Dump it Here

[satanoperca]

The great thing about ASF … is that as traders/humans/regular people with regular problems, is that we can share our situations … and hopefully get support when the chips are down

Your above post is way more valuable than many may recognise at this point in time … simply because many would not have not been through what you have been through.

Hats off from me my friend …. I'd suggest that in the real/non cyber world … you and I would likely get along very well … Cheers.

Well this forum is getting a bit soppy but hands out to both Greggles for being transparent and Barney for his kind comments.

Need to go the the IGA for the tissues, this forums is getting a little too emotional, in a good way.

"We are all human with emotions"

 

[greggles]

Normally I would condense a long recent post before I comment/reply to it … however in this case I think it is not only important, but more importantly respectful to "replay" your complete post @greggles ….

For the record ….. A few months ago I (and many others at ASF) recognised the fantastic contribution that you offered Greg

Constant Stock reflection with some poignant and insightful commentary …. at a time when ASF needed said commentary because the "numbers" were diminishing, so well done on that alone

I could write a short story on your above comments …. but basically, I feel ALL your pain because I, and I suspect many others have been through circumstances which are likely similar … and in my own situation … almost finished me …….

However … like you, I'm still here …….. trading is just another reflection/recollection of our lives and experiences …….. Not everyone is fortunate enough to come out the other side relatively unscathed, however ….

The great thing about ASF … is that as traders/humans/regular people with regular problems, is that we can share our situations … and hopefully get support when the chips are down

Your above post is way more valuable than many may recognise at this point in time … simply because many would not have not been through what you have been through.

Hats off from me my friend …. I'd suggest that in the real/non cyber world … you and I would likely get along very well … Cheers.

Thanks Barney.

The way I see it, life is all about evolving as a person and change needs a catalyst. Often that catalyst is hardship. If you're going to take the good then you also have to take the bad. I've suffered, but I'm still here and fortunate enough to live in a country with a better than average social welfare system.

Something to think about. Even if you lose everything, there's no reason why you can't learn to operate an excavator, rent a house and live out your days putting in your eight hours like anyone else. There are plenty of miserable rich people. If you have love, companionship, and inner peace, what else do you need?

When I was doing it tough, I learned to stop buying things. I only bought things I absolutely needed like food and other necessities. I rejected consumerism almost completely. Instead of getting a high from buying something, I got a high from going on a hike in a national park with my wife. After a while, I found that I didn't want to buy anything. If something broke, sure I bought another to replace it, but it was often second hand. That was the extent of my consumerism. But in the end, it became incredibly freeing. When you suddenly realise that you don't need a million gadgets or a big screen TV, suddenly your focus shifts to what's really important. Happiness. And you don't need a million bucks to find that.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

I rejected consumerism almost completely. Instead of getting a high from buying something, I got a high from going on a hike in a national park with my wife.

That's still ego though, just a different form.

My working theory is that as the ego fades, material success becomes easier. There are some exceptions to this, like people who who gain wealth through dishonesty and control tactics, or people who work their fingers to the bone and save like crazy (neither looks like a good approach to me).

So you can still have the big TV!

 

[greggles]

That's still ego though, just a different form.

My working theory is that as the ego fades, material success becomes easier. There are some exceptions to this, like people who who gain wealth through dishonesty and control tactics, or people who work their fingers to the bone and save like crazy (neither looks like a good approach to me).

So you can still have the big TV!

I think what happened to me can be best described as a massive change in priorities. What I thought I wanted, I actually didn't want. But it took a massive change in circumstances for me to realise that.

I'm not against consumerism, I just realised it's not for me. It doesn't make me happy. Being content with my situation in life does, so that's what I'm working on. I'm not there yet, but I'm making progress. That's my focus now.

 

[Newt]

Ego Death

In my late teens, twenties and thirties I thought I knew it all. I was supremely confident that I had all the answers. After all, I knew it all, how could I not? I think many, if not most, young men have similar attitude in our young buck years.

