[TheNegotiator]

Trading can be a very profitable profession. Where there is a lot of money there tends to be a lot of competition. So what does it take to come out on top? Really? In something like professional sports, I think many more people would be quick to hold up their hands and say they couldn't compete at that top level. But is that true? Are these people naturally gifted to such an extent that nobody else can get near them? Or is it that they have had an unimaginable amount of hard work and experience? Or is it that they've been taught by the best?

[TheNegotiator]

I forgot to mention, I think a big part of it is your ability to learn from your experiences and adapt accordingly.

"Men are wise in proportion, not to their experience, but to their capacity for experience."

James Boswell

(this could be wrong so please correct me if it is. poss Samuel Johnson)

[zdo]

Are these people naturally gifted to such an extent that nobody else can get near them?

Yes. The player bringing the best combination of stronger, faster, more mentally focused and resiliance will win in any performance type of work/play - period.

Or is it that they have had an unimaginable amount of hard work and experience?

Yes. Again. In any performance type of work/play such as trading, when the stronger, faster, more mentally focused and resiliant player goes up against other stronger, faster, more mentally focused and resiliant players - the edge becomes "unimaginable amount of hard work and experience". - period.

Or is it that they've been taught by the best?

No. Highest level performance does not require being taught by "the best". Highest level coaching relationships are more a matter of a spectrum of compatibilties between the two than they are a factor of the consensus reputation of the quality of the coach. "The best" teachers/coaches have a broad general understanding of what to bring a player's focus to - but a 'compatible' teacher/coach will be able to bring the player's focus to the very specific things the player needs to focus on better than a "the best" coach can...

[steve46]

Originally Posted by TheNegotiator »

Trading can be a very profitable profession. Where there is a lot of money there tends to be a lot of competition. So what does it take to come out on top? Really? In something like professional sports, I think many more people would be quick to hold up their hands and say they couldn't compete at that top level. But is that true? Are these people naturally gifted to such an extent that nobody else can get near them? Or is it that they have had an unimaginable amount of hard work and experience? Or is it that they've been taught by the best?

I suspect that it is a little bit of all three...one has to have an aptitude for the business, and it is certainly true that successful participants work extremely hard...for example I estimate that I put in more than 50 hours a week, and I have been lucky enough to have learned from skilled professionals. Finally I would estimate that it took a good 6-7 years to get consistent...

[SIUYA]

ditto to whats said above....combination.
I would say a good coach/mentor/teacher can help so long as you have the other two, otherwise forget it

[TheNegotiator]

I think I'd like to agree with these sentiments. I do agree. But I got thinking about it(a dangerous thing!) and feel that there has to be an additional element. I remembered watching a programme years ago on the subject of feral children. For those who are unaware of what these are, they are children who have been raised in the wild pre-developmental stage with no human contact. Bear with me please!! Now I know the following case is about speech centres of the brain but could it have bearing on any areas? The show had a girl who had been feral and could not speak. With intensive speech therapy, the girl did learn to talk but could never string together more than a few words to form a short sentence. It turned out that the speech centre was so underdeveloped that they concluded she would never be likely to speak as fully and fluidly as most of us take for granted.

So my thought was, you describe the set of skills that would be invaluable to a trader. Being quick with numbers; making fast assessments of social situations and making risk based decisions which result in gain or loss; strong emotional discipline and determination to succeed etc., etc.. Then, you designed various levels of tests and exercises to promote these facets and assign them to a child from possibly even birth. Would these children develop far more than an adult who decided to become a trader then practise these skills?

Is the role developmental phase a valid additional component to be a great trader?

[zdo]

Negotiator, great thoughts. And, yes it could have bearing in many areas besides just ‘speech’.
Reminds me of some of the Malcolm Gladwell, etc work on what you’re calling “role developmental phase” In development, there are multiple junctures and multiple pathways along the way. That plasticity of development results in a myriad of permutations whether triggered by nurture or by trauma.
I hypothesize that if we had a sample of 1000 feral kids a large percentage of them would pick up speech quite quickly. (for example, - Tarzan had learned proper king’s English within months razz – but then again he was hot for Jane…motivated )
I think the particular way her neurons got networked in that one case was more of an exception – compared to normal socialization. I wouldn’t be surprised if the researchers ignored some exceptional other sensation and perceptual ‘talent’s she had developed using the parts of the brain that are typically ‘dedicated’ to speech recog and production…

Back on topic
Talent is overrated – where singular breakthroughs/ exceptions are concerned.
Talent is not overrated – where day in and day out consistent performance at a skill is concerned.
So re “Would these children develop far more than an adult who decided to become a trader then practise these skills? ” As a group they would develop more, but not far more. The ones that would develop far more are the ones who had the initial talents and then were nurtured. At the essence - it's nature AND nurture.

So re: “Is the role developmental phase a valid additional component to be a great trader? ”
Yes, No getting around the ~10000 hours part – even for the exceptions like Tom Baldwin, etc who take much less linear time to do it.
And the list I provided above – strength, speed, focus, resilience etc was certainly not complete.
You later mentioned Adaptability as important. However, in most cases the weaker hands are the ones being forced to attempt more adaptations, make breakthrough exceptions, etc. than are the truly strong performers.

It’s harder to discuss, and iIt doesn’t follow developmental lines in the same way - but Character is another area involved
ie there are definitely additional elements

[TheNegotiator]

Interesting and well thought out points zdo! I have to read some Gladwell. I have "The Tipping Point" sitting right in front of me along with a stack of books 2ft high!! I really need to learn to speed read!!

Anyway, a quick question on the points of talent being under and overrated. I think I would reverse the two personally. I would say day to day consistent performance(to whatever extent) is more about determination and mindset. I think that can be taught. Breakthroughs generally occur with the extraordinary talents of this world.

One more idea to throw into the mix that I believe I mentioned somewhere else in the forums. Luck. The few good traders I have known compared to the extremely successful traders are often only separated by a run (or single day in some cases) of excellent trading given exceptional circumstances. It allows them to move to the next level. Of course the truly exceptional traders tend to capitalise when their luck appears...