Food for thoughts on my first post. I've been thinking about the two contrasting points of view on success. Featured on last month's issue of Stocks and Commodities was an interview with Kevin Haygreen, the 25 year old trader in London, it was asked "Why do you think you became a successful trader?", he replied (what I think a quintessential response):
I believe I’ve become a successful trader because I wanted it badly enough, and I believed in myself. The way I see life is that it doesn’t matter what hand you get dealt, you play the cards you have. The only thing that separates the winners and the losers is one person wanted it more than the other. If you want something bad enough, then you’ll get it because you’ll do what you have to do to get where you want to be. For me, I spent a couple of years surviving day by day with only what was in my pocket and eating mashed potatoes every night for dinner so I could pay for my charting and datafeeds, and watch the markets every day. I had moments where I wanted to give up, but I kept going and I learned that for every low there’s a high, and eventually it all paid off.
Another view taken by Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Outliers", however suggests that:
In his "Fooled by Randomness" Mr Taleb seems to agree:Chance of success comes from our time, not just from our own efforts or talent.
The great generals of the past, took considerable risk, along with thousands of others, and happened to win. Heroes won and lost battles in a manner that was totally independent of their own valor; their fate depended upon totally external forces. Heroes are heroes because they are heroic in behavior, not because they won or lost.
When we are investigating the causes of something, there is so much that goes into it. Our observations are obviously biased with benefits of hindsight. Where do we draw more objective conclusions from. Is there a better way to investigate?
No comments:
Post a Comment