The Expert Mind
Studies of the mental processes of chess grandmasters have revealed clues to how people become experts in other fields as well
By Philip E. Ross
Its 6 pages long on the Scientific American website.
For those of us learning and doing trading and investing I found the article has much to offer. It emphasises that the research shows that mastering a field has much more to do with effortful study than with talent. A couple of pertinent points from it (I wont quote huge chunks of it for copyright reasons and because it is worth reading the whole thing).
"The preponderance of psychological evidence indicates that experts are made, not born.
Without a demonstrably immense superiority in skill over the novice, there can be no true experts, only laypeople with imposing credentials. Such, alas, are all too common. Rigorous studies in the past two decades have shown that professional stock pickers invest no more successfully than amateurs, ..." While this quote particularly mentions the market, what is most interesting to me is the distinction made between a true expert and a layperson with credentials. I can't help but compare someone ike George Soros, with a sustained record of expertise in trading/investing, with the myriad highly qualified money managers who barely manage to keep pace with the overall market index.
"Ericsson argues that what matters is not experience per se but "effortful study," which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence. That is why it is possible for enthusiasts to spend tens of thousands of hours playing chess or golf or a musical instrument without ever advancing beyond the amateur level and why a properly trained student can overtake them in a relatively short time." I can't help but think of myself here. Surely no-one has spent more time studying charts than myself ... and yet my results are not what I want (so far). I have since taken to studying 'replays' of the market, after market hours, rather than static charts, this is helping me to see price movement in a more wholistic way - seeing the links between volume and price, for instance, with more detail, and dynamically. I think this is 'effortful study'. In addition, there is the 'doing' - while in a trade the active management of the stop and the profit, the active monitoring of the market dynamics, looking for what is changing, and so on. Being a technical trader I often wonder how a fundamental-based trader/investor improves their market study ... reading more reports, looking for linkages, looking for cause and effect ... be interested to hear.
"Surely, they will say, it takes more to get to Carnegie Hall than practice, practice, practice. Yet this belief in the importance of innate talent, strongest perhaps among the experts themselves and their trainers, is strangely lacking in hard evidence to substantiate it. "
"Although nobody has yet been able to predict who will become a great expert in any field, a notable experiment has shown the possibility of deliberately creating one."
"motivation appears to be a more important factor than innate ability in the development of expertise." This, I think, is promising as well as a bit scary ... I am not sure if it implies that the failure to develop expertise can be laid at the door of a lack of motivation ... I am making an assumption that it does and working from this assumption.
If anyone reads the article and has some thoughts I think some fruitful discussion could ensue.
brty
12th-May-2008, 01:59 PM
Now that is interesting.
I have been trading/investing for over 25 years, and I can see from that article a few reasons why "I just know", something is about to happen in markets, 'sometimes'.
To sum up that article, I would suggest that proficiency in anything comes from innate practice and study, rather than innate skill. Interesting, very interesting.
brty
doctorj
12th-May-2008, 02:11 PM
To sum up that article, I would suggest that proficiency in anything comes from innate practice and study
Good article!
That said, I always thought that you become an expert by telling everyone how good you are :D
nomore4s
12th-May-2008, 02:33 PM
Good article!
That said, I always thought that you become an expert by telling everyone how good you are :D
Only on the internet:p::D
IFocus
12th-May-2008, 03:19 PM
Timmy I think Steenbarger covers similar ground in his book "Enhancing Trader Performance"
He looks at the path and requirements along the way
The old definition Ex - meaning a "has been" Spurt - a drip under pressure.:D:D
juw177
12th-May-2008, 03:35 PM
You need a certain personality type to put that to work. Some traits of such people include:
-logical thinker
-values knowledge above all else
-gets satisfaction from efficiency: everything is something that can be fixed or improved.
-can absorb a lot of information and discard anything that does not fit
This cannot be easily taught. It is something you are born with or develop very early on in your life.
Trembling Hand
12th-May-2008, 05:02 PM
Great topic Timmy :D. This is my Favorite subject, Expertise development. I read as much as I can about this stuff because I think it is the fundamentals of trading expertise.
