Mental Ceilings and self fulfilling prophesies
- Thread starter Girlpower
- Start date
Gary(gary###) and Bruce (bdixon) Focus the thread in response to Natalie (girlpower) in such an excellent manner.
The mental connection to performance is always there and juxtaposing ceilings and self fulfillment form half of the boundaries we are within. The other half, the downside, is imposed upon us by our selves when we do not succeed.
This sphere's seam goes as an equator between the two. The sidelining issues threads the two halves together.
Longitudinal edges segment and circle the us as we consider and/or play them as the market periodically lights them up for us. We are, in the extreme, polarized by risk of failure and risk of rewards.
There is an escape from this atmosphere. How to get outside, to gain a perspective requires the mental ability and skill to take the trip and a vehicle to enable you.
What it takes is making money.
Gary shows the results of plunging in and Bruce has picked a narrow range of longitudes to excell in.
I have been around.
Before ET, I used to think one way, now I have another view. I wasn't familier with how difficulties can make people harsh.
With respect to the markets, which are very large and global too. You know that there's nothing that really rocks the boat, ever, as we have all seen. So you can take yourself outside of your world and look back at it and see how to deal with all that surrounds you.
I personally have what it takes. So I recommend keeping these five thoughts, cited below, before you and to use them to just crush down all other lesser and all negative thoughts that come up. They are wrong in the first place and you have a distorted view in the second place when you bring them up.
In circular order:
There are no surprises.
The market operating point migrates and never jumps around.
Anticipating the sequences makes it all slow motion.
Enter late leave early.
Sideline when noise is running the show.
The learning process goes on forever. Each time you think you have it all down cut and dry, remind yourself that you are stuck and not learning. On the other hand, when you do not know what is going on, stay on the sidelines and learn what is going on.
My admonition in this global undertaking is to start out at the core and learn layer by layer about everything on that layer. I call them plateaux. They obviously start with the least risk: fast strong brief flawless trends.
Later, after all is said and done, you handle every opportunity to make money and you do make money.
No surprises. Seamless market movement from oppotunity to oppotunity. No unncessary risky premature entries and no unnecessary hanging in there missing ends of profit making. Staying out when the market is failing to perform.
Believe in yourself. BE what is required. DO it right. Behave (Notice this word) according to what you know only. Have a life. You will have what you can see from the outside. There is no ceiling and predicting it, is not an option.
The mental connection to performance is always there and juxtaposing ceilings and self fulfillment form half of the boundaries we are within. The other half, the downside, is imposed upon us by our selves when we do not succeed.
This sphere's seam goes as an equator between the two. The sidelining issues threads the two halves together.
Longitudinal edges segment and circle the us as we consider and/or play them as the market periodically lights them up for us. We are, in the extreme, polarized by risk of failure and risk of rewards.
There is an escape from this atmosphere. How to get outside, to gain a perspective requires the mental ability and skill to take the trip and a vehicle to enable you.
What it takes is making money.
Gary shows the results of plunging in and Bruce has picked a narrow range of longitudes to excell in.
I have been around.
Before ET, I used to think one way, now I have another view. I wasn't familier with how difficulties can make people harsh.
With respect to the markets, which are very large and global too. You know that there's nothing that really rocks the boat, ever, as we have all seen. So you can take yourself outside of your world and look back at it and see how to deal with all that surrounds you.
I personally have what it takes. So I recommend keeping these five thoughts, cited below, before you and to use them to just crush down all other lesser and all negative thoughts that come up. They are wrong in the first place and you have a distorted view in the second place when you bring them up.
In circular order:
There are no surprises.
The market operating point migrates and never jumps around.
Anticipating the sequences makes it all slow motion.
Enter late leave early.
Sideline when noise is running the show.
The learning process goes on forever. Each time you think you have it all down cut and dry, remind yourself that you are stuck and not learning. On the other hand, when you do not know what is going on, stay on the sidelines and learn what is going on.
My admonition in this global undertaking is to start out at the core and learn layer by layer about everything on that layer. I call them plateaux. They obviously start with the least risk: fast strong brief flawless trends.
Later, after all is said and done, you handle every opportunity to make money and you do make money.
