traders who are deeply religious

[AudiQuattro]

It would depend on your beliefs. Many born agains or other fundamentalists of other faiths see every small detail of life as part of God's will. They look for reasons and purposes that aren't there. Also, these people tend to have a heightened view of their self- importance and free- will decision making prowess. Because they are committed to perfection, guided by the divine and above the common heathens, any bad outcomes are due to the devil, the specialist, Don Bright, etc. They tend to be experts in deluding themselves and believing in circular arguments. Faith is inherrently unscientific. They might take on way too much risk as their risk is insured by The Almighty (If they are vaguely Episcopalian or Catholic they might take minimal risks). They may view the market as evil and a den of iniquity after they get burned. They will seek redemption by preaching to others about the evils of usury in daytrading (even though they were the mark). Finally, they tend to be emotional and base decisions on gut feelings. These people get waxed as traders. They might make great system sellers though or salespeople hawking securities. They already have sales experience (proselytizing) and can hit pressure points that help the mark visualize the magnificent. People are attracted to their animated nature and the melodrama.

I knew of someone that was fire and brimstone from, I think, Mississippi. He is an extremely successful trader/ newsletter writer multi- millionaire that built up his net worth from a few thousand dollars starting in the early 90's. His religious beliefs are more examined than most other evangelicals, and he comes off as very humble. I have good evidence that he is a very successful trader even though he is a newsletter writer. I guess he has turned something that could have been a handicap into a strength. It is probably David v. Goliath for him.

Buddhists would probably make great quants. Everything flows from a common operating system, regression to the mean, stoicism, etc.

 

[2cents]

buddhists don't care about gods... they r just part of the overall picture )))

 

[nononsense]

Here we go again: another self-imagined scientist without any idea of what constitutes "knowledge of a scientific kind".

You can't be a credible trader either:

Quote from AudiQuattro:



Buddhists would probably make great quants. Everything flows from a common operating system, regression to the mean, stoicism, etc.

Leading Buddhists still believed 60 years ago that light of the moon radiated from within the moon itself.
Better keep on toying with little Audi Quattro's

 

[stephencrowley]

Of course you are absolutely right, but I sure as hell don't plan on being wiped out. I can only *hope* that this phase in humanity's ignorance is short lived.

Quote from jessop:

I tried to resist posting to this thread for the last two days but emotion got the better of me (a bit like my trading).

I have been a little shocked recently my two religious revelations close to home:

1) A poll in the Uk that only 48% of the population believe in evolution. The majority�s preference being either Intelligent Design or worse biblical 7 day theory !!

2) Talking to a couple of work colleagues over a few beers, I found out one guy was a 7 day theorist the other an Intelligent design advocate. I personally have great difficulty taking people seriously when they starting quoting references from the bible.

Of course I believe in each to their own etc�.. but anybody who truly believes in anything other than 4.5 billion year old evolutionary theory is living in denial imho.

Lets just face facts we are just very intelligent apes who have developed a nice niche for ourselves on planet earth. The next mass extinction event will soon put us straight�.

Here endth the sermon from the devout atheist

 

[stu]

Quote from nononsense:

Hey stu,

See ya managed to climb out of your chit-chat hole.
In these 'better' threads, don't start preaching about your belief in lill' Gilbert. As many posters here are rather well mannered, don't plaster too many obscenities around either.
nono

So from the position of self-important puffed up childish ignorance, you mean to grant yourself a privalige to post obscenities at the same time accusing others of doing so, bible thump and preach as you have done, whilst also making a self-opiniated egotistical declaration on how no one is allowed to respond..Well at least you can multitask. And as for the kiddy talk " lill' " and "nono" well...speaks for itself I guess. Reflects the lack of comprehension which will be the cause of your incapability to make any sense whatsoever.

In almost every post you direct to me, you display your obsession with Gilbert. What is this Gilbert you speak of? Surely not the same Gilbert as my invisible friend? Then what is this God you speak of. Surely not the same God which is your invisible friend? Oh dear me noonoo, you poopoo yet again.

It sounds to me like your overbearing self-opinionated piety causes you to obsess over a thing to hate, as much as it requires you to obsess over a thing to mindlessly accept.

