Quote from Grob109:
that stuff of yours on page 12 is really off the mark......
What is the alternating to teaching people since teaching doesn't work???? THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!
I don't have a page 12. My post display preferences are set up differently. Which, oddly enough, highlights part of the issue: you seem to assume that everyone sees the world the way you do.
I don't recall suggesting that teaching "doesn't work." Of course teaching "works" in some capacity. It is fairly obvious, however, that even the best teachers in the world are constrained by the limitations of their students. The average joe can become a competent violinist, but he's not going to become YoYo Ma.
Furthermore, the more straightforward or rote a process is, the more likely it can be programmed into a computer. As Bruce Kovner noted, this is why medical diagnostic programs can be quite good. When the inputs are rigid and well defined, hardware beats wetware.
So when you talk about things that can be easily taught--i.e. methods and processes that are not hard to understand because the inputs are rigid and straightforward--you are, by definition, talking about processes that can be fairly easily handled by a computer.
The stuff that isn't easily handled by a computer... that can't be built into a functional software program... is what separates the best traders from the rest. These are the soft inputs, the ambiguous situations, the judgment calls that leverage the advantages of the human mind and reflect the limitations of silicon.
Humans are simply far better at analyzing certain complex situations than computers are. This is why Deep Blue won't be challenging a top Go player any time soon---the nature of the 19x19 Go board gives a big edge to humans, because its complexity 1) favors the elegance of wetware heuristics and 2) short circuits the value of computational brute force.
So here is the catch 22 then--if the subtleties, complexities and nuances are what separate the best from the rest, that means the best cannot ascribe their prowess to being "taught" in a straightforward way. The basics can and should be taught... just as the fundamentals of swinging a baseball bat or shooting a free throw can be taught... but the potential for greatness (or even competence) is determined by the abilities of the individual, some of which are most definitely innate.
Anyone who says that trading successfully is nothing but straightforward processes is full of shit, just like black box trading systems promising infinite riches for the low price of $3,000 are full of shit. The proposed statements are internally contradictory--any straightforward system is subject to repeated implementation until the edge is bled away, just as no one in their right mind would sell a truly excellent trading system for three grand.
Those with something to sell attempt to circumvent this reality by suggesting, hinting, or even blatantly stating that they have 'secret knowledge' of some sort, be it a magic formula or some version of Poe's purloined letter (out in the open but no one paying attention).
If a great trader wants to share his insights and knowledge, or even let you in on his trades, then I would pay attention. If a great trader wants to attempt the act of knowledge transfer, try and help you see what's in his head and get it in yours, then I would pay attention there also. But if someone tells you that learning to trade is a simple matter of rote processes and following instructions that they, the guru, shall bestow upon you, then I would treat them with the same dignity and respect you would give to the seller of a $3,000 black box system.