From everything I have researched on this if you had to boil it down to a line or two,
Practise per se doesnt make perfect, it Perfect Practise makes Perfect.
You carn't just "practise" something for 10 years and think you will get to the top. You have to have very deliberative practise with constant feed back and reviewing. Most punters never truly review the markets or their trading and spend 10 years repeating the same "practise".
If you want a specific blueprint for trading like IFocus has pointed out you carn't go past Steenbarger's "Enhancing Trader Performance"
freddy2
12th-May-2008, 06:16 PM
Now that is interesting.
To sum up that article, I would suggest that proficiency in anything comes from innate practice and study, rather than innate skill. Interesting, very interesting.
I would suggest it says in some fields (eg stock picking, roulette players) there are no experts - no amount of study or practice will make one an expert.
Trembling Hand
12th-May-2008, 06:47 PM
I would suggest it says in some fields (eg stock picking, roulette players) there are no experts - no amount of study or practice will make one an expert.
That is not what the article is saying at all.
Timmy
12th-May-2008, 07:09 PM
Some good stuff here thanks all - TH the "Perfect Pracise", I think I have seen reference to this around, will try dig up some info. Will also have a look for that Steenbarger book, I have his first one (Psychology of Trading) but not Enhancing Performance.
And Freddy2 - have a read of the article as I think you have got the wrong idea there...
Trembling Hand
12th-May-2008, 07:31 PM
Try this one,
What makes expert (http://traderfeed.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-makes-expert-three-surprising.html)
And Timmy you GOTTA get that second book. Must read for trader. MUST MUST MUST!!
brty
12th-May-2008, 07:31 PM
Freddy, with a comment like that you must be a random walker.
So what do you invest in?? A trip to the casino must be as good as picking stocks, unless one of them is not so random.
I also have difficulty with the concept of random. I don't believe anything is random.
brty
Trembling Hand
12th-May-2008, 07:32 PM
Freddy, with a comment like that you must be a random walker.
So what do you invest in?? A trip to the casino must be as good as picking stocks, unless one of them is not so random.
I also have difficulty with the concept of random. I don't believe anything is random.
brty
I think Freddy is confusing his performance as everyone elses. :(
adobee
12th-May-2008, 10:38 PM
i tend to believe quality is in the quantity.. thus practice makes perfect..
i read a story once (possible true) on a professor who divided his class into two, and asked them all to make clay teapots.. the was a replica of one which was the perfect tea pot, both sides were given different tasks, one side to make as many teapots as they could within two weeks the other to make one perfect teapot.. in the end the team who has to make as many as possible also makes the perfect teapot as they have had the most practice..
the problem with relating this to shares is that you loose your shirt on the first twent teapots that are sh*^!
jtb
12th-May-2008, 10:46 PM
the problem with relating this to shares is that you loose your shirt on the first twenty teapots that are sh*^!
Very true, but the journey is also the experience:)
(I didn't think this way on teapot 11 though:o)
Trembling Hand
12th-May-2008, 10:51 PM
i tend to believe quality is in the quantity.. thus practice makes perfect..
i read a story once (possible true) on a professor who divided his class into two, and asked them all to make clay teapots.. the was a replica of one which was the perfect tea pot, both sides were given different tasks, one side to make as many teapots as they could within two weeks the other to make one perfect teapot.. in the end the team who has to make as many as possible also makes the perfect teapot as they have had the most practice..
the problem with relating this to shares is that you loose your shirt on the first twent teapots that are sh*^!
No, what you are describing there is first step to step 2. ie newbie to Competent. Still a long long way away from expertise in teapots making and that is the whole point of deliberative practise.
The steps from competent (not losing your shirt) to expertise (making Constant big $$) is very different thing than newbie to competent.
Timmy
13th-May-2008, 12:22 AM
Try this one,
What makes expert (http://traderfeed.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-makes-expert-three-surprising.html)
Good link thanks TH!