Then, in my forties, that facade began to crumble. Unfortunate circumstances led to me losing a lot of money due to my own stupidity and arrogance. Not long after that I lost my source of income. Then I was forced to conduct a more objective analysis of myself and I wasn't happy with what I saw. I was a middle-aged male with outdated qualifications who had skated through life far too easily and without making any plans whatsoever for possible catastrophic life events. I was entirely unprepared and felt like a failure. Feeling like a failure is one thing, but feeling like you've failed your loved ones is something far more devastating. I felt lost and adrift. What was I good at? What was my purpose? What am I going to do with the rest of my life? I had to re-examine everything from the ground up, including myself.

The first things I noticed was how much like my old man I had become in certain respects. It is true that nature and nurture are both important but the nature part comes from your parents DNA. For some reason I didn't start seeing this stuff until my forties, probably because when I was younger I was busy pretending to be someone else. Now I had no choice but to face myself: anxiety, issues with alcohol, inability to get too close to people, even those very close to me. It was like a ball of string unravelling. Once it started, nothing could stop it. I saw everything. Why do I have short legs and short arms? I started seeing how my siblings were also like our parents. I started thinking about genetic destiny and wondering if I had seen the best years of life and was now on the way down and out. It was a very confusing time and occurred just when I thought I had it all together.

It was as if my ego had died and was unable to be resuscitated. The old fella had finally croaked and now all that was left was this vastly complex, very imperfect human being that wasn't nearly as impressive nor as talented or intelligent as I once thought. The shine had well and truly come off.

So what did I learn? I learned never to put all your eggs in one basket. I learned not to mistake luck for talent. I learned to never believe my own propaganda. All it takes it one set of unfortunate circumstances for your whole life to start unravelling. I also learned to count your blessings. I had solid support and was grateful for it. But most of all I learned that ego is the greatest blind spot of all. An oversized ego is more of a liability than an asset. It's like joining a cult and losing all perspective. Your ego lies to you. It overlooks your flaws and weaknesses. It doesn't have your best interests at heart. Try to keep it in check, for your own sake.

These days I'm far more humble and objective. I realise how tentative life is and I remind myself every day of how lucky I am, but also how much of a work in progress I still am. I feel like I know less now than I did 25 years ago. I don't, of course, but I deluded myself into thinking I knew everything back then. Now I'm happy to face reality. I have far fewer opinions. I try to listen more than I talk. I second guess everything. There is very little in life I'm certain about any more but I'm happy to be that way. Being certain about things I shouldn't have has cost me a lot. I still plan ahead but I now take it one day at a time, one step at a time. And I watch where I put my feet.

Sounds like someone who's still learning new tricks, not afraid to take a good hard look at themselves, and setting up foundations for a richer "2nd half". Definitely not out of touch with reality and deluding themselves.
Kudos for sharing such an frank appraisal of yourself Greggles....

 

[barney]

this forums is getting a little too emotional, in a good way.

….. If we have "Satan" on our side … who do we have to fear!

Thanks Barney.

The way I see it, life is all about evolving as a person

Indeed ……

 

[sptrawler]

I think what happened to me can be best described as a massive change in priorities. What I thought I wanted, I actually didn't want. But it took a massive change in circumstances for me to realise that.

I'm not against consumerism, I just realised it's not for me. It doesn't make me happy. Being content with my situation in life does, so that's what I'm working on. I'm not there yet, but I'm making progress. That's my focus now.

I think it was a quote on here and it is so very true.
Happiness is being happy with what you have.

I'm not just talking in a material way.

 

[Smurf1976]

Pick any two famous singers, bands or composers of vastly different musical styles.

Rap versus country. Hard rock versus classical. Electronic versus jazz. Etc.

Now what do both of the singers, bands or composers you picked have in common?

They both did one thing and they did it extremely well.

If your preference is classical music then you'll probably be quick to say that every song AC/DC ever recorded sounds pretty much the same. Comparing their music to that of anyone else that's a fair comment and it's exactly the point - they did one thing and they did it well enough to make an entire career out of it.

