Psychology - Personal Development

[pavilion103]

Re: Trading Psychology - Personal Development

because ultimately what we experience is purely unique and what is 'seen' and 'heard' is actually just stimulus that is interpreted by the brain. So, because with either stimulus we have to convert it from what is actually there (say, em waves for light and mechanical waves for sound) into an electrical signal which is then processed....

and the "realities" are just the consensus of their experience but just cos everybody else feels that way doesn't necessarily mean that it is right



but yeah so what i mean is, without the actual 'miracle do-er' coming out of hiding and saying "i'm the god of catholicism and this was my miracle" there's no way to be sure WHICH religious figure pulled it off.

Any belief is going to be based on faith be it religion or aethism.

The question is to ask, which is the most reliable. What does the most evidence point towards. Like with anything in life it is wise to have an opinion based on fact but at the end of the day there is also faith of course. Just like you or I have faith eating at a restaurant. We don't know who the chef is or if he has poisoned the food, but we consider the facts: Is the restuarant reputable, have friends gone there and had a good experience etc...

Which is most reliable based on historical/legal evidence. With the case of religion (any of the religions) is cannot be proven scientifically because that would you require taking it in a lab and testing it in the present moment. No historical event can be tested scientifically. You can't prove scientifically that Napoleon, Socrates or any religious figure existed. You need to test is by historical/legal evidence. You cannot test history in a scientific manner. So you ask is the Koran reliable as a historical document, is the Bible reliable as a historical document etc....

Then ask yourself, based on the documents, evidence, accounts, motives (like in a court case) which evidence stands up the best. We apply this standard to everything else in history so it makes sense. For anyone to say God exists because he did this miracle 3 weeks ago, or he doens't exist because he caused a flood is ridiculous.

 

[ChaoSI]

Re: Trading Psychology - Personal Development

Any belief is going to be based on faith be it religion or aethism.

The question is to ask, which is the most reliable. What does the most evidence point towards. Like with anything in life it is wise to have an opinion based on fact but at the end of the day there is also faith of course. Just like you or I have faith eating at a restaurant. We don't know who the chef is or if he has poisoned the food, but we consider the facts: Is the restuarant reputable, have friends gone there and had a good experience etc...

Which is most reliable based on historical/legal evidence. With the case of religion (any of the religions) is cannot be proven scientifically because that would you require taking it in a lab and testing it in the present moment. No historical event can be tested scientifically. You can't prove scientifically that Napoleon, Socrates or any religious figure existed. You need to test is by historical/legal evidence. You cannot test history in a scientific manner. So you ask is the Koran reliable as a historical document, is the Bible reliable as a historical document etc....

Then ask yourself, based on the documents, evidence, accounts, motives (like in a court case) which evidence stands up the best. We apply this standard to everything else in history so it makes sense. For anyone to say God exists because he did this miracle 3 weeks ago, or he doens't exist because he caused a flood is ridiculous.

See i'm talking about religion as a belief that doesn't allow for multiple beliefs, if you believe one you cannot believe the other yeah ? so you can't really be a Christian Muslim for instance because if believed in their entirety they contradict, however, taking the common elements out of both, in that they both believe in a god (just to make things simple) and A god did a miracle, there's no way in being sure 'which' god did it?

say with your restaurant example. you've eaten and HUGE numbers of reputable restuarants and you have a surprise dish prepared from a restaurant and it is incredible, completely mindblowing, and you get told that it is from a reputable restuarant and immediately you think "oh it must be THAT restaurant" one which is within your knowledge and quite possibly you'll start thinking of confirmatory evidence. But there's nothing there to suggest that the dish came from any of the restaurants that you've visited, could be one that you hadn't even heard of (or gotten to eating at). But we don't think that do we?
(bit of a weird example )

as for the miracle thing my dad argued that you could tell which god it was based on where it happened? Which countered saying that if a god existed and he is indeed all powerful, then couldn't they will a miracle to occur ANYWHERE in the world? Although we intuitively think "well they'd make it happen where the believers are... right?" but on the flipside maybe the intention was to put it in a place where NON believers were with a purpose of enlightenment?
but there's no way of actually knowing based on the evidence of that moment.
This is what is there: A miracle occurred which totally defies any explanation.
What some people may see: GOD EXISTS!! SEE!! My religion was right! God EXISTS!!

but that's not what is there is it? just what people want to see...