And Timmy you GOTTA get that second book. Must read for trader. MUST MUST MUST!!
OK - on its way from Amazon (love this strong AUD!)
It's Snake Pliskin
13th-May-2008, 01:35 AM
OK - on its way from Amazon (love this strong AUD!)
Why not Joe's shop?
It's Snake Pliskin
13th-May-2008, 01:38 AM
Great topic Timmy :D. This is my Favorite subject, Expertise development. I read as much as I can about this stuff because I think it is the fundamentals of trading expertise.
From everything I have researched on this if you had to boil it down to a line or two,
Practise per se doesnt make perfect, it Perfect Practise makes Perfect.
You carn't just "practise" something for 10 years and think you will get to the top. You have to have very deliberative practise with constant feed back and reviewing. Most punters never truly review the markets or their trading and spend 10 years repeating the same "practise".
If you want a specific blueprint for trading like IFocus has pointed out you carn't go past Steenbarger's "Enhancing Trader Performance"
Mr Trembling trader,
The noun form is with a c, just to be a pedant.
I agree the book is good.:)
Timmy
13th-May-2008, 01:39 AM
Why not Joe's shop?
D'oh!
Didn't think....
It's Snake Pliskin
13th-May-2008, 01:43 AM
D'oh!
Didn't think....
The postage must be cheaper from Aus.
Timmy
13th-May-2008, 01:45 AM
The postage must be cheaper from Aus.
I'm sure you're right Snake ... using Amazon just habit I guess ... will know to look at Joe's shop next time ...
Timmy
13th-May-2008, 02:00 AM
Try this one,
What makes expert (http://traderfeed.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-makes-expert-three-surprising.html)
From this Steenbarger blog page there is a link to an article which is a nice discussion on "Expert Performance and Deliberate Practice (http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html)".
Small quote from the article (emphasis mine):
"Hence, continued improvements (changes) in achievement are not automatic consequences of more experience and in those domains where performance consistently increases aspiring experts seek out particular kinds of experience, that is deliberate practice (Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer, 1993)--activities designed, typically by a teacher, for the sole purpose of effectively improving specific aspects of an individual's performance...
More generally, the accumulated amount of deliberate practice is closely related to the attained level of performance of many types of experts, such as musicians (Ericsson et al., 1993; Sloboda, et al., 1996), chessplayers (Charness, Krampe & Mayr, 1996) and athletes (Starkes et al., 1996)."
theasxgorilla
13th-May-2008, 03:23 AM
"[I]Hence, continued improvements (changes) in achievement are not automatic consequences of more experience and in those domains where performance consistently increases aspiring experts seek out particular kinds of experience, that is deliberate practice (Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer, 1993)--activities designed, typically by a teacher, for the sole purpose of effectively improving specific aspects of an individual's performance.
That would be as opposed to sitting back complaining about how the ideal set of circumstances didn't come to them :)
Trembling Hand
13th-May-2008, 09:40 AM
Small quote from the article (emphasis mine):
"[I]Hence, continued improvements (changes) in achievement are not automatic consequences of more experience and in those domains where performance consistently increases aspiring experts seek out particular kinds of experience, that is deliberate practice (Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer, 1993)--activities designed, typically by a teacher, for the sole purpose of effectively improving specific aspects of an individual's performance...
Yeah that is a good one. To give an example for trading the average punter tries to learn patterns from static charts. Looking for trends and patterns that exist during the period. And tries to learn them.
Where the aspiring expert would spend a couple of hours a day practising entries that are outside the value zone on a sim for tending days. And review each practise session to learn from mistakes and remember the positive. Then move to the next task picking entries outside the value zone on choppy days etc
The difference being the punter has no specific goal and far too wide a scope to become proficient at any one task. Where the aspiring experts goal is to become an expert at one thing at a time. Ticking them off month after month. Building a huge mental map of perfect responses to certain triggers.
It's Snake Pliskin
13th-May-2008, 02:24 PM
Yeah that is a good one. To give an example for trading the average punter tries to learn patterns from static charts. Looking for trends and patterns that exist during the period. And tries to learn them.