Hard rock fans will likewise be quick to point out that, minor detail aside, Mozart also wrote lots of essentially the same music. Bingo! Comparing Mozart's music to any other style it is indeed all pretty similar. He didn't do anything with electric guitars in it, right? And people are still listening to it over 200 years later.

Pick any other random artist and it's much the same. With few exceptions their music is immediately recognizable because yes, most of it is very similar. They're doing one thing and they're doing it well and that's a huge factor in why they're successful.

Now apply that concept to investing. You don't need to know every trick in the book and trying to do that will almost certainly lead to mediocrity and failure.

Find something you're good at and which works and keep doing it. If all your share trading entries and exits look much the same then that's not in itself a problem.

 

[ducati916]

Your argument appears to rely heavily upon the veracity of these statements.

1. Do you firmly believe them to be true?

2. If so, have you noticed how this does naught more, than provide further evidentiary support for the philosophy under discussion?

3. In my opinion, intellectual debate on this particular philosophy, whilst quite entertaining, tends to be self defeating.

!

1. Yes I do because in contradistinction to Locke's 'nothing is in the intellect that has not previously been in the senses' I agree with Leibniz's reply 'except the intellect itself'.

Knowledge that has objective supporting evidence comes in two forms: (a) empiricism and (b) synthetic a priori.

Faith, while certainly qualifying as knowledge, does not have an evidential base, (c)

So the concept of 'belief' that is currently under discussion can fall under either definition. You can believe due to (a) and (b) or (c). Many will believe using all three, which is fine.

2. You have yet to identify which 'philosophy' that [for you] is under discussion. For my part, it is epistemology. You have yet to identify any.

So as far as epistemology goes, yes, my comments/statements do accurately represent [thus far] epistemology. If you have a further basis for the causation and forming of a 'belief' through a philosophy, I'm open to discussion.

3. I do not share your opinion.

jog on
duc

 

[Skate]

I think it was a quote on here and it is so very true.
Happiness is being happy with what you have.

I'm not just talking in a material way.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1006482/

Muddling of words do make a difference
sptrawler, said there was a quote on here about the definition of happiness & if it is one of my quotes it would be timely for me to quote it again for clarity.

A friend of mine reminded me that I once said:
“Happiness is appreciating what you have”

sptrawler remarked, I think it was a quote on here:
"Happiness is being happy with what you have"

So close
My definition of happiness is ‘desiring’ what you have !!

True happiness (IMHO)
"Happiness is ‘desiring’ what you have"

There is a difference..

Skate.

 

[satanoperca]

@Skate, as unusual, I do not understand. Some examples might help me, the definition of "desiring" and "Appreciating" are different as you mentioned.

Let me see if I can work this riddle out with an example for Happiness.

1. I appreciate my wife, she makes me happy.
2. I desire my wife, she makes me happy
3. I desire the tall, brunette, 10 years younger than me as she will make me happy, but appreciate my wife for the life we have
4. I desire a better life as it will make me happy
5. I have a happy life and appreciate everything i have

 

[qldfrog]

@Skate, as unusual, I do not understand. Some examples might help me, the definition of "desiring" and "Appreciating" are different as you mentioned.

1. I desire the tall, brunette, 10 years younger than me as she will make me happy, but appreciate my wife for the life we have

I agree with Skate:
I appreciate what i have..well true but I can still desire the brunette so am i happy ?..well not yet..at least as long as the brunette is around.."what could be" spoil my happiness...

or Happiness is being happy with what you have
that is very limiting : yes it is true but does not fit well with my mind: exploring, conquering new territories and going past limits, would I be happy as a corporate tool or civil servant in socialist France taxed to the death with a no future society/ country? Some are, they enjoy their "Free" time, long holidays and holiday residence along the seaside or mountain waiting for retirement..not for me
whereas if I desire what I have, i feel it as I have reached what I wanted, there are no worthwhile goals target etc
we are playing with words I know, overall that is the same generic idea.And a good one to remind ourself of..if that last sentence is proper English.

