All youtube traders All the time - Post em Up
- Thread starter easymon1
- Start date
Sounds simple enough....do that.....and let me know once you become a millionaire....,
easymon1 EasyMoney1
You still here BooHoo, lol.
Hey congrats yodel fat kid on your 62million views! You're all right, I don't care What Everybody Says About You. lol
I'll give ya a buck for an update to this song made fresh there BooHoo.
Buyer beware, yeah, we know.
Onward...
5-8-13 EMA "SCALPING" (FULL TUTORIAL for Beginners) - One of The Best Absolute Methods for Trading
Aha! Will You Recognize The Next Great Idea?
Suppose, as the leader of your organization, you decided that, starting immediately, all ideas were to come to you anonymously and that the source would be revealed only after you evaluated the idea on its own merit. How many ideas that you ultimately accept do you think would come from expected sources? From unexpected sources?
Because of a phenomenon called cognitive bias, our own construction of reality – a reality we often seek in advance – tends to override objectivity in assessing the input. As such, cognitive biases can easily lead to perceptual distortion, narrowed options, faulty judgment, and lost opportunities.
Groundbreaking work on cognitive bias was done by Daniel Kahneman, an Israeli psychologist and economist noted for his work regarding the psychology of judgment and decision-making, as well as behavioral economics. For his work – beginning, in the 1970s – Kahneman received the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.
Kahneman’s work challenges the assumptions we make regarding our own human rationality. If we apply, in everyday scenarios, what he states, we start to realize the frailties and foibles of our decision-making processes – and the biases that make them vulnerable. We freely use the term, paradigms, but it is not the root of the problem. Paradigmatic constructs are caused by the more fundamental and systemic cognitive biases. For example, we’re more likely to freely accept ideas from senior leaders than from young members of the project team. Or from executives with three degrees, not smart, creative, fearless thinkers with the ink still wet on their Bachelor’s degrees. Why?
When ideas are presented to us, the immediate need is for us to be persuaded. Persuasion, we discover, depends on four factors:
1. Credibility – The idea must be believable, sensible, and practical (to one degree or another), or any combination of those characteristics.
2. Authority – The idea must come from someone whom we recognize as an authoritative voice. How we assign real or perceived authority is, often, a pathology all its own.
3. Relevance – If the idea cannot be attached to something significant to us or our organizations or ourselves, we’re more likely than not to dismiss it categorically. Worse, we may have set up our paradigm structures so that the idea never gets to us in the first place.
4. Feedback – This is an intimate dance, performed together by the persuader and the persuaded, that serves as milestones along the path to recognition of the persuasion itself. It’s not just an end result; it’s part and parcel of the process.
The more these four factors are given equal values, the more objective the process becomes and the more reliable the decision will likely be. That’s cognitive objectivity, open-mindedness. But when, for instance, we assign too much authority to an individual simply because of age, seniority, position, or credentials; or when we dismiss others for exactly the opposite characteristics, we engage in cognitive biases and we endanger the integrity of our thought processes and, ultimately, our decisions.
There was a popular adage in 1950s and 1960s management circles that said that, in making decisions, if you’re right 51 percent of the time, you win. Well, that’s no longer good, as it assumes that we know what 51 percent is a part of – a finite universe of 100 percent – thereby relegating our decision-making only to what we see. But in the age of innovation of unparalleled nature, pace, and scope, leaders not only have to think out of the box (pardon the use of the worn-out cliché, but it fits here), they have to make sure they’re just not in a bigger box.
Ideas – truly original ideas – come from more places (nature), arise much faster (pace), and reach much farther (scope) than ever before – and our cognitive biases will only get in the way. They’re not easy to shed but shed them we must.
So let’s get back to the opening hypothesis and think about our openness to new ideas from new sources.
Because you never know where the next great idea will come from.
And you don’t want to miss it. It’s not about throwing the old sources out; it’s about letting the new ones in.
Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Check out my website.
Eli Amdur
Aha! Will You Recognize The Next Great Idea?
Suppose, as the leader of your organization, you decided that, starting immediately, all ideas were to come to you anonymously and that the source would be revealed only after you evaluated the idea on its own merit. How many ideas that you ultimately accept do you think would come from expected sources? From unexpected sources?
Because of a phenomenon called cognitive bias, our own construction of reality – a reality we often seek in advance – tends to override objectivity in assessing the input. As such, cognitive biases can easily lead to perceptual distortion, narrowed options, faulty judgment, and lost opportunities.
Groundbreaking work on cognitive bias was done by Daniel Kahneman, an Israeli psychologist and economist noted for his work regarding the psychology of judgment and decision-making, as well as behavioral economics. For his work – beginning, in the 1970s – Kahneman received the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.
Kahneman’s work challenges the assumptions we make regarding our own human rationality. If we apply, in everyday scenarios, what he states, we start to realize the frailties and foibles of our decision-making processes – and the biases that make them vulnerable. We freely use the term, paradigms, but it is not the root of the problem. Paradigmatic constructs are caused by the more fundamental and systemic cognitive biases. For example, we’re more likely to freely accept ideas from senior leaders than from young members of the project team. Or from executives with three degrees, not smart, creative, fearless thinkers with the ink still wet on their Bachelor’s degrees. Why?
When ideas are presented to us, the immediate need is for us to be persuaded. Persuasion, we discover, depends on four factors:
1. Credibility – The idea must be believable, sensible, and practical (to one degree or another), or any combination of those characteristics.
2. Authority – The idea must come from someone whom we recognize as an authoritative voice. How we assign real or perceived authority is, often, a pathology all its own.
3. Relevance – If the idea cannot be attached to something significant to us or our organizations or ourselves, we’re more likely than not to dismiss it categorically. Worse, we may have set up our paradigm structures so that the idea never gets to us in the first place.
4. Feedback – This is an intimate dance, performed together by the persuader and the persuaded, that serves as milestones along the path to recognition of the persuasion itself. It’s not just an end result; it’s part and parcel of the process.
The more these four factors are given equal values, the more objective the process becomes and the more reliable the decision will likely be. That’s cognitive objectivity, open-mindedness. But when, for instance, we assign too much authority to an individual simply because of age, seniority, position, or credentials; or when we dismiss others for exactly the opposite characteristics, we engage in cognitive biases and we endanger the integrity of our thought processes and, ultimately, our decisions.
There was a popular adage in 1950s and 1960s management circles that said that, in making decisions, if you’re right 51 percent of the time, you win. Well, that’s no longer good, as it assumes that we know what 51 percent is a part of – a finite universe of 100 percent – thereby relegating our decision-making only to what we see. But in the age of innovation of unparalleled nature, pace, and scope, leaders not only have to think out of the box (pardon the use of the worn-out cliché, but it fits here), they have to make sure they’re just not in a bigger box.
Ideas – truly original ideas – come from more places (nature), arise much faster (pace), and reach much farther (scope) than ever before – and our cognitive biases will only get in the way. They’re not easy to shed but shed them we must.
So let’s get back to the opening hypothesis and think about our openness to new ideas from new sources.
Because you never know where the next great idea will come from.
And you don’t want to miss it. It’s not about throwing the old sources out; it’s about letting the new ones in.
Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Check out my website.
Eli Amdur