Trembling hand,
Thanks for the input to an interesting topic.
Do you see any value in using static charts at all, regardless of time frame?
Where the aspiring expert would spend a couple of hours a day practising entries that are outside the value zone on a sim for tending days. And review each practice session to learn from mistakes and remember the positive. Then move to the next task picking entries outside the value zone on choppy days etc
Would this apply to all time frames and not just day traders?
The difference being the punter has no specific goal and far too wide a scope to become proficient at any one task. Where the aspiring experts goal is to become an expert at one thing at a time. Ticking them off month after month. Building a huge mental map of perfect responses to certain triggers.
So the aspiring expert learns to read the market as it is in a realtime format regardless of time frame?
Timmy
13th-May-2008, 03:36 PM
Where the aspiring experts goal is to become an expert at one thing at a time. Ticking them off month after month. Building a huge mental map of perfect responses to certain triggers.
TH, is this the sort of thing the Steenbarger book discusses? ... Certainly very impressive stuff.
professor_frink
13th-May-2008, 03:43 PM
"becoming an expert at anything"
wouldn't that be nice! In the meantime, I'll have to settle for being useless at most things, average at a few, and an expert in nothing:o
Nice find Timmy. Was an interesting read:)
Timmy
13th-May-2008, 04:07 PM
"becoming an expert at anything"
wouldn't that be nice! In the meantime, I'll have to settle for being useless at most things, average at a few, and an expert in nothing:o
LOL Prof.
There is a bit around the net on 'deliberate practice', the implications for us as traders/investors are, IMHO, profound... I think TH would agree as he appears to have done much research and work on this already.
Here are a couple of the things I have found which could be interest.
Looks like a really useful book:
http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Handbook-Expertise-Expert-Performance/dp/0521600812
Don't want to get too bogged down in reading about this stuff though, just want to get into it ... :)
Trembling Hand
13th-May-2008, 04:33 PM
Thanks for the input to an interesting topic.
Do you see any value in using static charts at all, regardless of time frame?. Well it all depends on the task. Obviously if your trading EOD your charts are static. The thing about deliberative learning is the task goal. Newbies look at charts for practise with the idea of find trending stocks. This is obviously a very broad task to be setting yourself
Where deliberative practise is breaking that down to smaller chunks of info. For example the patterns before a trend starts, getting favourable early entry, topping patterns, volume analysis & on & on. So they learn to get on before the trend is recognised by others because they have memorized the smaller patterns and become experts at the detail.
Would this apply to all time frames and not just day traders? Yep. The evidence is the same for any task, weather its chess, musician, surgeon, sports person, trader or investor. You want to step up to the expertise level you break it down into very small tasks and become an expert at each specific step by deliberative practise with specific goals and rigorous feedback increasing the task difficulty each time you master that last.
So the aspiring expert learns to read the market as it is in a realtime format regardless of time frame? They are trying to learn 100s or 1000s of "chunks" of info that they can recall on in an instant to pieces together with far greater accuracy the likely out come of the market than the punter that sees stocks in a broader trending or not trending view.
Like the sports person that is always in the right place at the right time because they get their cues from little bits of info where the dud is just casing the ball all day (chasing the ball(trend)).
TH, is this the sort of thing the Steenbarger book discusses? ... Certainly very impressive stuff. Yep. its all about the concept applied to trading.
son of baglimit
13th-May-2008, 04:42 PM
You need a certain personality type to put that to work. Some traits of such people include:
-logical thinker
-values knowledge above all else
-gets satisfaction from efficiency: everything is something that can be fixed or improved.
-can absorb a lot of information and discard anything that does not fit
This cannot be easily taught. It is something you are born with or develop very early on in your life.
the bit i bolded suits me exactly. ability to absorb enormous amounts of info, but only retain that you think useful in the future. when my wife yells as me for being a forgetful PR***, thats the excuse i use.
p.s. damn good article.
