Hello ILPM,
A lot of people thought Einstein had zero potential - and look where he went. Same with Michael Jordan, or Beethoven, or many great people who were told by others they had ‘Zero Potential’.
As to the people you talk about that had expressed how ‘motivated and determined they were’, if after two weeks they gave up, then clearly what they expressed was not true. Hence, this has nothing to do with actually having ‘motivated and determinatined’, which by definition would be a complete contradiction from the people you described.
And if even if they didn’t have any ‘aptitude’, in two weeks they are certainly not going to build the skills necessary, so this is also a mute point whether they had it or not in relationship to their success.
On another note, how do you describe ‘below average level intellect’? Where is your boundary and definition for this, and what does that actually mean? My friend who had ADHD may have even classified himself in this category you describe, yet he made it.
I know a Tibetan Buddhist teacher who scored a 66 on an IQ test, yet when they tested his brain for certain things, the neuro-scientists couldn’t actually explain why he had over 900% activity in large portions of his brain that would suggest anything but a 66 IQ.
Also, you mention physical attributes and becoming/not becoming an olympian. Spud Webb was one of the shortest individuals ever to become a professional basketball player, and I wonder how many people told him he ‘couldn’t because he did not have any physical gifts or aptitude’? Even at 47, he can still dunk (in suit pants and a dress shirt). For a video on this, check out the link (Spud Webb Proves He Can Still Dunk At Age 47! - YouTube) and go to about :50.
Although I think you make some interesting points, you seem quite judgmental about Kashif and ‘what he is’, and ‘is not’ (just my observation here, which I’m willing to be wrong about). It seems like you have a fixed point of view of him, and believe your ‘view’ to be the ‘truth’ about him, and have a monopoly on his truth. And not just about him, but about successful traders, and what it takes to become one (as if there is only one path).
Along those lines, let me ask you a question…what if you are wrong about Kashif? Have you ever been wrong about your ‘view’ of anyone for that matter? I’m not saying you are or are not which is immaterial to me. But to have such a fixed view of him seems limiting.
Now I appreciate the wisdom of what you are trying to help Kashif with - which is see areas he can help/improve his process, let him know this isn’t going to be easy, that he can probably work on a few things, etc. which I think is all very useful and kind of you to share these things.
But I’m going to disagree with you that every profitable trader ‘learned independently’. In Market Wizards, many of them had great mentors or people they learned from, and speak of this. Jim Rogers worked with Soros, Drunkenmiller as well, all who learned a lot from him. There are great traders that have worked under Drunkenmiller and Rogers, who now run their own funds, so I don’t see this as being a requirement.
In martial arts, how many people ‘learn independently’? In archery, how many? In playing the piano, how many? Probably next to none, save for some exceptional individuals, yet many still become good martial artists, or archers, or piano players.
Trading is no different.
Sure, some people can learn on their own, but not all (maybe less than more), and there are many people that have learned from others, who are now profitable.
I do appreciate you mentioning how it helps to ask ‘focused’ and ‘specific’ questions - very useful for sure, but maybe they are not there yet, and have to start somewhere. Does that mean because they are not asking these questions, they will be a failure in trading? Imo - no, and I think its to be determined.
And as to ‘trading from the comfort of their home’ statement, maybe you misinterpreted how they used the word ‘comfort’. Maybe they have a long commute to work, hate their job, like their home, and like the idea of working from home to where it would feel ‘comfortable’. Does that mean they automatically are seeing things in terms of ‘comfort’? I think that is just one interpretation, but not a monopoly on the truth of Kashif.
I wanted to work from the ‘comfort’ of my home, and I have been for almost a decade. This doesn’t apply to me, so why Kashif? When I was expressing that 13 years ago, I had no intentions of wanting things to be ‘comfy’, because I understood how learning skill based things went via my experience in martial arts, or playing soccer, or many of the things I did in my life. Yet I still wanted to trade from the ‘comfort’ of my home, mostly because I’m a home-body (as the expression goes).
Does this mean I was a ‘demotivated’ person? I don’t think so, and perhaps that is not Kashif.
And how many people did look for EA’s, or signal services in their beginning, yet are now good traders? I’m guessing many, and many admit this themselves.
My point is to have such a ‘frozen’ view of someone, and to have such a rigid view about what makes a successful trader, how the process goes, and that they need this ‘aptitude’ which can be built, seems limited imo, and not really supportive of the learning process.
Can it help? Absolutely. Useful? For sure. Necessary in the beginning to be successful? Certainly not.
I will say I do appreciate you wanting to inform him/her of the challenges they will face along the way, and I think that is useful, so hopefully Kashif and others recognize this. But I think there are more open minded ways to help kashif in their process, while not having such (what would appear to be imo) fixed views of them, and what is ‘the’ way traders become successful.
Just my thoughts, but a good discussion indeed.
Kind Regards,
Chris Capre