 

[barney]

"Happiness is ‘desiring’ what you have"

Being happy with what you have can be an "acceptance"

Desiring what you have can be an "aspiration" or an "achievement" depending on your circumstances.

If we can "enlighten" ourselves to desire what we have …. even though it is much less than what we "want" …. that would be true happiness

[B]I desire the tall, brunette, 10 years younger than me as she will make me happy[/B]

No, she will make you miserable

 

[Skate]

@Skate, as unusual, I do not understand. Some examples might help me, the definition of "desiring" and "Appreciating" are different as you mentioned.

Let me see if I can work this riddle out with an example for Happiness.

1. I appreciate my wife, she makes me happy.
2. I desire my wife, she makes me happy
3. I desire the tall, brunette, 10 years younger than me as she will make me happy, but appreciate my wife for the life we have
4. I desire a better life as it will make me happy
5. I have a happy life and appreciate everything i have

I think it was a quote on here and it is so very true.
Happiness is being happy with what you have.

I'm not just talking in a material way.

satanoperca, you said:
"As unusual, I do not understand the definition of "desiring" and "Appreciating"

@sptrawler made the comment:
"Happiness is being happy with what you have. I'm not just talking in a material way"

Both of the posts referenced a feeling, not possessions, so I'll respond in this vain.

Let me make a few quoted to set the scene
1. If you love being married, you will be forever in love.
2. Don't find a wife you can live with, find one you can't live without.
3. If you want true happiness be nicer than the other.

Let me unpack item (3) before you ask
In a relationship if the both of you keep lifting the bar above the other (being nicer than the other) there will be heavenly bliss, remember, you can never be too nice to someone)

Appreciate & happy
Sure I appreciate my wife & I'm happy with my wife. (44 years as of last Friday). Those words are so cold.

Desiring what I have
I desire my wife, my wife is my life.

Well what's the difference ?
1. "Desire" is a deep feeling
2. "Appreciating" is acknowledging the worth of someone or something.

I trust my explanation clarifies the difference between the two words, & yes, the words you elect to use do make a difference to the meaning being expressed.

Skate.

 

[qldfrog]

Well what's the difference ?
1. "Desire" is a deep feeling
2. "Appreciating" is acknowledging the worth of someone or something.

maybe said simply:
"desire" is more visceral , deep
whereas "appreciate" is more calculated, can be seen as the reasoned acceptance brain over feeling..
anyway was a nice subject, will try to be kinder with my better half this arvo, and in general

 

[satanoperca]

Well what's the difference ?
1. "Desire" is a deep feeling
2. "Appreciating" is acknowledging the worth of someone or something.

That has clarified the difference, thank-you for explaining further, it is appreciated.

 

[cynic]

1. Yes I do because in contradistinction to Locke's 'nothing is in the intellect that has not previously been in the senses' I agree with Leibniz's reply 'except the intellect itself'.

On this, I am in disagreement with both, Locke and Leibniz.

One possible counter, to Locke's quote, might be: 'nothing is in the senses that has not been caused by the intellect'

Knowledge that has objective supporting evidence comes in two forms: (a) empiricism and (b) synthetic a priori.

Faith, while certainly qualifying as knowledge, does not have an evidential base, (c)

So the concept of 'belief' that is currently under discussion can fall under either definition. You can believe due to (a) and (b) or (c). Many will believe using all three, which is fine.

If belief precedes the manifestation of that which is believed, then all belief must logically be of the form (c), leaving both, (a) and (b), as empty sets.

2. You have yet to identify which 'philosophy' that [for you] is under discussion. For my part, it is epistemology. You have yet to identify any.

I am surprised to see you state that, and am now wondering what our past few interchanges were truly about.

So as far as epistemology goes, yes, my comments/statements do accurately represent [thus far] epistemology. If you have a further basis for the causation and forming of a 'belief' through a philosophy, I'm open to discussion.