Timmy
13th-May-2008, 04:42 PM
Like the sports person that is always in the right place at the right time because they get their cues from little bits of info where the dud is just casing the ball all day (chasing the ball(trend)).
Good info thanks TH.
This bit about the sportsperson ... I listened to all of about 15 mins of the cricket last summer and happened to hear the ABC commentators talking about Brian Lara's batting ... he would call to the batsman at the non-strikers end how many runs he was taking on this ball (being bowled) right after the ball left the bowler's hand - he knew what sort of ball it was and where he (Lara) was going to hit it and therefore how many runs were available ... expert indeed.
professor_frink
13th-May-2008, 04:42 PM
LOL Prof.
There is a bit around the net on 'deliberate practice', the implications for us as traders/investors are, IMHO, profound... I think TH would agree as he appears to have done much research and work on this already.
Here are a couple of the things I have found which could be interest.
Looks like a really useful book:
http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Handbook-Expertise-Expert-Performance/dp/0521600812
Don't want to get too bogged down in reading about this stuff though, just want to get into it ... :)
Cheers Timmy, will have a look at those once the alcohol wears off(the closest I come to being an expert at:o)
theasxgorilla
13th-May-2008, 05:22 PM
The difference being the punter has no specific goal and far too wide a scope to become proficient at any one task. Where the aspiring experts goal is to become an expert at one thing at a time. Ticking them off month after month. Building a huge mental map of perfect responses to certain triggers.
This is so important of a reality check for aspiring newbies (at anything) to acknowledge. "Month after month"...ie. it takes time. Much of the learning process can't be shortcut. One has to be effective during the learning process. Forget being efficient...acknowledge that you will have to spend as long as it takes, and that you can't learn it all in a day.
It's like learning a song on the guitar, or learning how to clutch and change gears in a car. You can try so hard to learn it in one sitting, but invariably when you sleep on it and come back to it the next day suddenly it's easier. It feels like you're a step or two closer to being automatic, the unconscious competent.
"What we know about sleep and memory for certain is that for at least some types of procedural memory, disrupting sleep after training interferes with learning," says Stickgold, HMS assistant professor of psychiatry at Massachusetts Mental Health Center.
The Expert Mind
Studies of the mental processes of chess grandmasters have revealed clues to how people become experts in other fields as well
By Philip E. Ross
If anyone reads the article and has some thoughts I think some fruitful discussion could ensue.
Another twist of the old 'nature vs nurture' debate. The author seems to favour nurture over nature and carefully chooses his examples and studies to support the point. Imo it's not as simple as that and you can make an equally convincing case for the other side. :2twocents
Trembling Hand
13th-May-2008, 09:48 PM
Another twist of the old 'nature vs nurture' debate. The author seems to favour nurture over nature and carefully chooses his examples and studies to support the point. Imo it's not as simple as that and you can make an equally convincing case for the other side. :2twocents
Please do then.
It's Snake Pliskin
13th-May-2008, 11:59 PM
Well it all depends on the task. Obviously if your trading EOD your charts are static. The thing about deliberative learning is the task goal. Newbies look at charts for practise with the idea of find trending stocks. This is obviously a very broad task to be setting yourself
Where deliberative practise is breaking that down to smaller chunks of info. For example the patterns before a trend starts, getting favourable early entry, topping patterns, volume analysis & on & on. So they learn to get on before the trend is recognised by others because they have memorized the smaller patterns and become experts at the detail.
Yep. The evidence is the same for any task, weather its chess, musician, surgeon, sports person, trader or investor. You want to step up to the expertise level you break it down into very small tasks and become an expert at each specific step by deliberative practise with specific goals and rigorous feedback increasing the task difficulty each time you master that last.
They are trying to learn 100s or 1000s of "chunks" of info that they can recall on in an instant to pieces together with far greater accuracy the likely out come of the market than the punter that sees stocks in a broader trending or not trending view.
Like the sports person that is always in the right place at the right time because they get their cues from little bits of info where the dud is just casing the ball all day (chasing the ball(trend)).
