You Have To Live It To Believe It Apr 9, 2019 by Morgan Housel Richard Held and Alan Hein raised 20 kittens in pitch black darkness. Which is the kind of thing you should only do if it’s necessary to prove a point critical to understanding how the world works. Thankfully they did just that. The two MIT cognitive scientists, working in the 1960s, showed that seeing the world around you was not enough to understand how it works. You had to actually experience that world to learn how to operate in it. https://www.collaborativefund.com/blog/you-have-to-live-it-to-believe-it/
They had to put 20 kittens through that to figure this out? Sometimes these people need to use a little common sense. The only point they proved is that they know how to waste time and money.
Yep, it sounds like some crazy experiment from the past and in middle years of last century there were a tons like that even with people interaction for example marking some person as mentally ill (you really can't say or proof that somebody have that illness or otherwise case) and making use of that by denouncing them from life.
Extraordinary ... thank you for sharing this article. There certainly does seem to be different levels of ability to perceive the market as it is versus perceiving the market very different from what it is. I do not know how someone reading that article could not find the result fascinating. Certainly could not have been concluded a priori.
"When the study was over the blind cats were left in a fully lit room. Forty-eight hours later, all were effectively normal, regaining their “vision” and learning how to match the world around them to their movements. Eight weeks of seeing their world taught them virtually nothing. Two days of experiencing it, and they had it all figured out." One bad-ass lesson that many will (/do) miss.
"Eight weeks of seeing their world taught them virtually nothing. Two days of experiencing it, and they had it all figured out." With respect to the market, many never see it as it is. Therefore, even though they may experience it, e.g. by trading, they still never experience it because what they think they are seeing and interacting with is not what is in fact the market as it is. Again ... an untested hypothesis of mine.
One of the best articles I have read in a LONG TIME. Thanks for sharing. It is kinda like orthodoxy (correct belief) vs orthopraxy (correct practice). You can have all the correct beliefs, knowledge, confidence and understanding (orthodoxy) but if you don’t do the right thing at the right time (orthopraxy) then none of a traders orthodoxy really matters. In addition, learning on a deeper level takes place with orthopraxy as opposed to theoretical learning from orthodoxy. This said we usually need both. Orthodoxy to know what to orthopraxy (can save much time and suffering) but learning without doing is theoretical knowledge in ones experience and does not lead to success. Some stubborn mules ONLY LEARN in the school of hard knocks......sadly...
And it also questions the merit of higher learning where people go into debt to pursue. If you have already learned everything that you needed to function in a society in high school unless the higher learning is to learn more specialized skill in a certain trade, is it worth it to spend tens of thousands of dollars and/or even go into debt to just essentially to read about the world instead of experiencing the world by going into the world by working? How much more does this extra reading actually contribute to you learning about life and the world that we live in and how much more does it actually contribute to you being more functional in society which is essentially what counts in this world? It's not uncommon that university grads become instantly unemployed once they are out of school. If this experiment applies to us humans as well, then it makes sense. Why should they hire somebody who's just spent 4 years reading about something vs somebody who's spent the last 4 years actually doing it? If you really want to go into high learning, maybe it would be more worthwhile to spend it on a specialized trade?
Your statement is indeed true. There is a body of work here on ET that gives a framework by which to test this hypothesis: Volume leads price; If volume is increasing, then the price trend will continue. If volume is decreasing, then the price trend will change. By observing the market in it’s basic granularity, one can discover the truth of the market’s system of operation as a Boolean function for themselves.