 

[pavilion103]

Re: Trading Psychology - Personal Development

See i'm talking about religion as a belief that doesn't allow for multiple beliefs, if you believe one you cannot believe the other yeah ? so you can't really be a Christian Muslim for instance because if believed in their entirety they contradict, however, taking the common elements out of both, in that they both believe in a god (just to make things simple) and A god did a miracle, there's no way in being sure 'which' god did it?

say with your restaurant example. you've eaten and HUGE numbers of reputable restuarants and you have a surprise dish prepared from a restaurant and it is incredible, completely mindblowing, and you get told that it is from a reputable restuarant and immediately you think "oh it must be THAT restaurant" one which is within your knowledge and quite possibly you'll start thinking of confirmatory evidence. But there's nothing there to suggest that the dish came from any of the restaurants that you've visited, could be one that you hadn't even heard of (or gotten to eating at). But we don't think that do we?
(bit of a weird example )

as for the miracle thing my dad argued that you could tell which god it was based on where it happened? Which countered saying that if a god existed and he is indeed all powerful, then couldn't they will a miracle to occur ANYWHERE in the world? Although we intuitively think "well they'd make it happen where the believers are... right?" but on the flipside maybe the intention was to put it in a place where NON believers were with a purpose of enlightenment?
but there's no way of actually knowing based on the evidence of that moment.
This is what is there: A miracle occurred which totally defies any explanation.
What some people may see: GOD EXISTS!! SEE!! My religion was right! God EXISTS!!

but that's not what is there is it? just what people want to see...

There is certainly a bias towards one's beliefs for sure and we will tend to confirm that by circumstances. If we are looking for blue cars and we will see more blue cars.

Like I said, miracles aren't the way to prove the existance of a God. The historical reliablility of the religious books people believe in are the way to prove which book is most reliable and thus which "God." (if any)

 

[tech/a]

Re: Trading Psychology - Personal Development

Trading Psychology

The easiest way to gain control of you psychology I find is

(1) Trade within your capital limits. (Dont trade 20X leverage if you only have a $5k account). learn the correct way to leverage.

(2) Have a blue print of expected outcomes from rigorous testing which you can compare your trading.

(3) Learn to position size correctly.

(4) Learn to place stops correctly.

My testing has shown stops of less than 5% of price have the highest rate of failure regardless of method of placement
Stops of 8-12% of price seem to be the sweet spot regardless of method of placement.
Stops of 15% and greater are least likely to be hit BUT trade frequency decreases as does trade profitability as we find ourselves stuck in trades which are NEITHER in profit nor stopped out!

 

[professor_frink]

I've moved this thread over to general chat and modified the thread title slightly considering it's not really about trading anymore.

Cheers

 

[tech/a]

I've moved this thread over to general chat and modified the thread title slightly considering it's not really about trading anymore.

Cheers

I tried.

 

[Joules MM1]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/sep/25/how-brain-filters-bad-news

How the brain filters bad news

excerpt

...the volunteers were given the same negative cues – cancer, robbery, missing a flight and so on – and had to estimate again the chance that each event would happen to them at some point. The scientists then analysed the answers to see how people's views shifted after they had been given accurate information.

The results were enlightening.......

 

[Wysiwyg]

Re: Personal Development

I disagree with the need for personal development books and tools etc.

How would anyone know how to better their lives or wrestle back control if not through learning (what they want) from those who have walked the path already? How many people are having their strings pulled or being manipulated unbeknownst to themselves? Are our thoughts our own or are they thoughts projected onto us from others?
Daily, someone is trying to push us one way or another for their own personal jolly's, to gain financial advantage, to gain favour or for psychological leverage to break an individual down.

 

[Quant]

Tradingwise psychology becomes a moot point if you develop statistically robust, empirically proven rules based systems with binary style decision making processes . Thinking is pre-done so no pesky emotions involved like discretionary styles . Stronger confidence is inbuilt as there is a tangible probability ( compared to discretionary ) . Using systems correctly forces you to face realities and correct misconceptions ( if you measure it you can improve it ) Positive expectancy is the realm of systems traders for a competent systems trader with negative expectancy will cease to trade ....

the confidence of a systems trader is based upon a definable statistical advantage ( Edge ) not a tony robbins style " you can do it , just believe "

 

[tech/a]

Tradingwise psychology becomes a moot point if you develop statistically robust, empirically proven rules based systems with binary style decision making processes . Thinking is pre-done so no pesky emotions involved like discretionary styles . Stronger confidence is inbuilt as there is a tangible probability ( compared to discretionary ) . Using systems correctly forces you to face realities and correct misconceptions ( if you measure it you can improve it ) Positive expectancy is the realm of systems traders for a competent systems trader with negative expectancy will cease to trade ....

the confidence of a systems trader is based upon a definable statistical advantage ( Edge ) not a tony robbins style " you can do it , just believe "

Cant agree more.
The Fundamental truth right here.

