>Many studies, collected most notably in Geoff Colvin's "Talent is Overrated", find that in a wide range of disciplines experience has absolutely no correlation with efficacy [1]. Lifelong stockbrokers perform at exactly the same level as those in their 20s; or, rephrasing this slightly, lifelong stockbrokers perform at exactly the same level as when THEY were in their 20s. Despite having overseen numerous trades, been to countless conferences and devoted thousands upon thousands of hours to the craft of stockbroking, they are not even slightly more skilled that they were 40 years before.
Yes, but why draw the bizzaro conclusion that experience is overrated in other trades too?
This is due to the fact that the stock market is an unpredictable, multi-variable system based on belief and millions of volatile individual perceptions, and the "experts" are more or less "farting around in the dark". But we already knew that about the stock market.
Not to mention that the above "example", also clashes with his advice later on:
>If [getting better] is what you want, you have to make a conscious effort and chart a deliberate course.
If his own "example" about the traders was universally applicable, then that wouldn't be possible at all. Or does he think that the traders just didn't spent "conscious effort"?
Yes, but why draw the bizzaro conclusion that experience is overrated in other trades too?
This is due to the fact that the stock market is an unpredictable, multi-variable system based on belief and millions of volatile individual perceptions, and the "experts" are more or less "farting around in the dark". But we already knew that about the stock market.
Not to mention that the above "example", also clashes with his advice later on:
>If [getting better] is what you want, you have to make a conscious effort and chart a deliberate course.
If his own "example" about the traders was universally applicable, then that wouldn't be possible at all. Or does he think that the traders just didn't spent "conscious effort"?