No surprises. Seamless market movement from oppotunity to oppotunity. No unncessary risky premature entries and no unnecessary hanging in there missing ends of profit making. Staying out when the market is failing to perform.
Believe in yourself. BE what is required. DO it right. Behave (Notice this word) according to what you know only. Have a life. You will have what you can see from the outside. There is no ceiling and predicting it, is not an option.
Quote from bdixon619:
While we are on the subject of mental ceilings and self-fulfilling prophecies, I'd like to say I had an excellent blueberry smoothie at Dairy Queen today. I didn't know that's what it was called, however. Now, I feel like I've become part of the in crowd in American culture because I can not only hear about smoothies on radio and television but can actually order one in my native tongue, "I'll have a large blueberry smoothie, please."
Bruce
lol... my eternal quest is for kiwi smoothies.
My most humous capture of one was the Red Lion Inn in
Stockbridge, Mass at breakfast.
Fruit smoothies won the menu at 4.75. I was told they had the kiwi fruit so I made the request (in the proper morning dress of course). They do not cotton to western attire there.
Amazingly, I was told it would be too expensive. Fortunately, I was the decision maker on that question and not the chef.
Our waiter changed the second day, and, with a cheerful smile he dropped by to note our previous victory on kiwi smoothies. I think he loved telling the chef to adjust the price as high as was required with out further ado.
Kiwi smoothies, a la the Red Lion Inn, are priceless in Liz's and my opinion. A little fuzzy to the taste though...
It strikes me that there were so many things that couldn't be done until they were, and so many things that still can't be done until they are.
for example.
1 mile in 4 minutes.
100m in 10 seconds.
Faster than sound.
Climb the Matterhorn (Everest, K2 etc.)
Win Wimbledon 5 times.
Space travel.
Then there are all the previously incurable diseases that now have a cure.
and the list is enormous and growing all the time.
I suspect that the limitations of what humans can do is limited by their imagination, and desire to achieve.
We've moved through various argument both for and against, and many in the middle saying well what's wrong with xyz - well nothing is at all, and never let it be known that there is anything wrong with achieving any kind of positive average over the long term.
Discussions have now moved on through where limitations lay, i.e. in the systems/methods themselves and a recognition of the limitations of individual systems, to concepts of seamlessness and multiple fractals operating independantly, but in the process creating the whole, all within a single instrument.
This to me has far reaching consequences to trading, because in itself it doubles, trebles quadruples the opportunities that are afforded, even within the limitations of individual systems. And that doesn't even touch on system layering within the same fractal. So the possibilities start to look exponential, and the availability of opportunities in the markets more vast than I had imagined.
The more this thread goes on, the more convinced I become of the possibilities that are afforded, limited by my own imagination of how to best exploit them, and ever new ways to view the market in the sense of it being a continuum, and in so being the greater my own task of understanding and being a part of that flow.
Maybe this is a good place to move on to discussing how to become a greater and more effective part of that continuum. Bubba7 has already contributed greatly to that, and has, I suspect, through his posts lifted the thinking of others.
Brother Candle, has made everyone realise that enormous success can be achieved by whittling away at the market with a positive average and that time and compounding do their work in excellent ways.
To name but 2 of the contributions made.
Far from closing this thread, I am hoping that it can now expand much further.
To this end I would like to pose another question to incorporate into the discussion if I may.
uh oh.... here she goes again. more contentious subjects... LOL
It is my assertion here that trading is 20% knowledge and technique and 80% psychological. How many times have people been right there with the market in their sights, totally tuned in, in the right place at the right time, and then failed to hit send and pull the tirgger? How difficult it is to be in a tricky turnaround, and reverse sides, or pick up that move we are not quite so sure about? how may people have put together great systems that work on paper, and could work equally with proper application, but fail to be able to trade them because they just can't do it? The failing being the human element?
Or how about this - surely, any halfway decent trader can find a simple system with enough of an edge to be profitable, and yet may find that system almost impossible to trade profitably? or get through many such systems before they find one that they can psychologically trade? or is it that the one they can psychologically trade is the first one they work with when they become psychologically equipped to trade?
