Math major from Germany, interested in a bunch of stuff. Find me on limerott.com
limerott
Karma: 92
Congratulations on your success! A few questions that came to mind (I don’t expect you to answer all of them):
What did you give up to pursue trading full time?
How much capital did you start with? (6x is not enough to get to the size of a small hedge-fund if you start out with 50k...)
Do you use leverage?
Do you manage other investors’ assets or only your own?
Have you automated portions of your trading routine?
Do you base your buy / sell decisions on value alone or do you use technical analysis? If so, which concepts do you find most useful?
How much do you invest in cryptocurrencies?
I liked tip 7 the most. Reminds me of a quote from a chessmaster (Maurice Ashley): “The most important insight in chess is that the other person is more important than you are”
Strong upvote. Success doesn’t limit us. Success changes us. It is what we become that limits us.
Live free of attachment and you will always be free.
For me, I have found a microadjustment to your microadjustment helpful: Instead of drinking a whole cup of coffee, which causes unnecessary stress and heart racing for me, I only drink about 1/8th of a cup or even less at the same concentration. I have found that while this still has strong positive effects (more motivation, higher focus), it avoids most of the negative effects—especially if it’s taken in the morning.
Thank you for this post. The personal experience certainly seeps through in your recommendations (which is a good thing).
I would like to mention another area: nutrition. A good chunk of your productivity depends on how well you eat. It also affects how well your body can fight the chronic condition. It also gives you another variable to play around with (do I feel better if I eat carbs?).
However, I don’t think it is as simple as “eat your veggies”. People with chronic illness should have a solid understanding of the nutrients the body needs to function properly (for example, the role of protein is often underestimated). They should also set up systems that allow them to fulfill these requirements in a quick and effective manner, without spending too much time and energy (e.g. through supplements, protein shakes, cooking in bulk). It is also wise to experiment with different diets and observe their effects on one’s health (e.g. ketogenic, raw, protein-heavy).
One caveat though: it is easy to get caught up in optimizing nutrition and delude oneself into thinking that the next supplement will lead to a breakthrough. But it is important to get the fundamentals right.
Do you visualize the icosahedron as one object or do you split it up and consider each separately, but reminding oneself that it is actually one object?
My answer to your visual thinking riddle is: breath in through your mouth and breath out through mouth + nostrils. But I can’t decipher your anagram!
First of all, if you can solve it without visualization, I think that this is preferable, precisely because it is faster. There is no need to force oneself to visualize everything.
To visualize something, you need to create a map from the formal domain you are studying to visual transformations. In other words, you need to understand “what the formula” mean (or at least one way of looking at them). Do you know what it means visually to multiply one complex number to another? If you don’t, you will be stuck doing calculations. If you do, then you can visualize it and quickly come up with the solution.
From my experience, some people naturally tend towards visual thinking, while others don’t. But if you consistently try to apply it, it will become natural at some point (it may take some time, don’t give up prematurely).
One area where a lot of visual thinking is necessary, but that is relatively easy to visualize, is graph theory. Try to prove that a (connected undirected) graph has an Eulerian cycle (i.e. a cycle that contains every edge exactly once) if and only if all of its vertices have even degree.
Say you have two distinct points x and y. Consider all points whose distance to x is the same as to y. What can you say about the location of these points in terms of the line connecting x and y?
Try to solve any geometry puzzle with only your mind and you will be forced to do visual thinking.
I really appreciate you looking this up. Now it is clear that these claims are controversial.
Nevertheless, the question still is what learning ability refers to: Is it the ability to comprehend learning material that explains the topic well, or is it the ability to come up with the simple explanations yourself? It seems that the OP refers to the latter. The first kind probably has lower variation. Also, this means that when measuring learning ability, you should ensure that all involved people have access to the same “source”. I would be interested in hearing the OP’s thoughts on that.
I couldn’t find it quickly, but I think that I read this on codehorror.
In an experiment, a group of people who have never programmed before have been showed how to code. In the end, their skills were evaluated in a coding test. The expectation was that they would be roughly normally distributed. However, the outcome was that the students were clustered in two groups (within each of which you see the expected normal distribution). The students belonging to the first struggled while the second group fared relatively well. The researchers figured out the cause: the students that did better managed to create a mental model of what a variable is (a container or a box that can hold values) while those that struggled didn’t manage to do this. Are the students from the second group inherently less intelligent?
Yes, because they did not manage to find the right model on their own. No, because once they were provided a straightforward explanation, they were able to code just as well as the students in the better group.
