Is intelligence important for trading?

wally_ · Dec 8, 2002

Quote from LongShot:

this is really BS. scientists and engineers require something called proof or reasonable evidence. have you heard of it? they are not closed minded or stupid as you suggest, but they are rational. a little proof of your claims might help.

I have to agree that calling scientists closed-minded is not a very good choice of words. I am a physicist by training and cannot imagine how someone could call Einstein close-minded. Just an example...

The biggest revolutions of the human race have been scientific revolutions, without revolutions in physics that gave rise to the progress in technology we would not be able to discuss things the way we do on this site.

slapshot · Dec 8, 2002

IMO,

There is a big difference between being smart and thinking you are smart.

Being smart = humility, open-mindedness and desire to learn more coupled with some common sense.

Thinking you are smart = arrogance, closed-mindedness and blaming others when things don't work out combined with little common sense.

Just my .02 - I'm trying to remember that I'm probably not as smart as I think I am.

Paul

igsi · Dec 9, 2002

Would ambassador Spock be a good trader? He is intellegent and disciplined. Yet, I think he would have troubles with execution. Would his need to be right bring him down or he could compensate it?

daniel_m · Dec 9, 2002

Quote from LongShot:

this is really BS. scientists and engineers require something called proof or reasonable evidence. have you heard of it? they are not closed minded or stupid as you suggest, but they are rational. a little proof of your claims might help.

longshot, while there's no doubt that the essence of science, which is desrcibing observation, rests on provability of claims, i think you are elevating the everyday scientist to a level of beyond mere mortal.

we all bring our preconceptions to the table and scientists are no different. the vast majority, i suspect, would uncritically accept something as 'knowledge' simply because that's what was taught to them. the history science is, unfortunately, one of protecting and defending existing models out of all proportion to their explanatory power simply by virtue of their being the existing model; in other words "close minded".

it's just human nature to hold onto your conception of reality - your map of the world - as long as you can. we all need a sense of certainty about "the way things are" to happily go about our business. how many of us make a consistent conscious effort to challenge the paradigms through which we experience the world?

harrytrader · Dec 9, 2002

I am an engineer myself

so what I said is not against my own corporation. Scientists are not god. In fact there have been many unscientific errors from them. For example they didn't give Nobel Prize to Einstein for his Relativity Concept but for his brownian motion because they were scared by his ideas. That's what one can call closed minded.

Quote from LongShot:

this is really BS. scientists and engineers require something called proof or reasonable evidence. have you heard of it? they are not closed minded or stupid as you suggest, but they are rational. a little proof of your claims might help.

harrytrader · Dec 9, 2002

Only exceptional scientists are discoverers : Einstein was a discoverer because he thought that "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." Today most scientists only want to comply with some pure syllogism. If Syllogism was enough in scientific process discovery, you just have to put a Cray and logic symbols and rules and that computer will discover Newton or Einstein's law or Market's equations (if they ever exist - yes as for me see my model

) and so on.

Quote from harrytrader:

I am an engineer myself so what I said is not against my own corporation. Scientists are not god. In fact there have been many unscientific errors from them. For example they didn't give Nobel Prize to Einstein for his Relativity Concept but for his brownian motion because they were scared by his ideas. That's what one can call closed minded.

harrytrader · Dec 9, 2002

Now I will say that it the inherent role of scientific communities to be closed minded: they have a conservative role to preserve existing and sound ideas against foolish ones. So this is a necessity from this point of view. But on the reverse you have not to be in a hurry to use new ideas and concepts if you have to wait for their benedictions. Even Black & Scholes were refused at first publishing. In fact it's not even a scientific behaviour but a group behavior. When beta was introduced, financial community, as reported by Berstein in his book, did just want not to hear of it.

Quote from harrytrader:

Only exceptional scientists are discoverers : Einstein was a discoverer because he thought that "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." Today most scientists only want to comply with some pure syllogism. If Syllogism was enough in scientific process discovery, you just have to put a Cray and logic symbols and rules and that computer will discover Newton or Einstein's law or Market's equations (if they ever exist - yes as for me see my model ) and so on.

wally_ · Dec 9, 2002

Quote from harrytrader:

For example they didn't give Nobel Prize to Einstein for his Relativity Concept but for his brownian motion because they were scared by his ideas. That's what one can call closed minded.

Well, Einstein got his Nobel for the theory of the photoelectric effect and not his Brownian motion theory, but the thing is he could have gotten it for almost anything he created.

harrytrader · Dec 10, 2002

Yes you're right I have a lack of memory and made a confusion, sorry

Quote from wally_:

Well, Einstein got his Nobel for the theory of the photoelectric effect and not his Brownian motion theory, but the thing is he could have gotten it for almost anything he created.

harrytrader · Dec 10, 2002

Are people asking themselves if they can succeed in trading without any great diploma ? I think I have read studies about that: many sucessful traders are not among scientists although the scientists are at a good proportion. I will try to find it again.