 

[Wysiwyg]

I identify myself as a mostly self actualising person. Certainly not having all the qualities listed below. Have a block with -

Order: lawfulness, rightness, perfectly arranged --- human disorder is everywhere and seems a normal part of existence.
Aliveness: process, not-deadness, spontaneity, self-regulation, full-functioning --- feel suppressed by other people. Their want to take from me against my will. Interfering in my life like wanting to take control / determine outcomes

Abraham Maslow ---

Qualities of self-actualizing people

He realized that all the individuals he studied had similar personality traits. All were "reality centered," able to differentiate what was fraudulent from what was genuine. They were also "problem centered," meaning that they treated life's difficulties as problems that demanded solutions. These individuals also were comfortable being alone and had healthy personal relationships. They had only a few close friends and family rather than a large number of shallow relationships.[34]

Self-actualizing people tend to focus on problems outside themselves; have a clear sense of what is true and what is false; are spontaneous and creative; and are not bound too strictly by social conventions.

Maslow noticed that self-actualized individuals had a better insight of reality, deeply accepted themselves, others and the world, and also had faced many problems and were known to be impulsive people. These self-actualized individuals were very independent and private when it came to their environment and culture, especially their very own individual development on "potentialities and inner resources".[35]

According to Maslow, self-actualizing people share the following qualities:

• Truth: honest, reality, beauty, pure, clean and unadulterated completeness
• Goodness: rightness, desirability, uprightness, benevolence, honesty
• Beauty: rightness, form, aliveness, simplicity, richness, wholeness, perfection, completion,
• Wholeness: unity, integration, tendency to oneness, interconnectedness, simplicity, organization, structure,
  order, not dissociated, synergy
• Dichotomy: transcendence: acceptance, resolution, integration, polarities, opposites, contradictions
• Aliveness: process, not-deadness, spontaneity, self-regulation, full-functioning
• Unique: idiosyncrasy, individuality, non comparability, novelty
• Perfection: nothing superfluous, nothing lacking, everything in its right place, just-rightness, suitability, justice
• Necessity: inevitability: it must be just that way, not changed in any slightest way
• Completion: ending, justice, fulfillment
• Justice: fairness, suitability, disinterestedness, non partiality,
• Order: lawfulness, rightness, perfectly arranged
• Simplicity: nakedness, abstract, essential skeletal, bluntness
• Richness: differentiation, complexity, intricacy, totality
• Effortlessness: ease; lack of strain, striving, or difficulty
• Playfulness: fun, joy, amusement
• Self-sufficiency: autonomy, independence, self-determining.

 

[tech/a]

Me----I'm a duck.

 

[PharmBBs]

I'm really into Carl Jung. I find archetypes to be a very useful construct for dealing with challenging new situations and just for a confidence boost.

As for trading and psychology, I don't buy into the whole "you must be completely unemotional/stoic when trading". I actually find that some (but not necessarily all) people who believe in that MO act very irrationally. My dad comes to mind actually. He always pretended to be unemotive, logical and stoic, and he certainly appeared that way but at the end of the day he was just repressing, hiding the emotions from himself and his investment decisions were very emotional. So instead of pretending to be logical, I try to channel that emotion productively. Like if I'm riding a high on the stock rollercoaster, I will channel that optimistic impulsive energy into doing a lot of research on the companies I feel super keen on. As opposed to buying impulsively. Take this with a grain of salt though, I haven't done a lot of trading on account of being a former broke uni student (I have done trading but it's always been small amounts and I have played a fair bit of the ASX stockmarket game if that counts for anything though lol).

@WYSIWYG
I like Maslow's heirarchy of needs. It's a good go to for me if I'm feeling down and I don't know why. I can and have used the heirarchy to troubleshoot my emotions if I feel a bit off.

Some of you have also brought up religion... I identify as agnostic and a nihilist. I don't really know if there is a god or not. I do however feel inclined to believe that there is no inherent objective meaning to anything. Some people find this belief disturbing but I think that if you can confront the abyss/void and accept it, it can be quite liberating.