|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Z:
I would add one more:
6. Both camps have both successful and
unsuccessful traders.
Bill
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
ztrader
To: <A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:46
PM
Subject: [RT] On differences between
traders
On Wednesday, May 23, 2001, 4:09:56 PM, d graham
wrote:dg> ps I certainly stirred up something with my
"R-points".It would seem so.dg> Again I am not attacking
any particular methodology or person. Idg> am just asking that if we
are to gain maximum benefit fromdg> belonging to such a forum that we
have some basis for backing whatdg> we propound.There's that
'basis' idea again. This seems like the recentastro/system battle all over
again, but with a slightly differentcontext.Perhaps it is *really*
the age-old conflict between religion andscience, but cast in a different
form. One relies heavily on faith andbelief, the other on systematic
observation, using methods that areverifiable. Isn't this always what
divides the two camps of traders?It is not a new debate. There have
been books written about this, suchas "History of the Conflict Between
Religion and Science". Even now,around the world, this divide is still
causing problems.The two camps have very fundamental differences in
their "world view".Attempts of one side to get the other to understand
have been dismalfailures for a long time. We have ample evidence here to
verify thatwe CANNOT close that gap even in the narrow field of
trading-relatedissues.To keep peace in Traderville, I propose that
we:(1) *Recognize* and *accept* this fundamental difference in
worldviews.(2) Accept that there are people in both camps on this
list.(3) Accept that NEITHER camp will be able to fully accept the
othersview. The believer camp will always say "don't give me that
sciencec**p", and the science camp will always say "don't give me that
beliefc**p".(4) It is MOST important to realize that attempts to
'convert' theother camp will almost always fail. Nobody likes to have
their worldview challenged. After all, if it were, somehow, to be
proven wrong,that person's world would 'collapse'. People have battled
with theirlast breath to preserve their world view.(5) Recognize
that each camp has strengths and weaknesses, pros andcons. In some
specific areas, one camp may be of greater utilitythan the other, but
neither one is superior in ALL ways to the other.(6) Given the above,
ideas can be presented as being in one camp orthe other. One may to try to
bridge the gap and see if a portion ofone can become part of the other (as
I did with the astro/statthread), but it MUST be recognized that this is
an extremely difficultjob, and the bridging attempt should terminate
BEFORE the exchangegets ugly.Just a few thoughts - what do you
think?ztraderTo unsubscribe from this group,
send an email
to:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/";>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
www.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|