I am not certain that I correctly understand what it is you are saying here. My bases for favouring the viewpoint, that manifestation is a consequence of belief, have arisen from some direct personal experiences, of a more practical (as opposed to theoretical) nature.

I do not wish to taint this philosophy, via assignation of any contemporary labels, lest critics conflate, and/or convolute, a very simple philosophy, with peripheral themes.

Due to the premise/s of the philosophy, I sincerely doubt that the question of veracity, can be truly settled, via any amount of intellectual debate, irrespective of calibre.

As soon as any counter argument (or premise/s of same) is believed, the evidential support base, of the contested philosophy, is increased by that very same counter argument (and/or premises thereof)!!!

Whenever I ask myself, what argument could possibly serve as disproof, the seemingly nearest thing, I ever come up with, is:
an assertion that is entirely true, whilst, simultaneously, thoroughly disbelieved, by the one asserting it.

And the problem with the above counter argument is, that, it defeats itself from the outset, because the asserter doesn't actually believe his/her own assertion/s (i.e. lying).

Needless to say, absence of proof, is not proof of absence. Which is one of my reasons, for choosing to say, that "the proof of this particular pudding, is in the eating".

3. I do not share your opinion.

That's very good to know!
(And it need not be a problem, unless one chooses to believe it so!)
===============================================================================
I recently received a private message, from another member, expressing certain opinions, about my contributions to this thread.

For the benefit of that member, and anyone else feeling similarly inclined, I can thoroughly, and wholeheartedly, recommend a review, of the contents, of Skate's opening post.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

My bases for favouring the viewpoint, that manifestation is a consequence of belief, have arisen from some direct personal experiences, of a more practical (as opposed to theoretical) nature.

Same here, and at times in quite shocking ways. For me the evidence for 'belief causing manifestation' has piled up enough for me to now routinely shift back and forth between the standard model of reality and this alternative one. However it will never be possible to prove/disprove perhaps even to oneself.

One thing is for sure - most people don't view reality this way. Proposing a different model of reality will be perceieved as highly threatening by some. In a different field of study (not trading), a few of us have completely dismantled the prevailing belief system. It wasn't hard because most belief systems can be ripped apart. We aren't popular, because now the possibility of a new model of reality has reared its head and no one wants that. People cling to their beliefs like nothing else. I assume I do too (in my own way), but it's hard to be objective about myself.

 

[cynic]

...renders the matter subject to the perspicacity of the measurer.

A 100% correlation strength is higher than 50%.

A 100% probability (certainty) is higher than 50% probability(coin toss).


Entity A makes 3 consecutive coin tosses, returning a result of heads each time.
Entity B makes 3 consecutive coin tosses, returning a result of tails each time.
Entity C makes 6 consecutive coin tosses, returning 3 heads followed by 3 tails.

If entities A and B were each using a phony coin (i.e. a double headed and a double tailed, respectively), then the outcomes (100% heads, & 100% tails respectively) could indeed be expected to be correlated to the coins.

But what if there only existed a single coin, to be shared between the 3 of them (i.e. entities A, B and C)?

Alternatively, what if entity C was a composite of, entity A, using one coin, and entity B, using another?

Considering the above, just how dependable is the correlation between, correlation strength and causal probability?
....

It has occurred to me, that this excerpt from one of my earlier posts, might potentially hold some insight (at least in a metaphorical sense) for those market newcomers, eagerly analysing historical data, in the hope of finding a tradable edge.

Consider the coins, and cointoss results, as metaphors for a specific market instrument and its price action, respectively, and consider the entities (A, B & C), as metaphors for set periods of time.

So for period A, the market was trending upwards,

and for period B, the market was trending downwards,

and for period C, the market went up, then back down, and could be said to have reverted to mean.

Now consider the widely acclaimed practice of backtesting, and subsequent refinement, via use of historical data.

What pitfalls does this metaphor highlight?

 

[Gringotts Bank]

What pitfalls does this metaphor highlight?

Tell us...but keep it simples please! If there's too much sophistication it can alienate people who might otherwise appreciate your ideas. People like me.

I'm interested.