Thanks for the answers to my questions TH.
A deliberate query is often most useful.:)
rub92me
14th-May-2008, 10:25 AM
Please do then.
Well, I'll give you one example, research on the internet will show you many more. The article uses the example of the Polgar sisters to put forward the case that if you use deliberate training and effort you can create chess experts. Mr. Polgar wrote a book describing his methods in detail that sold hundreds of thousands of copies. Probably thousands of parents tried his methods with their children, however I know of no example that created a similar success. To me that calls into doubt the theory that you can create experts regardless of inate or natural ability. For the record I'm not saying that deliberate training can not help develop an expertise in some field.
Trembling Hand
14th-May-2008, 10:48 AM
Mr. Polgar wrote a book describing his methods in detail that sold hundreds of thousands of copies. Probably thousands of parents tried his methods with their children, however I know of no example that created a similar success.
Do you know of any story where people have read a single self help book and had success?? Other than the marketing gumpf I haven't. I think that has more to do with the motivation of such people rather than the process.
To me that calls into doubt the theory that you can create experts regardless of inate or natural ability.
Define "innate or natural ability". Other than maybe IQ, or physical characteristic for a sport. What is natural ability for something like chess. Study after study has proven that grandmaster chess players memory, outside of a chess board, is no better than the lay person. In fact some have shown that their memory is just as bad when pieces are placed on a chess board in a random fashion. Which fits the trained chuck memory theory and disproves the theory that grand masters have a "innate or natural" superior memory.
rub92me
14th-May-2008, 11:18 AM
Define "innate or natural ability". Other than maybe IQ, or physical characteristic for a sport. What is natural ability for something like chess. Study after study has proven that grandmaster chess players memory, outside of a chess board, is no better than the lay person. In fact some have shown that their memory is just as bad when pieces are placed on a chess board in a random fashion. Which fits the trained chuck memory theory and disproves the theory that grand masters have a "innate or natural" superior memory.
Inate or natural ability as it relates to the 'structure' of the brain. Actually studies have shown that testing the chuck memory theory points to the fact that the brains of the experts process information differently from the non-experts. That does not disprove the theory that grandmasters have a brain that is 'naturally' wired differently from the start. I do think that the chuck memory theory is a very plausible theory. I'm just drawing a slightly different conclusion from it. The article also didn't explain why that theory would automatically equally apply to a very different discipline like trading.
Timmy
14th-May-2008, 05:03 PM
This article from The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/10/13/1160246332748.html?page=fullpage) is a reprint from New Scientist. Rub - it has a few things to say about the nature vs. nurture debate (especially toward the end of the article) but basically concludes again that "the ability we're so fond of calling talent or even genius arises not from innate gifts but from an interplay of fair (but not extraordinary) natural ability, quality instruction and a mountain of work".
TH, it also discusses "chunking" - "the ability to group details and concepts into easily remembered patterns". I think this obviously has direct implications for trading (especially short-term). In addition, "the elite also learn to identify quickly which bits of information in a changing situation to store in working memory. This lets them create a continually updated mental model far more complex than that used by someone less practised, allowing them to see subtler dynamics and deeper relationships". Again, strong implications for trading skills...
Trembling Hand
14th-May-2008, 06:14 PM
In addition, "the elite also learn to identify quickly which bits of information in a changing situation to store in working memory. This lets them create a continually updated mental model far more complex than that used by someone less practised, allowing them to see subtler dynamics and deeper relationships". Again, strong implications for trading skills...
Yes. Thats why many a newbie give back gains made after a good trend. They don't recognise the subtler dynamics and deeper relationships and are still trading the same pattern long after it has reversed thinking this pull back is just like all the other.
Good case of another market cliche doing no good. think "the trend is your friend"
Timmy
14th-May-2008, 06:22 PM
Good case of another market cliche doing no good. think "the trend is your friend"
I prefer "If you want a friend, buy a dog".
MS+Tradesim
30th-May-2009, 11:35 AM
Timmy or any mod,
Any chance of this thread becoming a sticky in the Beginner's Lounge?
