlying that activity. So now if I have explained clearly you know what I mean by the terms Empathetic reasoning, acceptance and control.

When I have used the expression min sympathy I refer to the fact that the majority of people who are not cognitively deficient have the ability to make choices and I have "Min sympathy" if they choose to make the ones that are not in their self interest simply because they choose not to employ empathetic reasoning. I need to explain what I mean by the word sympathy in this context. That is, I will not share their feelings/emotions that result form their choices. To do so is non productive for them and for me. There is someone who if they read will know exactly what I mean,because it is central to their occupation. That is all my terms of usage explained.

Back to the book. After reading Stock Operator I simply knew that trading would be very similar to other business activity that I had been engaged in in many ways. Particularly as it relates to the points made above. That in fact what would be required in addition is a process of 'decoding' specific to the market I wished to trade and their is no shortcut for that.

Good Luck with your learning process and try this one on for size. A favorite saying of mine..
If you fool me once shame on you..if you fool me twice shame on me (because I didn't learn from that first experience..as I say no place to hide).