Thank you for your kind comment. This is why I wrote this!
And the list is not exhaustive by any means. I really think this is a no-brainer.
My opinion is that, in almost all scenarios, if you have a question, you should always ask it. Why?
If this question occurred to you, it probably has occurred to many other people. Thus, there is likely to be general interest.
The speaker (or author) has the opportunity to share more of his expertise, even if he is not about directly answering the question [this one is very underrated; I’ve had a lot of interesting conversations develop from seemingly foolish questions]
This gives the author the chance to explain his perspective more clearly. Your question may have implicit assumptions that the author rejects; this gives him the opportunity to state what his assumptions were (and thus, his frame of reference)
It allows a dialogue to happen between author and reader, which may result in even more insights (if you have a format in which this is allowed, such as a discussion board)
You will invariably have a slightly different perspective to the author. Two perspectives clashing result in interesting ideas
If the author forgot to write something down that he wanted to say, it gives him the opportunity to state that
The author may wrongly assume certain background knowledge. If your question indicates that his assumption was wrong, he has the opportunity to back up and explain it.
It makes the whole conversation a lot more interesting and engaging, it emboldens others to join it and contribute as well.
Foolish questions are especially useful, as they address the basic concepts of a subject. This is a lot more important than expert question if you want to get a coherent view of it.
The answer provided by the author will ALSO be helpful and beneficial to the other students / listeners / readers. By making him expand on his topic, you are benefiting everyone [also very underrated!]
Authors are often passionate about the topic they are writing or talking about. Giving them the opportunity to talk more about it, or to challenge them with difficult questions, or to ask things that they have never been asked before is something they, too, deeply appreciate.
As long as you stay within reasonable (context-dependent) limits (for example, you should not be the only one asking basic questions while everybody else looks bored) -- you should ALWAYS ask questions. It is definitely worth overcoming the fear of looking foolish. There is nothing more sad than somebody giving a talk and nobody asking follow-up questions. I mean, why not?
This takes on a higher level view of reading than I was intending to cover here. But nevertheless, this is a valuable resource. It reminds me of Adler’s How to Read a Book.
Can you describe these heuristics and the type of content you used them on?
A framework for speed reading
What is your definition of productive enterprise, what is non-productive enterprise?
How about this? The person uses his social security to buy a new phone. This purchase increases the capital available to the manufacturer for R&D of new phones.
I googled the broken windows fallacy and this is the argument I got: “If he hadn’t paid for the broken windows, he could have gotten himself a pair of new shoes.” But the point is that he didn’t buy the pair of new shoes (he instead hoards the money), but he is forced to buy the new window (since it’s windy otherwise), creating demand.
It depends on how you look at it. In terms of productivity (output per labour cost), more robots is better. But if all cleaning staff is replaced by robots, the robot manufacturer profits while the displaced workers have less disposable income, thus there is less demand for the local economy (local groceries store, gas station, hairdresser, realor etc.), which suffers as a consequence.
First of all, I am not directly advocating immigration nor am I against it—I am analyzing one particular aspect of it. A common reaction towards immigration is “they are robbing our jobs” and I tried to outline the faulty logic underneath that. They are not stealing anything, but becoming part of the economy.
Immigration is a complex issue that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. If there are food shortages in a country, adding more people makes no sense. If there is, as you say, an excess of capital, but not enough people to invest it into, it does make sense. Australia is only one particular case.
Since the argument I am making is a priori, I don’t need data.
Can you elaborate on the connection between capital and immigration? In particular, who is paying the aforementioned $300,000 - $500,000? It’s not like every immigrant is getting a paycheck. If these are public expenses paid over a long period of time, I don’t see the problem. You are right in saying that excessive population growth or immigration is detrimental, though. (This is why I made the distinction between short-term and long-term)
If the population growth is organic and at a sustainable rate, doesn’t this lead to a higher GDP, which is a desirable outcome?
This reminds me of focused/diffuse thinking.
Focused thinking is rule-based, mechanical, goal-oriented, precise, strictly sequential, logical, works in small steps.
Diffuse thinking is creative, open-ended, creates long connections, produces leaps of insight that are impossible in focused thinking.
The best example of this is solving math problems. Paradoxically, it requires to alternate between these two modes frequently and fervently—something that people generally struggle to do. After all, most people either think like bureaucrats (like me) or they think like artists. But in this case, and in any other complex endeavor, you need both.
Different life phases require different focused:diffuse ratios. The primary variable for that is slack.