Timmy
30th-May-2009, 11:44 AM
Any chance of this thread becoming a sticky in the Beginner's Lounge?
Good idea, done now.
Timmy
30th-May-2009, 11:56 AM
This is another article on the same topic.
What it takes to be great
Research now shows that the lack of natural talent is irrelevant to great success. The secret? Painful and demanding practice and hard work (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391794/index.htm)
PDF version (http://www.aae.wisc.edu/aae320/Micellaneous/What%20it%20takes%20to%20be%20great.pdf)
Another PDF link (https://www.gorillas-gazelles.com/Files/What_It_Takes_To_Be_Great.pdf)
Nero64
3rd-June-2009, 03:06 PM
So what do you invest in?? A trip to the casino must be as good as picking stocks, unless one of them is not so random.
I also have difficulty with the concept of random. I don't believe anything is random.
Has anyone read "Trading in the Zone" by Mark Douglas.
He talks about randomness and that anything can happen.
I think there is more to the markets than randomness.
I like his rules of consistency though.
AzzaB80
22nd-August-2009, 09:16 PM
Just finished reading "Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else" by Geoff Colvin
Great book, looks back at world class performers such as Tiger Woods and Mozart and tries to prove that there is no such thing as natural born talent and how 1000's of hours of delibrate practice was the reason for their success.
Best part of the book however is chapter 7 I think were it discusses ideas and methods for delibrate practice in every day activities. Highly recommended!
chris2009
5th-October-2009, 01:59 PM
You guys sound like an interesting bunch.
Is there something like a trader meeting that you guys have, im in melb and would like to meet and discuss serrious trading with some people.
nunthewiser
5th-October-2009, 02:12 PM
You guys sound like an interesting bunch.
Is there something like a trader meeting that you guys have, im in melb and would like to meet and discuss serrious trading with some people.
It is customery here , that any trader that instigates and co-ordinates any trader meets will be responsible and HAPPY to provide lunch and many alcoholic beverages ............... that being said ...........pencil me in, i will bring my notebook and a pen
thankyou
Trembling Hand
1st-March-2010, 11:34 AM
Two good stories here with an winter Olympics theme on practise,
I think it is very true that you can train your mind to see/notice specific things. I think (as I wish to own one, one day for no particular reason) I have trained my mind (without trying) to only take notice of BMW's and Mercs when on the road.
N.T
GumbyLearner
15th-March-2010, 09:43 PM
Stick it on the wall.
Laohu
24th-June-2010, 06:22 PM
Great thread!
The concept/phrase "deliberate practice" reminds me of a golf swing... you can flog 200 balls on the range without thinking (and only get sore hands), yet when only focussing on one "problem" eg legs, 20 balls hit with concentration breeds tremendous results.
Once that learning is bedded in, then onto next problem - hopefully on the way to some improvement in the level of overall expertise, one step at a time.
RE Nature and nurture: Tiger Woods? Started him at 3yo...:eek7:
tech/a
24th-June-2010, 08:14 PM
I first heard of the concept become an expert at "something" when at My Son Kris's BS Graduation.
Kris wanted to do his masters then PHD.
We had talked on and off for sometime as to what direction he could take.
He presented 2 choices which he pained over.
(1) Research Physics an area which he really enjoyed.
(2) Photonics and Laser development.
I cant remember the name of the guest speaker but as Kris and I sat on different sides of the room---the presenter went on to say that if you become an expert in anything those who want your expertise will beat a road to your door,it doesnt matter much what that expertise is ---but become an expert!
At that moment Kris turned and I noticed his stare at me across the room.
He smiled and nodded---I knew hed decided and I just nodded my head.
Kris submitted his Thesis for final checking a couple of weeks ago and will become a Doctor of Physics in October.
Other than being a proud Bewildered father (I'm no Doctor of anything!) I can relate first hand to the theorem of Expert.
Kris has a Post doc position and will more than likely take up one of the UK positions offered in a few years.