I don't find that kind of mindset reasonable, appealing or helpful , nor is it appropriate I would say for a good trading physcology . Unless it's to do with a megalomaniac perhaps, who once got lucky with Banco Ambrosiano stock.

 

[stu]

Quote from volente_00:

I never said GOD existed, you are still making assumptions and continue to pontificate.

I never said you did . Nowhere do I even mention you said God existed.

As you have adequately demonstrated a pitiable inability toward offering any merit in anything you say throughout this thread, along with a propensity to delude yourself by reading things not written, your response concedes to the crass, erroneous and contemptuous comparison you gave regarding starving children and the lack of a potential for proving things .

 

[stu]

Quote from trainr:

The bible says that what exists proves that God exists and seeing the world around you eliminates any possible excuse for your ignorance.

Apparently all you are suggesting is.... the bible says, that what exists proves God, because the bible says it does.

Quote from trainr:
It seems to me that since you, I, and the universe obviously exist, the onus is on us to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist, or failing to do so, to seek him for meaning.

Surely having decided what does exist, the onus was on proving what does exist. No onus there on proving what does not exist.

Quote from trainr:

"all effects have causes except the ultimate cause." Since you cannot refute that statement, you can't say the ultimate cause must have a cause. Your tautology only exists when you look at the problem in a meaningless way.

That statement is regularly refuted just as often as it is repeatedly made. I would say you are creating the same dilema as your - bible is true because the bible says it is - argument. The onus is on proving what does exist. There is nothing whatsoever to establish or confirm the existence of an "ultimate cause", anywhere near the way in which your expression ... "you, I, and the universe obviously exist"... does confirm existence to you.

This is why in my opinion such thought processes do not help in trading. Would be as if a trader believed they had the complete unsurpassable trade on screen each time, and others would have "to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt" that it was not the ultimate deal before they didn't take it.!
How strange it would be to say the least, when they get it handed back to them along with their ass on a stick, were they to insist - as it could not be proven this stock did not exist and furthermore was not the ultimate stock - all the losses were to be considered a "test of faith" and so take the trade and the loss, again and again.
In my view, such deeply held superstition , whether in trading or religion, is always a powerful adversary to be overcome. Not surrendered to.

 

[trader28]

This is why you cant talk religion or politics at the dinner table

 

[TylerSJI]

"Surely having decided what does exist, the onus was on proving what does exist. No onus there on proving what does not exist."

With all due to respect gentlemen, I'm going to take exception to this statement and the ever-popular claim that atheism is scientific and the various religions are not.

First, yes I agree that when we Christians claim that God formed the world supernaturally, made man supernaturally, came down in the form of man (Jesus,) etc that we have a heck of a lot to prove. That's a great deal to claim that's out of sight and not easy to imagine, admittedly.

But its also a great deal to claim that the universe has existed eternally, that it went through a period of transformation called the 'big bang' and was once smaller than my living room, that living organisms survived a trip on a comet or assembled in the oceans, and that mutations allowed simple creatures to develop into ones extremely complexe and with interconnected/interdependent machinery.

To the point, regardless of how strong someone feels one of the above statements as being true, the simple fact is that none of these aforementioned supposed events for either worldview are observable because they have happened in the past and so cannot be tested; they are outside the ability of the 'scientific method' which can only test things, of course, that happen in present time. Now in their arguments, certainly both can contain propositions from science (i.e. from measured observation,) but philosophical assumptions must always be present in logical arguments about the past. Without the distinction of the scientific method, attributing the title of science to a certain set of ideas is little more than a ribbon or award for popularity; I don't want to fight over semantics, but I hope people consider that the title doesn't carry nearly as much weight when used here instead of on observable phenomenon.

Also, the simple fact that neither worldview is easily observed leads me to think that it's only fair that the 'onus' or 'burden of proof' lies on whoever makes claims of this nature: i.e., we all share a 'burden of proof.'

 

[trader28]

You want proof? Occult science teaches that all is mind, that mind is the substance of god and all is god, so in short existence (and non existence for that matter) is mind... proof?.... what else is there other than consciousness? and even if there were how could you know without consciousness.... its not a matter of "I think therefore I am" but rather..... I AM.... therefore I think!