Speculating predisposition test
已更新
I recently published an idea on the (mostly innate) qualities required to be a good speculator.
Next I will write an idea on what one has TO DO to accomplish his goal of being profitable. Not general qualities. What actually must be done.
That thing we never hear about, trading educators never ever tell anyone this, all they do is mention "the psychology" and generalities that anyone with common sense can figure out, and the reason is simple: They are not profitable. There are even "trading educators" that have a career as marketers and openly admit they never took a single trade. What is it that if done, and provided one does not have fatal flaws, with "100%" guarentee success? Stay tuned to find out :D
Meanwhile I thought of this which I think is a fun test. Got the idea from seing so much troll logic and flawed arguments recently.
Being able to make an unbiased logical analysis of news price fundamentals is a necessary thing to make money simply, and even just being a good human being and not a big disgusting pile of you know what.
If you want to take things to the next level I think learning (and understanding...) abstract algebra (groups, rings, fields, modules, vector spaces) will turn you into a superhero. The logic, the analytic reasoning. It's too good. Compared to the average illogical emotional herding clueless gambler ye superhero is the right word. You will just see and understand things differently.
Can you tell me what are the flaws in each of the 2 demonstrations that gullible people fall for?
Not looking for anything too complicated, just the few gaping holes in the reasoning.
I will answer comments and I will post the answer as an update in a few days.
Next I will write an idea on what one has TO DO to accomplish his goal of being profitable. Not general qualities. What actually must be done.
That thing we never hear about, trading educators never ever tell anyone this, all they do is mention "the psychology" and generalities that anyone with common sense can figure out, and the reason is simple: They are not profitable. There are even "trading educators" that have a career as marketers and openly admit they never took a single trade. What is it that if done, and provided one does not have fatal flaws, with "100%" guarentee success? Stay tuned to find out :D
Meanwhile I thought of this which I think is a fun test. Got the idea from seing so much troll logic and flawed arguments recently.
Being able to make an unbiased logical analysis of news price fundamentals is a necessary thing to make money simply, and even just being a good human being and not a big disgusting pile of you know what.
If you want to take things to the next level I think learning (and understanding...) abstract algebra (groups, rings, fields, modules, vector spaces) will turn you into a superhero. The logic, the analytic reasoning. It's too good. Compared to the average illogical emotional herding clueless gambler ye superhero is the right word. You will just see and understand things differently.
Can you tell me what are the flaws in each of the 2 demonstrations that gullible people fall for?
Not looking for anything too complicated, just the few gaping holes in the reasoning.
I will answer comments and I will post the answer as an update in a few days.
註釋
Answer:On the left:
In line 5 you are saying a*0 = b*0 and then dividing by zero on line 6
You can't divide by zero...
註釋
On the right:- 2 is true but how much? Not 100% sure either it doesn't causes cooling in some way. The light reaching the top of the Earth's atmosphere provides about 2,500 times as much energy as the total of all other sources combined... CO2 is invisible to human eye (sunlight) and opaque to infrared (tiny in comparison)...
- 3 and 4 are true but vague and misleading. Temperature going down causes massive weather events...
- 5 Of course scientists agree! How dumb would it be not too! Manipulative trick to make ignorant people assume "they agree with the whole agenda"
- 6 Wait what? How did we go from misleading & vague claims to "we have to stop burning fossil fuels"
There are other flaws but those are the 4 I was looking for and pop our more to me.
It's not about opinion of preference or lying to the populace for a noble cause (we don't know the consequences there is a infinitely small chance they will be slightly inconvenient) it's about facts.
相關出版品
免責聲明
這些資訊和出版物並不意味著也不構成TradingView提供或認可的金融、投資、交易或其他類型的意見或建議。請在使用條款閱讀更多資訊。