Personally I have built a Company on expertise (Earth Retention). So have many others in their own field.
weird
24th-June-2010, 11:15 PM
Becoming an expert at anything, is first, asking what am I good at ? If you are good at maths then it is natural to concentrate your talents at that. If you are naturally good at that, then most likely you will enjoy the reward of solving or quickly learning solutions, compared to others. Maths is just an example.
After that requires hard work and experience, to become an expert. But number 1 work on something you enjoy or have a natural talent for. Then you don't need psycho bubble to stick with it. Otherwise outsource to another if you wish to employ that expertise.
I have worked with a few traders, that have different talents to me, where I have contributed only in my expertise, and in combination with their expertise ... so no need to be an expert in everything.
Timmy
23rd-August-2010, 11:28 AM
Posting this article, might be helpful reiterating some of the themes in this thread.
no one becomes great at anything unless they engage in concentrated practice for many years at their craft.
http://www.businessinsider.com/first-team-wall-street-the-next-generation-2010-8?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+I nsider%29
Mr Z
23rd-August-2010, 11:50 AM
Experts exist at the margin, if I know 10% more than you then I am an expert. Be afraid, very afraid and carry salt :2twocents
mallymcl
10th-October-2010, 03:27 PM
Firstly, good to see a FFC supporter in the mix
Secondly, a very good read. I went to school here in Brisbane with now a Grandmaster and I had a lot of respect for how his mind operated, really something.
Thirdly, one of the questions in an IQ test was, what % of knowledge do you expect to comprehend in a life time... I found it a no brainer :confused:
0% 5% 20% 25% 28%
jalicia18
22nd-November-2010, 04:50 PM
Becoming an expert at anything. How?
A. Take one hour a day to devote to the topic that you want to become an expert in. That adds up to 365 hours in a year. That number of hours is equivalent to taking about ten college classes.
B. Use that hour to study the topic. It could be to learn a new skill, learn a foreign language, or develop a hobby interest. Keep this up for 3 to 5 years.
C. Make full use of the public library in reaching your goal. Read any books and magazines available there on the topic. Find out other titles that will help develop your expert knowledge. Ask the library to interlibrary loan these for you. That service is usually free, but may take a week or two.
D. Take classes if you want structured learning on the topic. Besides any classes available locally, look on the internet for online classes.
E. Sign up for online newsletters on the topic.
F. Find other people involved in the skill, interest or hobby that you're trying to develop expertise in. Spend time with them individually or in a group. Learn everything you can from their experience. Yahoo Groups has groups for almost any topic you could wish for.
dhukka
22nd-November-2010, 07:27 PM
Becoming an expert at anything. How?
A. Take one hour a day to devote to the topic that you want to become an expert in. That adds up to 365 hours in a year. That number of hours is equivalent to taking about ten college classes.
B. Use that hour to study the topic. It could be to learn a new skill, learn a foreign language, or develop a hobby interest. Keep this up for 3 to 5 years.
C. Make full use of the public library in reaching your goal. Read any books and magazines available there on the topic. Find out other titles that will help develop your expert knowledge. Ask the library to interlibrary loan these for you. That service is usually free, but may take a week or two.
D. Take classes if you want structured learning on the topic. Besides any classes available locally, look on the internet for online classes.
E. Sign up for online newsletters on the topic.
F. Find other people involved in the skill, interest or hobby that you're trying to develop expertise in. Spend time with them individually or in a group. Learn everything you can from their experience. Yahoo Groups has groups for almost any topic you could wish for.
Well, we all know what your an expert at jalicia. Although I bet it didn't take 1 hour a day for you to learn how to copy and paste, or maybe it did? For the life of me though I can't track down where you copy and pasted this from, don't tell you typed it out from Woman's Day?
Trembling Hand
22nd-November-2010, 08:06 PM
Well, we all know what your an expert at jalicia. Although I bet it didn't take 1 hour a day for you to learn how to copy and paste, or maybe it did? For the life of me though I can't track down where you copy and pasted this from, don't tell you typed it out from Woman's Day?