So it comes back to 20% method, 80% psychology?
Anyone have any views on that? And any views on moving to higher levels and ultimate seamlessness?
Sorry - I'm at it again posing questions aren't I? :eek:
best regards to all.
Natalie
for example.
1 mile in 4 minutes.
100m in 10 seconds.
Faster than sound.
Climb the Matterhorn (Everest, K2 etc.)
Win Wimbledon 5 times.
Space travel.
Then there are all the previously incurable diseases that now have a cure.
and the list is enormous and growing all the time.
I suspect that the limitations of what humans can do is limited by their imagination, and desire to achieve.
We've moved through various argument both for and against, and many in the middle saying well what's wrong with xyz - well nothing is at all, and never let it be known that there is anything wrong with achieving any kind of positive average over the long term.
Discussions have now moved on through where limitations lay, i.e. in the systems/methods themselves and a recognition of the limitations of individual systems, to concepts of seamlessness and multiple fractals operating independantly, but in the process creating the whole, all within a single instrument.
This to me has far reaching consequences to trading, because in itself it doubles, trebles quadruples the opportunities that are afforded, even within the limitations of individual systems. And that doesn't even touch on system layering within the same fractal. So the possibilities start to look exponential, and the availability of opportunities in the markets more vast than I had imagined.
The more this thread goes on, the more convinced I become of the possibilities that are afforded, limited by my own imagination of how to best exploit them, and ever new ways to view the market in the sense of it being a continuum, and in so being the greater my own task of understanding and being a part of that flow.
Maybe this is a good place to move on to discussing how to become a greater and more effective part of that continuum. Bubba7 has already contributed greatly to that, and has, I suspect, through his posts lifted the thinking of others.
Brother Candle, has made everyone realise that enormous success can be achieved by whittling away at the market with a positive average and that time and compounding do their work in excellent ways.
To name but 2 of the contributions made.
Far from closing this thread, I am hoping that it can now expand much further.
To this end I would like to pose another question to incorporate into the discussion if I may.
uh oh.... here she goes again. more contentious subjects... LOL
It is my assertion here that trading is 20% knowledge and technique and 80% psychological. How many times have people been right there with the market in their sights, totally tuned in, in the right place at the right time, and then failed to hit send and pull the tirgger? How difficult it is to be in a tricky turnaround, and reverse sides, or pick up that move we are not quite so sure about? how may people have put together great systems that work on paper, and could work equally with proper application, but fail to be able to trade them because they just can't do it? The failing being the human element?
Or how about this - surely, any halfway decent trader can find a simple system with enough of an edge to be profitable, and yet may find that system almost impossible to trade profitably? or get through many such systems before they find one that they can psychologically trade? or is it that the one they can psychologically trade is the first one they work with when they become psychologically equipped to trade?
So it comes back to 20% method, 80% psychology?
Anyone have any views on that? And any views on moving to higher levels and ultimate seamlessness?
Sorry - I'm at it again posing questions aren't I? :eek:
best regards to all.
Natalie
I cannot be sure - not having reached a point of excellence yet in trading - but I would tend to agree. I have seen these exact numbers in fact in reference to professional sports (i.e.: baseball). The idea is that on the basic amateur level physical ability comprises maybe 70% of the performance differences between players, but as one moves up the ranks and into the professional sphere this percentage declines and gives way to psychological differences. Golf would be another example.
The reason I believe this to be analagous, despite the lack of comprable physicality in trading, is that the basic elements of success are rather simple. Throwing and hitting and swinging are all rather simple motions and likewise, the act of trading is rather simple. The design of a good trading system is, I would venture to say, rather simple as soon as one understands the basic elements.
One needs to analyze P, V, & T to ascertain Buy/Sell signals and practice sound money management. Maybe I am leaving something out, but not much. There are, of course, many details which one can get into but these are the nuances of trading which are not critical. Atleast, they are not critical when compared to maintaining a sound mindset.
But why is this so?
