Predicting is ***Unavoidable***

Quote from Pr0crast:

Lack of continuation, as you have described, is also called CHANGE. The event of the mother's death is also an event of CHANGE. This event of change, as I see it causes no "interesting distortion" unless the call you got about your mother's death was a prank call. Lucky for us, the market isn't "out to get us".

If I have missed the point in what you were saying, please clarify.
More...

Somewhat. I was trying to clarify the idea of distortions when you are expecting continuation (even if u are just expecting continuation of perceived reality (eg A, B or C will happen today)).

The thing about the minds distortions is they may or may not be at a conscious level. Examples would be people looking at a series of pictures simply not seeing things in them that they find unacceptable (certain clusters of neurons fail to fire). When you're mother dies and you're doing activity A you don't initially perceive what is being said to you. You know that the market must do A, B or C ... and it does D but you don't recognize it ... your mind distorts what you perceive so that you think it did C.

Denial etc are forms of distortions that vary depending on the strength of neuronal clusters and whether those involved only in thinking or also in emoting are involved.

Its not a question of anything being out to get you. Its what Dalton (I think incorrectly) referred to as cognitive dissonance in his new book Markets in Profile. A happens but the patterns of neurons in your brain fire in such a way that you perceive B. Lots of different ways for these things to distort.

That's why I see the "I don't predict view" to be useful even though I also see the total denial of prediction in many proponents of the view to be a form of denial. The view reduces the emotional involvement in the price move so clusters of neurons in the amigdala don't fire so one component of potential distortions doesn't occur. That's useful, just as not feeling injury in battle is useful - not right, just useful.

In Van Tharp's view it would be a useful belief whereas another person might have the opposite belief but for them (who operates in and upon the world in a different way) that opposite belief is also a useful belief. Depending on the belief (filter on the world) neither of them might be right in an absolute sense.

------------------------
The things people believe in are usually just what they instinctively feel is right; the justifications and arguments are the least important part of the belief.
That's why you can win the argument, prove them wrong, and still they believe what they did in the first place. You've attacked the wrong thing.
So what do you do? Agree to disagree. Or fight. - C. Zakalwe.
 
"Denial etc are forms of distortions that vary depending on the strength of neuronal clusters and whether those involved only in thinking or also in emoting are involved."


Yeah kiwi_trader, De Nile ain't just a River in Egypt.

Your attempts to place the buying and selling of securities in the realm of neuroscience are just nonsense.

Somebody just doens't want to admit it when they're wrong.

Good trading anyway,

JJ
 
I for one find kiwi's post to be interesting, Though it doesn't necessarily apply to "making money." But after one train's their mind to see a certain thing, I don't think dissonance is as big of a problem. An illustration of your point might be that while on the basic, forest level of trading futures by SCT, I might see one signal on my chart that spyder would not see because he was operating on a completely different time fractal than I was (in this case, a way more detailed one). In fact, they might be opposite signals. But they can both be correct in relation to our individual vantage points, and equally useful to our goals.

However, if we were operating on the same level of trading and saw different things, one of us would be wrong.

In Van Tharp's view it would be a useful belief whereas another person might have the opposite belief but for them (who operates in and upon the world in a different way) that opposite belief is also a useful belief. Depending on the belief (filter on the world) neither of them might be right in an absolute sense.
More...
 
I for one find kiwi's post to be interesting. Though it doesn't necessarily apply to "making money,"

On this, we are in agreement.

JJ
 
I read up to the 5th page so far, and this seems like one of those threads that doesn't have an answer.

traders make bets about where prices will go in the future. Anticipation and predition are the same darn thing. Do I have to give an example???

ex: Two dragsters line up for a race. The light turns green and after just a split second into the race, one dragster's tire explodes. At that split second....

A) You anticipate that the car will hit the wall
B) you predict the car will hit the wall
C) Both A and B
D) I'm stubborn and dont want to admit that A & B are the same.

cm
 
Quote from cashmoney69:

I read up to the 5th page so far, and this seems like one of those threads that doesn't have an answer.

traders make bets about where prices will go in the future. Anticipation and predition are the same darn thing. Do I have to give an example???

ex: Two dragsters line up for a race. The light turns green and after just a split second into the race, one dragster's tire explodes. At that split second....

A) You anticipate that the car will hit the wall
B) you predict the car will hit the wall
C) Both A and B
D) I'm stubborn and dont want to admit that A & B are the same.

cm
More...

Well put... like I said this is all just semantics, and whether you call it prediction, anticipation, or whatever is going to depend on how you came up with your decision in the first place and what kind of mindset you have. But it is all the same in the end, so who cares?
 
Quote from Pr0crast:

Well put... like I said this is all just semantics, and whether you call it prediction, anticipation, or whatever is going to depend on how you came up with your decision in the first place and what kind of mindset you have. But it is all the same in the end, so who cares?
More...

Good question.

A mindset that is looking to predict will always try to anticipate what is going to happen in the future.

A mindset that reacts to price according to the previously established matrix of trading options (care of trader666 - you'll have to go back a few pages for that one, cm69) will never try to anticipate what is going to happen with prices, it always deals with the present price action, it always exists in the present.
***
In your example cm69, maybe the car with the blown tire will crash into a wall, maybe it won't - but none of that matters. What's important is what the driver does to save his life in the ensuing seconds after the blown tire.

Good trading,

Jimmy Jam
 
Quote from Pr0crast:

I for one find kiwi's post to be interesting, Though it doesn't necessarily apply to "making money." But after one train's their mind to see a certain thing, I don't think dissonance is as big of a problem. An illustration of your point might be that while on the basic, forest level of trading futures by SCT, I might see one signal on my chart that spyder would not see because he was operating on a completely different time fractal than I was (in this case, a way more detailed one). In fact, they might be opposite signals. But they can both be correct in relation to our individual vantage points, and equally useful to our goals.

However, if we were operating on the same level of trading and saw different things, one of us would be wrong.
More...

I agree on the first paragraph - that you must train your brain to perceive the things you need it to so that you may succeed in your method. That's why I see that for Jack's followers the belief that they do not predict is useful.

That doesn't make it correct. Belief in Christ's relationship to the middle eastern God is useful for the functioning of many Christians. Belief in Allah's relationship to the middle eastern God is useful for the functioning of many Moslems. One or neither of them may be correct (but not both) .... but that doesn't stop the belief from providing utility in their lives.

I think agreement or disagreement on the last paragraph depends on what you mean by "if we were operating on the same level of trading." If you mean that we both intended to be doing the same thing and perceived differently then one of us would be "wrong" I agree. But if you meant that while trading the same timescales one of us went short while the other went long, one of us was wrong then I would disagree having frequently experienced the situation where a friend and I were holding opposite positions and both exited at a profit.

For Jimmy. Your inability to understand doesn't make me or anyone else wrong - that's just your an artefact of the neuron's firing in your brain :)

------------------------
The things people believe in are usually just what they instinctively feel is right; the justifications and arguments are the least important part of the belief.
That's why you can win the argument, prove them wrong, and still they believe what they did in the first place. You've attacked the wrong thing.
So what do you do? Agree to disagree. Or fight. - C. Zakalwe.
 
kiwi- pardon my terminology, what i mean by "level" is resolution according to spyder's ruleset, which varies from level-to-level based on how much detail is accounted for and on what time span it occurs. essentially what i am saying is that if two people are supposed to be operating on the exact same rule set, one of the two has to be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top