I'll return to the analogy because this is what I know best, and you all can let me know if it is comprable. To hit a baseball one needs: (1) balance, (2) weight transfer, (3) consistent swing plane, (4) pitch recognition. Moderate skill in these 4 areas will bring you as far as Division I college baseball. In fact, on my team very few individuals had all four and we won the conference 3 of the 4 years I played. There are individuals that play professionally that have only gone as far as to master these four aspects. The miriad of nuances involved in hitting a baseball, and the physicality required to put these nuances into action therefor cannot be required for moderate to high levels of success. What remains is an individuals ability to execute these basic principles consistently, and for this one need be psychologically healthy.
Do the great hitters have the best mechanics? Mostly. Have the great traders tackled a high degree of trading nuance? Probably. Is this required for consistent and (relatively) outstanding returns?
The reason I believe this to be analagous, despite the lack of comprable physicality in trading, is that the basic elements of success are rather simple. Throwing and hitting and swinging are all rather simple motions and likewise, the act of trading is rather simple. The design of a good trading system is, I would venture to say, rather simple as soon as one understands the basic elements.
One needs to analyze P, V, & T to ascertain Buy/Sell signals and practice sound money management. Maybe I am leaving something out, but not much. There are, of course, many details which one can get into but these are the nuances of trading which are not critical. Atleast, they are not critical when compared to maintaining a sound mindset.
But why is this so?
I'll return to the analogy because this is what I know best, and you all can let me know if it is comprable. To hit a baseball one needs: (1) balance, (2) weight transfer, (3) consistent swing plane, (4) pitch recognition. Moderate skill in these 4 areas will bring you as far as Division I college baseball. In fact, on my team very few individuals had all four and we won the conference 3 of the 4 years I played. There are individuals that play professionally that have only gone as far as to master these four aspects. The miriad of nuances involved in hitting a baseball, and the physicality required to put these nuances into action therefor cannot be required for moderate to high levels of success. What remains is an individuals ability to execute these basic principles consistently, and for this one need be psychologically healthy.
Do the great hitters have the best mechanics? Mostly. Have the great traders tackled a high degree of trading nuance? Probably. Is this required for consistent and (relatively) outstanding returns?
That does not then explain how it is that many of the very best analysts, who totally understand every nuance of price/volume/all the indicators etc. often can't actually trade for themselves, while others who may not have studied all those things can trade virutally blind on price alone?
(I think we have to assume a reasonable level of knowledge and technical competence here and not zero knowledge or poor knowledge...)
Best
Natalie
Well I'd say that many of the most knowledgeable of any profession can't practice what they know - and therein lies yet another example of how psychology plays such a key role. Knowledge and action can be a world away when one's mind is not properly tuned to make this transition. And yet I'd still argue that the best of the best in a field such as trading know a great deal - they probably know more than they put to use. This I would call wisdom - knowing when not to use certain information or skills because they are not appropriate for the situation or cannot efficiently be put to use.
You've chosen a better word than I: understanding. It is in the translation of understanding into action that one's psyche can begin to interfere. For the extremely successful this translation is simple, fluid, and requires very little energy. For the extremely unsuccessful this translation becomes a roadblock - like sand in the engine instead of motor oil.
Aha, so let me question you further on this.
Let's take it as a given that a good trader needs to be technically at the very least competent. But we also agree that some of the most technically competent can not trade.
So, there are 2 things at work here perhaps?
1 The application/non application of intelligence i.e. knowing when to let positions ride or switch things around vs. excellent recognition and understanding skills of the data/scenarios at hand but not necessarily the recognition of what to do with the results of data/scenarios identified - or perhaps what to act upon and what to ignore. Aspects of experience perhaps?
2 The psychological make-up, either inherant or learned over time that allows number 1 to happen?
There is an element we agree upon that some can have number 1 but not necessarily number 2, and so while having great skills in one area lack the psychological framework, and would need to develope that area to function at a good level.
It seems to me, that having all the cognitive skills in the world is useless without great care and attention over the psychological aspects. Does that make any sense?
Best
Natalie
I agree. And, as you were suggesting earlier I believe mastering '2' and knowing only the basics of the first half of '1' will get you very far. The cream of the crop are those who are able to know a great deal (highly proficient in the first half of '1') without letting that knowledge disturb '2.'
-Rich